Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

[Greatest I am]

Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

Should God, show all consequences to infractions and sins or hide them?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Perhaps it is if the sinner was not fully informed of the consequences.

If the law does not show all significant consequences to a crime or infraction, is the perpetrator really making an informed choice and if not informed completely of all consequences, is he culpable and should the penalties hidden by the law maker be applied to someone who did not know those were part of the consequences?

For example, is it moral for man or God to place a $ 10.00 per mile penalty on speeders when it has only warned of a $ 5.00 posted fine?

What if one of the consequences is a great benefit to the perpetrator?
Should the perpetrator ignore that benefit for any perceived harm?
Especially if that harm is kept from him by the law maker?

The morality of your answers will condemn your God so if you even attempt to answer, so be careful.

I will be relating these question to the myth of Adam and Eve and showing how immoral God was acting within that myth as well as elsewhere in the O T.

We often use the term on earth as it is in heaven. This indicates to me that we are to emulate God as a father figure or parent and law maker.
If God can just add on any arbitrary unknown punishment to a sinner, does that mean that human laws should do the same. Secular law seems to have rejected such notions. Would you?

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOmgDtk8_M&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8PGT2yY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/TurpisHaereticus#p/u/22/_g52sX8PgX8

 

[Lori_7]

this is so rudimentary.

communion renders disclosure obsolete. god is law. so that in communion with god, law is inherent within us. we are at one with it.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

there is some info that we would not understand if he did tell us.he only shares what we need to know.

Should God, show all consequences to infractions and sins or hide them?

how would faith apply if we knew all the answers?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

we should not need a law to tell us killing someone is a sin.

If the law does not show all significant consequences to a crime or infraction, is the perpetrator really making an informed choice and if not informed completely of all consequences, is he culpable and should the penalties hidden by the law maker be applied to someone who did not know those were part of the consequences?

sorry officer, i didn't know it was illegal to run over that little girl..

For example, is it moral for man or God to place a $ 10.00 per mile penalty on speeders when it has only warned of a $ 5.00 posted fine?

um..not quite right analogy..the law is still broke in both instances,it is just the punishment that is contested in that example.

What if one of the consequences is a great benefit to the perpetrator?
Should the perpetrator ignore that benefit for any perceived harm?
Especially if that harm is kept from him by the law maker?

this is my argument when i say ' if god tells you to do something and man tells you to do something else, who are you going to listen too?'
(but i would argue the focus of benefits,IE perpetrator or others)

I will be relating these question to the myth of Adam and Eve and showing how immoral God was acting within that myth as well as elsewhere in the O T.

bring it on,i love argueing about A and E..

We often use the term on earth as it is in heaven. This indicates to me that we are to emulate God as a father figure or parent and law maker.
If God can just add on any arbitrary unknown punishment to a sinner, does that mean that human laws should do the same. Secular law seems to have rejected such notions. Would you?

it is my opinion that gods laws are logical..there is a psychological effect to breaking gods law that corrupts ones soul, some we cannot see that easily others are pretty clear, do not murder, do not commit adultery have pretty clear psychological consequences,
so the punishment is not a result of us getting caught,it is a result of cause and effect.
which it bugs me when an atheist argue about proof, cause that ends up being from the perspective of 'if there is no god then i won't get caught'.

 

[Yazata]

Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

Which God are you talking about? I'll assume that it's the God associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religious myths. (That's the God that everyone seems to talk about on internet discussion boards.)

I think of Gods in much the same way that I think of fictional characters from literature, so I'd say that Gods don't have any disclosure policy at all.

But in general, if something is supposed to be infinite, and if it has only provided a finite revelation of itself, then that revelation is going to be limited just by definition.

Should God, show all consequences to infractions and sins or hide them?

That's one of the problems with basing religious ethics on a fixed set of supposedly revealed religious laws. Centuries pass and conditions change. New problem cases arise in circumstances that the ancient writers who composed the laws never anticipated. So the old laws have to be extrapolated so as to provide answers to the new problems, whch introduces a whole new note of interpretation into something that was originally intended to be hard, fast and fixed for all time. Something like religious common law starts to appear as the tradition develops.

