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

[SnakeLord]

Proof is in the doing.

Knowing someone has made a specific choice can only come after it's been made, yes. That's a matter of physics although those espousing gods and the supernatural often make claim to knowing the future in advance.

One cannot say that they can do this or that without actualizing the doing.

One certainly can say if accepting the theist claim to 'free will'. The reality would be that they can either freely choose to eat the fruit or freely choose not to. A claim that their free choice requires an external determinant, (the snake), is to deny the very free will it demands exists.

 

[lightgigantic]

That would be the rational course of action, of course. Except that I am not so sure God is such a magnanimous fellow to allow for my notions of what makes for "the widest one on offer".

At the very least, you seem to be aware what a stepfordian wife has on offer ..

I know that they are not all Stepfordians.

You've read Niscala's posts on chakra I take it?

But it does seem like being a Stepfordian is the ideal, the what is necessary to go back to Godhead.

How does that follow, when not even varnasrama is decreed as being necessary to go back to godhead?

Not even BG 9.32 gives a stepfordian slant .... but even if despite all this you are not convinced, then you have two options.

Don't get married or marry someone you can argue with (its the common experience of most married people, devotee or not, to wind up with that option anyway)
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

You've read Niscala's posts on chakra I take it?

No.

Not even BG 9.32 gives a stepfordian slant ....

According to SB 4.9.11, one has to be a member of ISKCON. Without that, there is nothing one could do in terms of KC.

Of course, being a member there is ... reserved for the elect few, to say the least.

 

[wynn]

are you saying a proper spiritual path will not bring you struggle?

No, I'm not saying that.
It is just that what seems to be like a "proper spiritual path" seems to require from me to become a kind of robot.

 

[lightgigantic]

No.

needless to say , they don't come across as stepfordian

According to SB 4.9.11, one has to be a member of ISKCON. Without that, there is nothing one could do in terms of KC.

Of course, being a member there is ... reserved for the elect few, to say the least.

Its not so much about official membership but devotee association ... and even then, its not that there is nothing one can do in KC, in the absence of it

 

[wynn]

Its not so much about official membership but devotee association ... and even then, its not that there is nothing one can do in KC, in the absence of it

That is what you say, and other devotees say differently.
It is those others that I have to deal with, here. You don't come to my defense.

 

[NMSquirrel]

It is just that what seems to be like a "proper spiritual path" seems to require from me to become a kind of robot.

that is where i disagree with religion.
the proper spiritual path will not pidgeonhole you into a predefined state of being.IOW the proper spiritual path will make use of your individuality.
another way to think of it is;if everyone act/thought alike then we would stagnate as a species,there would be no growth,no choice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

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

What a strange question?
But no, God doesn't HIDE information.

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

You mean like "don't drink the rat poison it will give you a dicky tummy"?
Nah, I think that is more the responsibility of parents, guardians, and such.

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

Then upon "sinning" the "sinner" will become aware of the consequences, and will not act like that again (if they have even basic level of intelligence).

The real question is; why are we here in the first place.
Oh! and, what happens at the death of this body?

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?

The laws put forward by man are different to the laws governed by truth.

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?

Why would God place fines for speeding?
I think you need to make a more appropriate scenario.

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?

Why don't you give examples which are more suited to God?

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

Really?
Ignore everything I've said then.

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.

Oh good, something that is in relation to the thread.

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?

Let's get some proper examples before we go diving in shall we?

Regards
jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Steps beyond assumption are steps as far beyond as the first misstep of presumption.

 

[Greatest I am]

Knowing someone has made a specific choice can only come after it's been made, yes. That's a matter of physics although those espousing gods and the supernatural often make claim to knowing the future in advance.



One certainly can say if accepting the theist claim to 'free will'. The reality would be that they can either freely choose to eat the fruit or freely choose not to. A claim that their free choice requires an external determinant, (the snake), is to deny the very free will it demands exists.

In reality, can anyone not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think not. So to say we can exercise free will and not eat of knowledge is as unworkable as saying we will exercise our free will to not breath.

