BrotherKev Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 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? You didn't make that claim. I simply used those examples of what I believe are characteristics of a supernatural origin. I don't personally see how those are logical outcomes from random collisions of atoms. 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? Some of the belief's that Christian's hold is the inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation of scripture. The content is of supernatural origin, is the source of truth and has been perfectly transmitted through the ages for our understanding. There is no logical way to understand a faith that is based on a belief in the supernatural origin of everything.
HasMat Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 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. Your understanding of freewill needs work. Freewill requires uniquely owned causality. To say god created us, in the "from nothing" sense, makes freewill impossible. There must be some indestructible permanent quality about us that is impossible to dominate and control. We must have a parity with god on some level. If he is omnipotent in the hyperbolic sense, there is no control left for us to exercise agency and assume liability. Any other conception of freewill makes your BS about "god being evil" true. God as creator of man can only mean something like strapping us into the rollercoaster, as an impartial, even if loving, ferryman. You mention becoming aware of moral obligation as a curse, but its an opportunity for growth. Something can be both good, and beyond your ability to properly handle. If you know your kid will skin his knee if he learns to ride a bike, do you keep his bike locked up? He needs the growth and he is a willing striver. Maybe you shield your face while he errs, but its not your fault his knee is bleeding. You didn't have the omnipotence to rewrite consequences. God is not hyperbolically omnipotent.
dsayers Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 To say god created us, in the "from nothing" sense, makes freewill impossible. There must be some indestructible permanent quality about us that is impossible to dominate and control. Your understanding of free will needs work. Provocative language, I know, but you established this as a standard for discourse Humans being created by God would not preclude free will. Growing up with Christianity inflicted upon me, I was often fed the narrative that God gave humans free will. Not that this serves as proof, though it does indicate that such a thing is in fact a point of pride among Christians. Also, giving humans free will would not preclude an omnipotent deity from overriding it. Were God to override it, the will would not be free in that moment, but would still be described as free will on the meta level.
Jpendl10 Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 In the Genesis Experience Heavenly Father commanded Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" Gen. 1:28 KJV and also commanded them to "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. 2:16-17 KJV My understanding is that these commandments where in opposition to each other. First they where commanded to be fruitful and have children and families and multiply. But how could they do that being in a state of inocience, like children, and not knowing how? "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." 2 Ne. 2:22-25 B.O.M. So basically the only way they could keep the first commandment was to transgress against the second commandment. If they kept the second commandment then they where not fulfilling the first commandment of having children. "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." 2 Ne. 2:15-16 B.O.M. There had to be this oposition for there to be free will or agency. In my opinion I believe Heavenly Father new eventually Adam and Eve would pertake of the fruit and die not only physically but also spiritually by being cut off from his presence. We dont know how long Adam and Eve where in the garden it could have been hundreds of years or thousands before they took of the fruit. The great news of this experience is that we have been redeemed from the fall through the atonment of Jesus Christ, and even though we might die physically we will live again and be resurrected because of the resurrection of Christ.
rosencrantz Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 In my opinion I believe Heavenly Father new eventually Adam and Eve would pertake of the fruit and die not only physically but also spiritually by being cut off from his presence. There is a simpler explanation. The two stories come from two different sources hence the different explanation on how man was created and what not.
Jpendl10 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 What do you mean two stories? There is only one christian creation story.
shirgall Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 What do you mean two stories? There is only one christian creation story. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is a clearly different account than Genesis 2:4 through 2:25. 1
rosencrantz Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 What do you mean two stories? There is only one christian creation story. Lets say there are two stories describing the daily lifes of two guys, John and Jack. One story tells you about the life John has in New York City, how he lives in an appartment in the Bronx where he goes to work and so on. The other one tells you about Jack, a stay at home father in Chicago. Somebody puts the two stories together as one story. So one part is about John, followed by a part about Jack. The same happened in the bible. There are two accounts of what God did. One told by priests, the other one told by a group of people living at the king's court. The one written by the priests calls God 'God', the one by the people at the king's court calls God 'Lord'. They have been put together, creating the illusion that there is only one story. If you read only the stories that call God 'God' you get a complete story from creation to Jacob's death. The same is true for the other story as well.
AlanM Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is a clearly different account than Genesis 2:4 through 2:25. Yes. It was originally thought that Moses wrote everything in Genesis, but that's not the leading belief anymore. Most believe the documentary hypothesis which states that the first 5 books of the Bible were written much later by several different sources. Most Christians, however, still believe Moses wrote all 5 books. When it comes to contradictions, Pete Enns has a really good book called, "The Bible Tells Me So". He's a Christian but argues that it's natural for there to be contradictions since the Bible is written by various writers at different points in history. Also, it's not as if God took their hand and started writing. They were writing from their perspective, and they're human.
Jpendl10 Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is a clearly different account than Genesis 2:4 through 2:25. Gen. 1:1 - 2:3 We have the description of the creation of what we know as the earth in seven periods. Then you have in Gen. 2:4 - 2:25 the experience of Adam and Eve after they were created, and what happened in the garden. These are not two experiences of the same thing.
shirgall Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 Gen. 1:1 - 2:3 We have the description of the creation of what we know as the earth in seven periods. Then you have in Gen. 2:4 - 2:25 the experience of Adam and Eve after they were created, and what happened in the garden. These are not two experiences of the same thing. Illustrated here: http://leighb.com/genesis.htm
Jpendl10 Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 Illustrated here: http://leighb.com/genesis.htm I have never seen this interpretation of the creation being to diffrent accounts like this. In Gen 2:4-25 I think whoever made this parallel is reading it wrong trying to make it look like it contradicts itself.
Peregrine Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 An important rebuttal I'd offer to the OP is a question: What version or translation of the Bible? For example, as a Catholic, I only read from one particular version of the Bible: the Douay-Rheims, which is itself an English translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible. There are many countless translations of the Bible and, to be frank, some of them are crap (with the 'politically-correct' editions being at the top of the list in my mind).
HasMat Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 On 10/8/2016 at 10:50 PM, dsayers said: Your understanding of free will needs work. Provocative language, I know, but you established this as a standard for discourse Humans being created by God would not preclude free will. Growing up with Christianity inflicted upon me, I was often fed the narrative that God gave humans free will. Not that this serves as proof, though it does indicate that such a thing is in fact a point of pride among Christians. Also, giving humans free will would not preclude an omnipotent deity from overriding it. Were God to override it, the will would not be free in that moment, but would still be described as free will on the meta level. My language was directly connected to a point: fault is traced to cause. When assigning moral blame for an outcome, we must trace the source of an effect back to its original cause. If god created our freewill, then god is at fault for all we choose. Freewill must be self-predicating preternal before god's input. This isn't an assertion of the intuitive sense, its a logical necessity to become a moral actor. There is no other version of freewill that isn't a full-on paradox. On some level identity must be self-predicating. Else all parts of our being are traceable to others actions. This is just determinism.
Recommended Posts