(Perhaps the most elaborate formal evolution of that particular problem is found in Islam, with its interpretation of traditional precedents and its schools of religious legalism.)

 

[NMSquirrel]

Which God are you talking about?

that question always bugs me..

That's one of the problems with basing religious ethics on a fixed set of supposedly revealed religious laws. Centuries pass and conditions change. New problem cases arise in circumstances that the ancient writers who composed the laws never anticipated. So the old laws have to be extrapolated so as to provide answers to the new problems, whch introduces a whole new note of interpretation into something that was originally intended to be hard, fast and fixed for all time. Something like religious common law starts to appear as the tradition develops.

well said.

 

[Greatest I am]

this is so rudimentary.

communion renders disclosure obsolete. god is law. so that in communion with god, law is inherent within us. we are at one with it.

Follow your instructions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55694664@N03/5355658072/sizes/m/in/photostream/

 

[Greatest I am]

there is some info that we would not understand if he did tell us.he only shares what we need to know.

how would faith apply if we knew all the answers?

we should not need a law to tell us killing someone is a sin.


sorry officer, i didn't know it was illegal to run over that little girl..

um..not quite right analogy..the law is still broke in both instances,it is just the punishment that is contested in that example.


this is my argument when i say ' if god tells you to do something and man tells you to do something else, who are you going to listen too?'
(but i would argue the focus of benefits,IE perpetrator or others)


bring it on,i love argueing about A and E..


it is my opinion that gods laws are logical..there is a psychological effect to breaking gods law that corrupts ones soul, some we cannot see that easily others are pretty clear, do not murder, do not commit adultery have pretty clear psychological consequences,
so the punishment is not a result of us getting caught,it is a result of cause and effect.
which it bugs me when an atheist argue about proof, cause that ends up being from the perspective of 'if there is no god then i won't get caught'.

You asked me to bring it on and I will but have pretty well already kissed you and Lori off as not worth my time elsewhere.

Regardless.

Lets talk of Eve and how God, the good parent, may not be that good.

Eve took a lot of consequences for disobeying his command to basically stay stupid and not elevate herself to Godly status.

A few things you might want to address.

God did not tell her of the great benefits of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when she did, he gave the known consequence, sort off. She did not die. He then curse the ground and all of her offspring etc etc etc.

Was he dealing fairly with adding on all those etcs?

If you tell your child that the consequence of doing something will be A, and when your child does that something, you give A but also add on B and C and D consequences, have you dealt fairly with your child and did God deal fairly with Eve?

As a bonus question for you.
Why would God want to deny mankind the valuable information that makes man as God and thus fulfilling the biblical instruction to be as perfect as God?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Which God are you talking about? I'll assume that it's the God associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religious myths. (That's the God that everyone seems to talk about on internet discussion boards.)

I think of Gods in much the same way that I think of fictional characters from literature, so I'd say that Gods don't have any disclosure policy at all.

But in general, if something is supposed to be infinite, and if it has only provided a finite revelation of itself, then that revelation is going to be limited just by definition.



That's one of the problems with basing religious ethics on a fixed set of supposedly revealed religious laws. Centuries pass and conditions change. New problem cases arise in circumstances that the ancient writers who composed the laws never anticipated. So the old laws have to be extrapolated so as to provide answers to the new problems, whch introduces a whole new note of interpretation into something that was originally intended to be hard, fast and fixed for all time. Something like religious common law starts to appear as the tradition develops.

(Perhaps the most elaborate formal evolution of that particular problem is found in Islam, with its interpretation of traditional precedents and its schools of religious legalism.)

Yes, I was speaking to the Abrahamic cults on this question.

The Hebrew and Jews read Eden as man's elevation whereas Christianity and Islam have decided to ignore the originators of the myth and their positive views for the fall and it's negative views.