Can this baby chose not to recognize good and evil?

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...ts-morality-100511/20100511/?hub=EdmontonHome

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am,



What a strange question?
But no, God doesn't HIDE information.

.

He informed A & E of the one consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge. You shall die.

None of the other consequences positive or negative that he imposed.

Was that not hiding information?

The talking snake was more forthcoming than God in this case.

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

He informed A & E of the one consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge. You shall die.

yet they did not die..they were kicked out.

Was that not hiding information?

is it considered 'hiding' information if he knew we wouldn't understand it?
or worse ,we would misinterpret what was said and totally corrupt it(withheld cause he knows how it would be corrupted.)

 

[SnakeLord]

In reality, can anyone not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think not.

Presuming that such tree exists and is found - certainly. If not, no.

So to say we can exercise free will and not eat of knowledge is as unworkable as saying we will exercise our free will to not breath.

Apologies, I don't get precisely what you are saying. (Also worth noting that ultimately I see 'free will' as an illusion hence I don't put any stock in it at all).

Assuming that 'free will' exists, (which by very definition negates external determinants), then Adam and Eve would be free to either eat the fruit from this tree that resided in the middle of the garden or free not to.

Of course free will doesn't work in reality and even if it did there are certain things a loving entity could do to lower the chances/ ensure the safety of his loved ones. In this instance, removing the snake is part of such entities responsibility - we would never admire or condone it if a human did it and I have yet to hear any valid justification for a god allowing his presence. Secondly, this god could have made the fruit rotten looking - with mould and maggots. That might have been enough to ensure they did not eat it. Neither of these - in the theist world - negate 'free will', (they could still freely choose to eat it even if it was maggot infested and rotten).

The A&E story is of course utterly ridiculous - even as fiction, but without it being factual, christianity falls apart and Jesus' supposed existence is left without sufficient explanation.

 

[Greatest I am]

Presuming that such tree exists and is found - certainly. If not, no.



Apologies, I don't get precisely what you are saying. (Also worth noting that ultimately I see 'free will' as an illusion hence I don't put any stock in it at all).

Assuming that 'free will' exists, (which by very definition negates external determinants), then Adam and Eve would be free to either eat the fruit from this tree that resided in the middle of the garden or free not to.

Of course free will doesn't work in reality and even if it did there are certain things a loving entity could do to lower the chances/ ensure the safety of his loved ones. In this instance, removing the snake is part of such entities responsibility - we would never admire or condone it if a human did it and I have yet to hear any valid justification for a god allowing his presence. Secondly, this god could have made the fruit rotten looking - with mould and maggots. That might have been enough to ensure they did not eat it. Neither of these - in the theist world - negate 'free will', (they could still freely choose to eat it even if it was maggot infested and rotten).

The A&E story is of course utterly ridiculous - even as fiction, but without it being factual, christianity falls apart and Jesus' supposed existence is left without sufficient explanation.

We probably will agree on most religious topics. That aside.

Pertaining to that clip I gave you and humans.

Can we not eat of good and evil. Even that baby is making choices/eating as to good and evil. We, as far as I can see, cannot help but eat of knowledge of good and evil. It is hardwired in us it seems.

Regards
DL

 

[birch]

i don't think the question makes much sense but i've noticed that most people always define a god in the most positive. it's understandable on one level but it seems like wishful thinking more than anything else.

if they believe it is the creator of the universe, everything in it and believe it's benevolent, moral, good and positive; then it indicates to me they are not in touch with reality.

if god is defined as the creator of the universe as well as everything in it and the laws, then what would be most true to the core of this being would be to look at the base of life, not at it's most evolutionized or primped up form.

life is very hostile and it's extremely malevolent at the root of it. the root and power of predatorial nature is a blatant testimony to it as well. though it's difficult to swallow, that is the most honest evaluation of what it really is if it was an entity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

He informed A & E of the one consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge. You shall die.

None of the other consequences positive or negative that he imposed.

Was that not hiding information?

The talking snake was more forthcoming than God in this case.

