any religion taught this

[Michael]

Still on possibilities

Originally posted by Jenyar
Possibility is "the potential to", while choice is "the will to". It might not be possible for you to fly or grow wings, but you can still make that choice and jump off a building flapping your arms.

Firstly: Possibility is not dependant on choice. Things are either possible or they are not possible.
Secondly: Choice is dependant on possibility. You can choose to jump– so long as the possibility of the action called “jump” exists; Off from a building so long as structures called “buildings” exists; You can choose to flap your arms so long as the possibility of the “flapping” motion as well as the structure called an “arm” exists.

So I will ask again:
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of suffering does not exist while the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it? Yes or No?

(incidentally, a man born without the “possibility” of sight will not have the “choice” to “see” something; and there are a host of things here – ability to read, smell, walk, hear, (all of these), etcetera .. I assume these people can still gain what insights are desired by god.)

 

[Michael]

Just on the side. . . . .

Originally posted by Jenyar
It is the job of science to explain things. If you really look into it, religion doesn't explain much other than itself. Different gods never provided "cohesiveness" as you know, but more often inspired wars. Death's comfort has very little to do whether you believe or not. A person who don't believe in God can find just as much comfort in death as someone who does. At best, belief in gods makes you uncomfortable with death, since you have to believe in a hereafter. Then people start doing things blindly to try to "please" their gods - and it goes downhill from there.

1) The job of science to explain things:
Religions have explained all sorts of things. Everything from why it rains to why the universe revolves around the earth. People who want answers but do not want to think often turn to religion.

2) Different gods never provided "cohesiveness":
To wage war a society needs to be VERY cohesive. Just look at ancient Roma.

3) Death's comfort has very little to do whether you believe or not:
My friend has some serious diabetes. That being the case, he still doesn’t look after himself. However, he doesn’t worry to much about this life and things that after death he’ll get this perfect body. He’s actually looking forward to it?
Poor guy.

** Surely you see the quote posted by ConsequentAtheist as very convincing evidence for the origins of the Adam and Eve myth? **

Oh wait
”Then people start doing things blindly to try to "please" their gods - and it goes downhill from there.” + “Could be. Fortunately, explaining something and explaining it away isn't the same thing.”

I trust you can see the irony

 

[wayne_92587]

Originally posted by Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jenyar
It is the job of science to explain things. If you really look into it, religion doesn't explain much other than itself. Different gods never provided "cohesiveness" as you know, but more often inspired wars. Death's comfort has very little to do whether you believe or not. A person who don't believe in God can find just as much comfort in death as someone who does. At best, belief in gods makes you uncomfortable with death, since you have to believe in a hereafter. Then people start doing things blindly to try to "please" their gods - and it goes downhill from there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The job of science to explain things:
Religions have explained all sorts of things. Everything from why it rains to why the universe revolves around the earth. People who want answers but do not want to think often turn to religion.

The goal of science is to find the single true nature of the Universe.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Still on possibilities

Originally posted by Michael
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of suffering does not exist while the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it? Yes or No?

I've had a new insight: When God created the universe, He had knowledge of both the chaos (the "negative") and the order (or imposed "postive"/good). His creation would be completely "good", but chaos would still be out there to "know". He warned Adam & Eve that they should not have that knowledge, because it would bring death (and with it suffering). But they found the knowledge enticing and ignored God's warning, so now we have that knowledge, and along with the knowledge it became a possibility. It's a case where choice enabled the possibility.

incidentally, a man born without the “possibility” of sight will not have the “choice” to “see” something; and there are a host of things here – ability to read, smell, walk, hear, (all of these), etcetera .. I assume these people can still gain what insights are desired by god.

That man might choose to go to an optometrist and have his sight restored - along with the choice to open his eyes and see.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Michael
** Surely you see the quote posted by ConsequentAtheist as very convincing evidence for the origins of the Adam and Eve myth? **

There is real archaeology and real anthropology evolving a better and better understanding of the West Semitic roots of the Israelites and their henotheism.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by heart
So are you saying the snake was Satan or not? I'm not speaking about snakes in general..so was it or wasn't it Satan?

The snake was a snake. Actually this is the first indication we have that even just association with evil is the same as belonging to Satan. I refer you to a similar case: Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Peter was a disciple, "the rock on which Jesus would build his church". While he was doing what he was supposed to, he was in his proper place, but outside it, he was in league with the devil. That's why Jesus said "who is not for me is against me".

