Query

[glynos]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm not here to make any personal attacks. I don't hate Christians, but I really struggle to come to terms with Christianity. I can't imagine a Christian being true to his / her self. If you have any interest with the truth then you should be prepared to question your beliefs. Faith is a result of ignorance, and unwillingness to look beyond what is in front of you.

Anyway, I won't preach, I'll leave that to you guys. :D

Here's the fundamental paradox in Christianity, as I know it.

I believe your God is supposed to be benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient right? If that were true, then this world could not be anything other than perfect. God is loving, he has the power to do anything he wants, and knows everything that's going to happen.

I know you'll bring up free will, but what is that? If it exists (which I don't believe, but that's another argument), then the nature of it is formed by God. So take Adam / Eve's sin. God created Adam and Eve. He could have made them anyway he desired, because he's omnipotent. He knew exactly everything they would do, because he's omniscient. Yet he made them weak and prone to temptation. This is not an act of benevolence. It simply doesn't add up.

Also, why do rocks fall on people and kill them? God knows this will happen, God could have changed nature to avoid it from happening, and since he's benevolent, surely he would want to do it? But, he doesn't.

Do any of you see the contradiction here? If God was benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient there simply couldn't be such things as evil or pain.

[BlackBillBlake]

You have some good points there. My understanding of the thing is that God made things perfect in the beginning, but everything was marred by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God. The whole creation fell along with Adam.
But this is only part of a process - God will bring this imperfect creation to a conclusion, and re-make all in its perfection.
Does free will exist - or are we simply automata? This is a question that it is hard to answer. Myself, I think we do posses it. Hence we are free to choose God or not.
But I'm not an 'orthodox' Christian -

[glynos]

My understanding of the thing is that God made things perfect in the beginning, but everything was marred by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God. The whole creation fell along with Adam.
Yes, it was apparently Adam and Eve (and the talking snake) that brought about imperfection, but it was God who made everything, including Adam, Eve, and the talking snake. You can blame Adam and Eve, but how did they have the option of acting 'wrongly'? God must have created that option, therefore, God created imperfection. If God is perfect, he simply cannot create imperfection.

If you blame the Devil, then again it's God's doing. He invented the Devil, or at least, he invented such an environment that the Devil could come about. Since he's omniscient, he would have known that this all would have happened.

You could argue that God gave man free will, and that not even God could know how man would act, but then you're denying his omniscience. Something has to give. He simply cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.

Hence we are free to choose God or not.Freedom is an illusion that comes about when we don't know exactly why we act. We think we have choice, but we do not. We can only live one way. Everything we do is determined by past experiences, society, or by your genes. Go here - http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/logical.html for more on determinism / free will.

[geckopelli]

[QUOTE=glynos]. "Faith is a result of ignorance, and unwillingness to look beyond what is in front of you."

Perhaps- or maybe it's looking in the back of the book for the answers without understanding the problem.

"Here's the fundamental paradox in Christianity, as I know it.

I believe your God is supposed to be benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient right? If that were true, then this world could not be anything other than perfect. God is loving, he has the power to do anything he wants, and knows everything that's going to happen."

Were I a christian, I'd ask you what makes you think this world is anything less than perfect? God's perfection- not your perfection.

"I know you'll bring up free will, but what is that? If it exists (which I don't believe, but that's another argument), then the nature of it is formed by God. So take Adam / Eve's sin. God created Adam and Eve. He could have made them anyway he desired, because he's omnipotent. He knew exactly everything they would do, because he's omniscient. Yet he made them weak and prone to temptation. This is not an act of benevolence. It simply doesn't add up."

Or perhaps god knew it to be nessacary that humans emerge from the garden and therefore created women- to drive men to seek the world. The ultimate benevolence.

"Also, why do rocks fall on people and kill them? God knows this will happen, God could have changed nature to avoid it from happening, and since he's benevolent, surely he would want to do it? But, he doesn't."

Perhaps, "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few...or the one" in the eyes of god. The Zeroth Law.

"Do any of you see the contradiction here? If God was benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient there simply couldn't be such things as evil or pain"

Can good exist without evil? Pleasure without pain?

Your view is too simplistic. There's no god by your definition, sure. The proof is all around us.