Regards
DL

I doubt very much that we're talking about an actual tree, or fruit. And I doubt very much we're talking about their indiviual deaths occuring upon eating this fruit.
The source for my doubt is the original hebrew text. I suggest if you're really interested in answering this question, you find out the original hebrew definiitions.

The common understanding, of which you are refering to, is totally inconsistent, and, full of holes.

jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

i don't think the question makes much sense but i've noticed that most people always define a god in the most positive. it's understandable on one level but it seems like wishful thinking more than anything else.

if they believe it is the creator of the universe, everything in it and believe it's benevolent, moral, good and positive; then it indicates to me they are not in touch with reality.

if god is defined as the creator of the universe as well as everything in it and the laws, then what would be most true to the core of this being would be to look at the base of life, not at it's most evolutionized or primped up form.

life is very hostile and it's extremely malevolent at the root of it. the root and power of predatorial nature is a blatant testimony to it as well. though it's difficult to swallow, that is the most honest evaluation of what it really is if it was an entity.

If you had not put in that last "if it was an entity." I was just about ready to chastise you for your human trait of "it's extremely malevolent".

As is, what comes to mind is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am,






I doubt very much that we're talking about an actual tree, or fruit. And I doubt very much we're talking about their indiviual deaths occuring upon eating this fruit.
The source for my doubt is the original hebrew text. I suggest if you're really interested in answering this question, you find out the original hebrew definiitions.

The common understanding, of which you are refering to, is totally inconsistent, and, full of holes.

jan.

Well, the Jews saw Eden as mans elevation and not his fall so there is not much point in my trying to correct those that are already showing themselves to be brighter than the stupid Christians who take scriptures literally and have bought into the corrupted dogma of a fall.

At best, Bible God is one insane and immoral parent. If he had a father himself, that father would be ashamed.

Regards
DL

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, the Jews saw Eden as mans elevation and not his fall so there is not much point in my trying to correct those that are already showing themselves to be brighter than the stupid Christians who take scriptures literally and have bought into the corrupted dogma of a fall.

At best, Bible God is one insane and immoral parent. If he had a father himself, that father would be ashamed.

Regards
DL

So you're really poing a question (OP)?

I think information is not hidden by God, but by our own selves, and your response appears to prove that point.

Remember, you don't have to believe in God in order understand the scriptures as they're supposed to be understood.

jan.

 

[birch]

If you had not put in that last "if it was an entity." I was just about ready to chastise you for your human trait of "it's extremely malevolent".

As is, what comes to mind is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

it is very easy to figure this one out. if one believes that there is a creator of the universe as well as the laws which produce life and every function, then the conclusion is that this creator must be malevolent. one need only observe the function of nature, it is predatorial at root. everything else is excuses. case-closed. the problem with most theists is they are not critical thinkers. under the belief aforementioned premise, that is the only conclusion. it is not your "friend", it feeds off and we maintain as best as possible under this system. their belief also hints to an immoral value system where they will overlook and excuse anything the supposed creator does. it is also revealed in how they blindly follow it just because it is 'god' as well as typical sheeple who would do anything that this 'god' ordered them to do if it existed.

even theists and fundamental religions recognize this duality with the concepts of heaven, hell, god and satan. the difference is they liken god to have power over evil probably because it is a scary and heartbreaking thought otherwise which is understandable. if they really believed that god was a creator of a wonderful universe, they would not look forward to an afterlife of heaven nor would they have a concept of hell nor the evil so exhibited as well as part/parcel in humans and nature.

if the premise were different, then possibly another hypothesis. for instance, just by the fact that predation and evil nature has general power over what we would call good, as well as what is good is at the mercy or the prey, as well as the fact life does not know why it's here (existential angst) and where it came from nor does it have a choice could indicate a clash between two forms of life systems or lifeforms which produced the duality. in that vein, we could liken some "part" of our existence to being swallowed up finding ourselves a part of the structure of this universe possibly at the start of the big bang whereby the structure was produced by virtue of the laws in play and how they manifested here.