Wait, are you saying that the conversation never happened between Eve and this Snake? That somehow Eve was watching a snake eat of the tree and in pops this idea of hey, if the snake can do it so can I? LMAOOOOOOOO *shaking head* you crack me up, Jenyar. I love how you change stories around at your convenience. I'm still trying to figure out if you are turning this snake into Satan or not..

Strange that you should laugh, since I thought it would make more sense to you that way. The "dialogue" was certainly understood, but most definitely wasn't word for word (unless you think Hebrew was mankind's first language - I don't). And snakes do not have the skeletal structure necessary for speech, at least not any snakes we are familiar with. It's the questions and the conclusions which are important. The words make meaning clear, and the meaning informs the content.

You'd make a fine orthodox fundamentalist.

Look, the whole idea that "god" put the forbidden fruit in the midst of Adam and Eve is STUPID! Further, to have Satan roam about them for fair game is INSANE! But, the fact that "god" knew what the outcome would be is HEARTLESS! There isn't love or protection in that. Would you or would you not protect your children from a Lion or any dangerous person etc? Of course you would. Yet, it doesn't strike you funny that you have to pull excuses out of your butt trying to explain why "god" wasn't cruel.

The knowledge was there to be had - the trees are probably simbolic of creation itself, along with its order and its chaos. God gave them eyes and understanding so they could see and understand their world - but not for the purpose of seeking or knowing evil. Satan had no power over them, but they gave him power when they ignored God and disbelieved his warning. They gave a common snake power over God. If you wanted you could even assign power to stars and teabags... wait, some people do...

The consequence of their actions was that they got to know evil and suffering. But God effectively neutralized the poison by banning them from Eden. If they ate from the tree of life, we would have had to live in such a state eternally. That was the first time He saved us from hell.

I know to you the solution seems simple: just put the fruit out of reach and make the snake invisible... hello! Do you see a devil or a tree of eternal life anywhere around you? No? Does that stop people from desiring eternal life and doing evil, while ignoring God? Evidently it wouldn't have helped much. Sin needs no excuses to exist and Satan does not even need to be in the vicinity to have slaves.

The snake or satan or whoever you think it is, deceived Eve. So Eve made a MISTAKE (in "god's" eyes)
and ate a piece of FRUIT! Why? So she could be more like "god"! The sin wasn't Eve trying to be like god..this "sin" was because she ate what god told her not to. So my question would be, why would "god" find it necessary to put the tree in the garden to begin with- especially since he knew the outcome?

It wasn't just a mistake, it was ingnorance of God himself - it was sin, and against God's will. There is only one God, being "like god" would only give them a false opinion of who they are. Eve and Medicine*Woman would probably have gotten along well.

He knew the outcome would be creation, which was what he intended. The symbolism of the trees and rivers shouldn't be lost: what kind of life would we have without trees or water? They were probably necessary - as a matter of fact, do you know where we read about the tree of life again?

Revelation 22
13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14"Blessed are those who wash their robes [are cleansed from sin], that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

What about this scripture?

Genesis 22:1-2
1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham...

Tell me, do you still speak King James English from the 16th century? That is why new translations are done. "Temptation" took on its default negative connotation out of usage. It isn't is always towards evil. A temptation is by is really not much else than a choice between doing something or not, which can't be "good" or "bad" by itself. That is why you will sometimes hear that temptation is a trial where your faith is tested. But God tests no-one for the purpose of evil.

The verb is Nacah:
to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test.
...So the word hardly makes itself clear.

In Ex.16:4
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, [not "good" or "bad", but:]

that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction.
[will they follow God's instructions of its proper use or not?]

Obviously, God expects them to do the right thing: to use what has been provided properly.

The control verse is James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Note the presence of "evil". Our faith is tested sometimes, but if giving in means going against God's will, it is a temptation away from God's will - which God never ever condones or authors. God's test is to keep us in line with God's will as is proper for his creation.

 

[wayne_92587]

Re: The serpent in Eden, Feminine Wile

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
." In women's historical literature which I have read and which I am sure you are not familar, indicates the Hebrew word "hawwah"(sp) for "serpent" and the same word "hawwah"(sp) for "Eve." Interestingly, if Eve was described in the ancient Hebrew as a serpent, this would give a whole new meaning to the word.