How do you read it?

Let me give you these links to show why I do not see a fall.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyLZyBjyvY

This last I find poses some interesting questions.

Regards
DL

 

[SnakeLord]

this is my argument when i say ' if god tells you to do something and man tells you to do something else, who are you going to listen too?'

It depends. If god tells me to take my child, tie him to a log and sacrifice him and a man told me not to because such actions, (and even considering such actions) are immoral, I'd listen to the man. Indeed I wouldn't even need the man to say 'no' to god's request.

----

As you, NMSquirrel, apparently want to discuss A and E, let me ask you a question: Why was the most evil entity in all existence, (Satan), allowed to freely roam the garden amongst two innocent people?

 

[SciWriter]

One cannot even presume that God exists, much less layer more structures upon. Period.


(So-called ‘God’ wasn’t even aware that when you tell children not to touch something, then they certainly will; ‘God’ then acting all surprised and angry about it. Just a silly tale, as ever.)

 

[NMSquirrel]

God did not tell her of the great benefits of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when she did, he gave the known consequence, sort off. She did not die. He then curse the ground and all of her offspring etc etc etc.

she did not need to know consequences because the lesson was not obey god or die..
the act of being able to disobey god was the lesson.(angels have no choice but to obey)
he taught us that we were capable of disobeying,thereby determining for ourselves what was good/evil.

do you consider it a bad thing to grow up and learn to make our own decisions? or would you just like your parents to make all your decisions for you?
isn't it considered bad parenting when we do not let our children make their own mistakes?

so when you intone the consequence of adam and eve as being a bad thing, are you saying you want your parents to make your decisions for you?
god was not saying do this and be punished,he was saying do this and make your own decisions, and if we decide on something that hurts is it gods fault?
if your mom tells you to not touch that, it will hurt you, and you touch it and get hurt, is it your moms fault you got hurt?

As a bonus question for you.
Why would God want to deny mankind the valuable information that makes man as God and thus fulfilling the biblical instruction to be as perfect as God?

there are so many things not right with that statement..i don't know where to start..

 

[SciWriter]

{ FLORA SYMBOLICA }

A tale I’ve written, invented, yes, hence,
An attempt to unite the Christian pense
With the non-belief, in a middle ground,
Somewhere between mystery and good sense:

With flora mystical and magical,
Eden’s botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.

Thus it’s to Eve that we must give our thanks
For Earth’s variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers we’ve ever known.

Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not GOD allowed them HIS mystery,

For when they were banished from HIS bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Eden’s bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.

Mighty GOD, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in HIS name—
So HE had no one but HIMSELF to blame!

But still HE made ready HIS thunderbolt,
As HIS Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrong—
And then HE felt the joy of life’s new song.

Eve had all the plants that she could carry—
GOD in HIS wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.

GOD held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So HE threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.

Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This HE gave to Adam and Eve with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.

From HIS bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And HE be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So HE laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.

“So be it,” HE said, when time was young,
“That such is the life MY design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of ME has sprung—
So let them enjoy all the songs I’ve sung.

“Life was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highs—
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!

“There’s no Devil to blame for their great zest—
This mix of good and ‘bad’ makes them best!
The human nature that lets them survive,
Also makes them feel very much alive.

“That same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!”

So it was that with fertile delight Eve
Seeded the lifeless Earth for us to receive.
Though many flowers she had to leave behind,
These we have from the Mother of Mankind:

…

(It goes on to tell of the lore and legends of the flowers and plants)

 

[NMSquirrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyLZyBjyvY

thats the point i am trying to make to you in the other thread..

It depends. If god tells me to take my child, tie him to a log and sacrifice him and a man told me not to because such actions, (and even considering such actions) are immoral,

see above link to make it so i don't have to explain all that again..
i would not believe for a second that it was God telling me to sacrifice my own child (although sometimes she makes me wanna sacrifice her..lol)
i think in reality it would be the other way around..you would get pressured by the religious mores of the time, to sacrifice your child, all the time telling you it was from god..so that arguement works both ways..
which it boils down to whether it is god that is telling you to sacrifice others.