But by christian definition there is a god- and the proof is all around us.

As a scientist I'll say that any assumed god is benevolent by definition, and further, that there is room in Reality for omnipotence and omniscience. But no proof of god.

[glynos]

Were I a christian, I'd ask you what makes you think this world is anything less than perfect? God's perfection- not your perfection.Well, in the Bible God labels certain actions as sins, and gives examples of sinners. If people sin, then the world is imperfect, in God's eyes. Paedophilia is part of God's perfection? Bare in mind, God could've built a world without paedophilia, rape, murder, disease. Is this God's idea of perfection? If so, he is not benevolent.

Or perhaps god knew it to be nessacary that humans emerge from the garden and therefore created women- to drive men to seek the world. The ultimate benevolence.Isn't it obvious what I'm going to say? God had the ability to make humans emerge from the garden without creating evil. He's God, he can do anything remember? Whatever was necessary, God could have made it happen in a perfect way, devoid of guilt, evil, pain.

Can good exist without evil? Pleasure without pain?Anything you ask, God could make possible, because he's omnipotent. So yes, God could make good exist without evil. If you claim he can't, then you claim he's not omnipotent.

Your view is too simplistic.Well, compared with 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth' my view is a sophisticated piece of art. The Bible is very simplistic in itself.

Finally, where is this proof of God's existence? If it weren't for fear, nobody would be a Christian.

[BlackBillBlake]

You could argue that God gave man free will, and that not even God could know how man would act, but then you're denying his omniscience. Something has to give. He simply cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.

..

Why can't God have both given Man free will and still known in advance that he would use it to 'disobey'?
It could be that this world is still in the process of being created - ie God hasn't yet finished His work - the 'fall' and 'redemption' and the final creation of 'a new heaven and a new earth' can be seen as the part of the process. In other words, God is still working on things - in and through us.

The existence of negative qualities in the world is not a very convincing argument against the existence of God. And it depends on how you understand God. With Hinduism, for example, the difficulty doesn't arise, as God or the Divine is seen as the ulimate source of all qualities, both good and bad.

But I suppose that is inadmissible here where Christianity is the thing on the agenda....

As for free will - if you think we are mere automata, that is your opinion, but there is no scientific proof of this.

[glynos]

Why can't God have both given Man free will and still known in advance that he would use it to 'disobey'? Because disobeying God is a sin. Sinners are not perfect. Therefore, God intentionally created man for the purpose of sinning. God could have prevented man from sinning, but he didn't. Man cannot be blamed, as he was only acting in the way God made him act. God made man imperfect, therefore, God made imperfection. Perfection cannot make imperfection.

It could be that this world is still in the process of being created - ie God hasn't yet finished His workThat is irrelevent. What stage he is in does not matter. What matters is that right now we have imperfection. If you accept we have imperfection, then you accept that the Christian God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If you believe this world is perfect, then you condone rape, violence and murder.

And yes, I'm talking exclusively about the Christian God.

As for free will, science says that the whole Universe is bound by cause & effect patterns, therefore, free will cannot exist scientifically. There is scientific proof that free will does not exist.

[BlackBillBlake]

And yes, I'm talking exclusively about the Christian God.

As for free will, science says that the whole Universe is bound by cause & effect patterns, therefore, free will cannot exist scientifically. There is scientific proof that free will does not exist.
Ok - I am not limited to viewing God in this narrow way so I don't see that theres much point in discussing this further.

The notion of cause and effect is not upheld by modern science. It applies only on certain levels. At the sub atomic level, cause and effect breaks down, as any quantum physicist will tell you. You are speaking here of newtonian science, and clearly this can only be applied to physical matter. To suggest that science has proven an absence of free will in the human being is completely groundless. The laws that govern the movements of physical bodies cannot be applied to the mind or to consciousness, or even to certain theoretical physical phenomena.

[Spiritforces]

Glynos, I ll try to say something. Do not take as an attack at all. Just trying to share. You wished some answers by creating that poll, isn't it?