Eve is the Eve-l One, the greatest cause of Man's suffering.

Snakes have split, forked tongue.

Eve was, is, Guileful, duplicitous, a Duality, both Good and Evil, Two Faced, talked out of both sides of her mouth, was a double dealer, her Truth, her knowledge of reality that she spoke of
TwoFold.

Eve spoke with a forked tongue.

Eve was, is, very wily, wilful. willful, cunning, foxy, sly like a Snake in the grass, double dealer.

 

[heart]

The snake was a snake. Actually this is the first indication we have that even just association with evil is the same as belonging to Satan.

Association with evil is the same as belonging to Satan? Okay, That should be another thread in itself, I'll go off chasing butterflies if I delve into this..so I'm going to let that one sit.

But, to the snake was a snake thing. Evidently this snake was that of an "evil" nature, but how can one purposely tempt if they aren't aware that is what they are doing?

The "dialogue" was certainly understood, but most definitely wasn't word for word (unless you think Hebrew was mankind's first language - I don't)

No, I don't...which is part of why I believe the Bible is a crock

And snakes do not have the skeletal structure necessary for speech, at least not any snakes we are familiar with.

We know snakes do not have legs and this one walked...hmm however, the snake was cursed to crawl upon his belly all the days of his life...did that mean this particular snake or all snakes? If this wasn't intended to be taken literally, what would the significance be for the snake being cursed by crawling and eating dust...and god placing enmity between the generations of them and humans? Unless.. this was a way for man to explain how "evil" entered into this world. Just seems like a weird made up story if you ask me.

If things shouldn't be taken literally in the Bible...how do you know Jesus really died on a cross? How do you know he really is the son of "god"? What if it meant something totally different?

The knowledge was there to be had - the trees are probably simbolic of creation itself, along with its order and its chaos. God gave them eyes and understanding so they could see and understand their world - but not for the purpose of seeking or knowing evil

Then "god" shouldn't have created evil or had placed it in the garden to begin with. If he wanted a perfect world then he should have thought this one out a little bit better. Some "all-knowing" god, huh?

Further, this "evil" sought them out. The snake came up to Eve then deceived and enticed her. She was created perfect and without "sin", is it any wonder that she wouldn't understand or recognize evil? In her world every thing was cool..until the serpent walked up.

Also, if you think "god" had to create evil in order to bring balance ... fine, but don't punish others for it by sending them to hell AND the lake of fire. It's all some ego stroke or cruel game... [actually it's made up bs but..]

The consequence of their actions was that they got to know evil and suffering. But God effectively neutralized the poison by banning them from Eden. If they ate from the tree of life, we would have had to live in such a state eternally. That was the first time He saved us from hell.

Looks like "god" set them up. He evidently knew what would happen by bringing evil into the world.. so what does he do...he places the very thing he tells them not to eat right in their midst..it's like teasing them with it. Then, he lets this thing in to tempt them. But, the kicker is.. "god" makes it look like he's the hero for "saving" them from hell. Yeah, right.

I know to you the solution seems simple: just put the fruit out of reach and make the snake invisible

No, I didn't say invisible. I said to ban satan and his demons from the garden- thus, banning their "powers/influence/evil". That would be the loving and protective thing to do. However, he CHOSE to allow evil among his "children". Then he went one step further by putting a deathly condition on things. That is something he didn't have to do. Since you seem to think people won't be able to sin in heaven...then there shouldn't be the worry of letting ALL in.

It wasn't just a mistake, it was ingnorance of God himself - it was sin, and against God's will

Yes, yes...I know...so god had to go to plan B LOL

There is only one God, being "like god" would only give them a false opinion of who they are.

Doesn't the bible say that we were created in HIS image? Being like and being are two different things, Jenyar. All I'm saying, according to this story in the Bible..Eve wanted to be like her "father". That should have been a compliment to him.

But God tests no-one for the purpose of evil.

Really? Telling someone to sacrifice their child isn't evil???????

Obviously, God expects them to do the right thing: to use what has been provided properly

That or he'll crack his whip..maybe kill them..who knows with him. All I can say is I'm glad my father wasn't anything like him.