----
As you, NMSquirrel, apparently want to discuss A and E, let me ask you a question: Why was the most evil entity in all existence, (Satan), allowed to freely roam the garden amongst two innocent people?

see video above.

BTW for the record, this is where i see God..i have been spouting my opinion about A and E for some time now, then Greatest posts a link that says exactly what i have been talking about all along..i have not heard the A and E take quite like i have put it on this forum until he posted that link.

 

[SciWriter]

We posted at about the same time (I put my A and E tale.)

 

[SnakeLord]

i would not believe for a second that it was God telling me to sacrifice my own child (although sometimes she makes me wanna sacrifice her..lol)

That is irrelevant to the question. You asked if 'god told you to do something' which is to make the assumption that we have the ability to know that it is in fact a god telling us to do something. My statement answered that: "It would depend on what it told me to do" and I went on to include an example that if instructed to me by a god would warrant a refusal on my part.

Interestingly, if you're so quick and eager to dismiss holy text as untrue - as you seem to be in this case - then you have no argument that a god wouldn't do such thing in the first place. Think about it.

see video above.

I don't have much time for watching entire videos looking for someone elses answer to the question I have asked you. If you don't mind, I'd like you to tell me. Here is the question again then:

Why was the most evil entity in all existence, (Satan), allowed to freely roam the garden amongst two innocent people?

P.S I watched it - it doesn't answer my question :\ If you think it provided a relevant answer, kindly let me know what it is.
Regards,

 

[Lori_7]

Follow your instructions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55694664@N03/5355658072/sizes/m/in/photostream/

in a perfect world, all men would be like jesus. mary magdelene was a disciple and wrote a gospel. men are supposed to be righteous leaders. isn't that FUNNY?!

:roflmao:

it's not my fault you're ignorant.

 

[SciWriter]

Mary Magdelene was seen as 'James, the Lessor', I guess, having less 'down there'.

 

[NMSquirrel]

That is irrelevant to the question. You asked if 'god told you to do something' which is to make the assumption that we have the ability to know that it is in fact a god telling us to do something. My statement answered that: "It would depend on what it told me to do" and I went on to include an example that if instructed to me by a god would warrant a refusal on my part.

- there is conflict in that question,in one point you are saying you have to do as god tells you to, and in the other you are saying you have the choice to obey.(if god give us the ability to choose for ourselves why would he want to take that away from us?)

-"the assumption that we have the ability to know that it is in fact a god telling us to do something."
this tells me you want 'do as you are told', facts=no choice, facts= certainty

-"It would depend on what it told me to do"
I believe if it is from god, you will always be able to choose.
"the ability to know" comes from this.

if i am instructed to do something or die, this is not from god,this is not a choice.
if i am instructed to kill someone, this is not from god.again this is not a choice.( i wouldn't)
i believe god would not put me in a place where he knows i would not comply.

Interestingly, if you're so quick and eager to dismiss holy text as untrue - as you seem to be in this case - then you have no argument that a god wouldn't do such thing in the first place. Think about it.

don't need to think..you are right,i do not think that the bible is inerrant.
um but see above about bold..

Why was the most evil entity in all existence, (Satan), allowed to freely roam the garden amongst two innocent people?

maybe cause he wanted to make sure they would have the idea to disobey.
(they would not have ever thought of eating from the tree otherwise)

 

[SciWriter]

Why was the most evil entity in all existence, (Satan), allowed to freely roam the garden amongst two innocent people?

Entrapment, for 'God' is one unfair and dirty 'dog'.

 

[Lori_7]

Mary Magdelene was seen as 'James, the Lessor', I guess, having less 'down there'.

men ARE leaders, inherently. but NOT inherently righteous, and therefore have led us straight to fucking hell. thanks a lot!