God's test is to keep us in line with God's will as is proper for his creation

 

[Michael]

Re: Re: Still on possibilities

Originally posted by Jenyar
I've had a new insight: When God created the universe, He had knowledge of both the chaos (the "negative") and the order (or imposed "positive"/good). His creation would be completely "good", but chaos would still be out there to "know". He warned Adam & Eve that they should not have that knowledge, because it would bring death (and with it suffering). But they found the knowledge enticing and ignored God's warning, so now we have that knowledge, and along with the knowledge it became a possibility. It's a case where choice enabled the possibility.

This should have started with “when god created this universe. Nevertheless:
(1)
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of chaos (the “negative”) does not exist while the ”positive/good” order imposed by god does exist, and incidentally the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it? Yes or No?

This second question is in regards to Gods Abilities. It should be answered with a simple yes or no. What I mean is I am curious about god ABILITY - not the fundamental nature of this universe nor why god choose to create this universe one way and not another. Basically I just want to no if god does/yes or does not/no have the ability to create such a universe. You seem to be having a hard time deciding whether god is able to do this or not.

(2)
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of suffering does not exist while the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it?

It's quite simply:

Yes

or

No?

 

[sargentlard]

under the mask of terrorism they are doing all this non-sense. but is any religion preached its followers to kill orther people?

Under the mask of terrorism?...terrorism itself is nonsense..they are using the mask of religion to carry out this nonsense.

even animals wont kill the same kind animal

Not true. Humans for one and snakes also do such.....many other animals kill their own for their own benefit.

then being humans why we are killing our people.

Because we are too smart for our own good...and because we can.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Re: Re: Still on possibilities

Originally posted by Michael
(1)
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of chaos (the “negative”) does not exist while the ”positive/good” order imposed by god does exist, and incidentally the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it? Yes or No?

You can't have the to without the from. The answer can't be yes or no since the question is invalid. We were created from chaos or "nothing", which wasn't "evil" until creation started thinking their creator didn't exist either. You think our universe was always there (or "came into existence" by itself), and God is a creation of man. The thought itself isn't good or bad, but a lie is a lie. God did not create that lie - it comes from a misunderstanding of your own position in this universe.

Yes, we could have "gained all the insights we needed to gain" without the knowledge of evil. But nothing was evil until we were able to know it - not "chaos", not snakes. Satan was powerless because we could not and did not "know" him until we disbelieved God himself.

(2)
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of suffering does not exist while the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it?

Yes (with Him). Now, do you want to be part of it or not (free will)?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jesus, God's PR guy

Originally posted by tony1
----------
Originally posted by Xelios
Ah, so Jesus shares his Lordship with God? Or is he kinda like God's runner up? Public relations guy right?[/i]*

For God has placed all things under Christ's feet. (But, when it is said that all things have been placed under Christ, it is plain that God is excepted who placed everything under him.)
And, when everything has been placed under him, the Son will place himself under God who placed everything under him, that God may be all in all!
(1 Corinthians 15:27,28, TCNT).
----------
(The truth of the matter is that Saul/Paul was Jesus' PR man. Since Saul/Paul wrote Corinthians, he created the 'concept' of Jesus being one with God, blah, blah, blah, blah, in the trinity, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's all lies created by Saul/Paul blah, blah, blah, blah.)

 

[Michael]

Thanks

This is where the logic becomes convoluted.

I recently asked you:

Q:
Does god have the power to create a universe where the possibility of suffering does not exist while the creatures in this universe do have “full” free-will and are able to gain all of the insights that god intended for them to gain when he originally created this universe and placed conscious creatures in it

A:
Yes

Q:
Before creating the universe did god already know man would make the choices that would lead to some of humanity suffering in the worst imaginable ways?

A:
Yes

Q:
Does god have the ability to create a universe where conscious "free-willed" creatures do not have to suffer and can still gain whatever insights “he” wants them to gain?

A:
Yes

Q:
Is any god that has a desire for people to suffer in the most horrible ways imaginable a f*cking psychopath?

A:
Yes

SO by your own admission the reasoning goes like this. God can create a universe where suffering can not ever (never ever) exist. We agree to this. As god is omniscience, “He” knows that the universe “He” is about to create will result in human suffering of the most horrendous kind. Therefore, suffering was built into the reality of this universe. And as such, then we can say God had a desire for man to suffer. If not god would have made a universe where man did not suffer. See simple. There is nothing convoluted about this line of reasoning. Simply put, god is psychopath.

What I think happens, is you find it impossible to worship a thing that is a psychopath. So you start thinking of ways to explain away the logic. It starts with the idea that man is to blame. Then it goes to ideas such as chaos is nothingness and free-will demands that suffering be a choice or other such ideas. Soon enough you can not even see the question you were pondering and the very simple line of reasoning you started with is replaced with this overly complex convoluted reasoning. From here you move on and decide that you are satisfied with your own answers (to your new questions) and all is right in the world and you never want to go back to thinking about that original question (heck may be close to blasphemy so why chance it!) ever again!

God has absolute power. If he can not create a universe where man never suffered then he’s an idiot. But we agreed he can so he’s brilliant and evil. You can continue to place the blame on man, but the blame is more rightly placed on man’s creator. But that is neither here nor there. No matter how logical I show that by your own answers you have led yourself to the conclusion that god is psychopath, your subconscious will not allow you to see it this way. It’s just too rare that the mind can completely change its world-view in an instant. Although it does sometimes happen – obviously when people are imbued with “The holy Spirit” and suddenly convert, everything all of a sudden makes sense. “The reason I suffered this or that or this good thing happened or bad thing happened or I met so and so is all leading to this point where I now know there is a god and now everything in my life makes complete sense and I feel so much better now knowing that I know how the whole universe works + I’m very special and so very luck that I found God or He found me” In a similar manner - when people suddenly realize that there is no god and now all the coincidences are seen as just coincidences, the brain is understood for what it is, a fallible organ, and the universe itself remains a mystery with less answers than questions. But at least I now have a better understanding of human social constructs and I can see how religion plays a part in maintaining social cohesiveness (at least with in the group). And lastly, this person (who suddenly realizes there is no god) also realizes how little they understand and how small and insignificant they are in the scheme of things (which is why these sorts of conversions happen less so - their not so special: at least not inherently). These people tend to delve into the past of religion and end up here on the net talking about it. If they’re luck they soon enough move on and don’t find themselves as much of a zealot as the Theist!

That’s my two cents

Oh and for what it's worth thanks for the conversation. I do admire your valor and I think I understand where you are coming from. I hope that you don’t feel you have somehow “lost a battle” or anything such thing. We just have different world-views. If mine leads me to death then so be it. If yours leads you to a paradise – that’d be great as well! Just remember to take a breath and educate yourself and try to have a good life while you are here. Weather there is or is not a god we can both agree to one thing: the mere fact that we are “here” and conscious and able to enjoy this life is marvel in and of itself.

 

[Jenyar]

And as such, then we can say God had a desire for man to suffer.

That has always been your contrived conclusion, and I have only "lost the battle" in that I have been unable to convince you that you have the wrong picture.

You assume "suffering" is bad/evil by default (at its inception) -
but then you must always assume that nudity is bad/evil by default (since God clothed Adam&Eve after the fall). Why is this? They were created naked and without shame. It only became "shameful" when they gained knowledge of evil. Suffering existed, but with a value of 0.

God has absolute power. If he can not create a universe where man never suffered then he’s an idiot.

If we can't accept that such a world would have conditions, we are idiots. You mean: God could have created an unconditional world - where His way and only his way is possible. But that is exactly the kind of God you are ranting against, but the kind of paradise you say should exist

Just remember to take a breath and educate yourself and try to have a good life while you are here.

I'll try not to be insulted, but I assume you didn't mean to imply that I'm uneducated because I "still" believe in God after 300 years of enlightenment. It hasn't stopped me from having fun, or from attaining two degrees, an honours and going on a masters for that matter.

 

[Michael]

Jenyar, That last bit I just meant about life in general. Sort of my own shortened life philosophy - that regardless of the outcome we should take time to enjoy life, to read and learn about other stuff, and "stop to smell the roses" every now and again. Please accept my apologizes for the confusing ending remarks. I think I was thinking about my endeavors into far East Asian languages and how difficult it is to understand Kanji and so was writing it for me as much as anyone else who was reading!

Take care,
M

Congrads on the honors (being from the States I never did one, but I'd say it could easily be more difficult than a PhD - so little time) Also, good luck on the MA. For what it's worth I'd say just convert to PhD if possible (sometimes it's just a matter of changing the program - the thesis work is pretty much the same). Good Luck.

 

[Jenyar]

Ouch, Kanji eh? Good luck with that. I'll check my options - but at the moment I just worry about the work to be done, and afterwards they can call it whatever they want!