First I do not even am sure of anything about the existence of a God or its inexistence( and I've a problem with giving him eventually a name, or a sacred text which he transmitted to humans).
Just to say you seem to be a little too sure of yourself.
You do advance sentences you have no clue if they are right.
By example:

"Faith is a result of ignorance"

It's wrong. I see it more as the result of a trust.
Ignorance in the sens of ignoring science? It's known that the science doesn't have the answers to prove the existence or the inexistence of God. Science and Religion are two way to explain the world, but they are complementary, not opposed.

"Perfection cannot make imperfection"

Hum, you have no idea of what the plan of something perfect could be.

"the whole Universe is bound by cause & effect patterns"

Yes, but before Big Bang? Nobody as an answer.



It was just to say something short, do not be so sure of you, hope it made you doubted a lil. Never being sure, is the best way to learn effeciently.

Try to see how the world is fucking perfectly fitted for your senses to experience it. Isn't it perfect in a way? Have fun for a while and see your feelings, tell me if it is not perfectly adapted to us

Take care

[Alsharad]

Because disobeying God is a sin. Sinners are not perfect. Therefore, God intentionally created man for the purpose of sinning. God could have prevented man from sinning, but he didn't. Man cannot be blamed, as he was only acting in the way God made him act. God made man imperfect, therefore, God made imperfection. Perfection cannot make imperfection.
God is omniscient, so He knows not only what WOULD happen, but also the infinite expanse of what MIGHT have happened. God gave Adam the ability to choose and then provided the opportunity to excercise that freedom. He put a tree in the garden and told them not to eat. At that point, Adam might have simply chosen to never have eaten. We don't know what would have happened (God does though). Anyway, Adam chose to disobey. He had full knowledge of what he was doing. He wasn't tricked and it wasn't "built" into his nature. He made a choice that had very severe consequences.

God did not force Adam to do anything. Adam acted of his own volition. Let's try this: Bob owns a candy store with thousands of types of candy. He calls over his friend Tim. He tells Tim that he (Tim) is free to eat any of the candy in the store with one exception. Bob then tells Tim to not eat the one piece green licorice. Bob shows Tim exactly what it looks like, where it is, and that it is deadly poison. Now, according to you, if Tim eats the candy, then Bob (who took every possible means to prevent Tim eating it except for removing the candy) is directly responsible? That Tim is not culpable for his own actions?

The above analogy is flawed because of course Bob could have removed the licorice. God could not. In order for free will to exist, there had to be a choice. If there is no licorice (or tree of knowledge of good and evil) then there is no possiblity of disobedience and no meaningful ability to excercise free will. Adam was given only one way to rebel against God, and he chose to rebel. You cannot fault the test-giver of a fair test when the student fails. In this case, God did everything he could to prevent it (without violating Adam's will). Adam still rebelled.

Does that make sense? What I am disagreeing with is that God could NOT have prevented man from sinning and maintained His integrity.

[geckopelli]

glynos,

your perspective is to narrow.

if the bible does contain "rules" of good and sin, those rules are for humans.

I don't think there's anything in there saying what rules god must follow. Why should such be limited by human limitations? How do you know the "crimes" you speak of aren't nessacary? Your view is completely homocentric- theistic.

Such arguments can no more proven god's non-existence than they can prove her existence.

the reasonable course of action is to look for god. If we look everywhere, and he's not there, then he doesn't exist.

Remember that god faith and religion are three different things.

[bandit28]

This is no different than the hundreds of people that attempt to make God look like He is fake on a daily basis.

My favorite one is the one about the brownies. If God is perfect, then he could make the perfect brownie for everyone. Of course, you have to remember that some people don't like pecans on their brownies, or may be alergic to them. Some people don't even like brownies. So how could He do this without forcing someone to like them? The questions go on and on. Just liek the one can God make a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it? But if He could make one, He should be able to lift it because He can do anything, so then it reverts to Him being unable to make such a rock.

Like I said, these moronic theories pop out daily. I myself like brownies, I like them with or without pecans. So, if God were to make some brownies that tasted better than my moms, then He would get the credit of making the perfect brownie. Just because you don't like them, can't eat them, or choose to pass them up doesn't mean others will follow you. I myself, like every other true Christian, picked up a copy of His directions for making brownies and though we don't do the best job, over time they get better. Eventualy, we will be in heaven with Him and be able to make brownies together.

I hope you realize my analogy here has associated brownies with our daily faith. The brownie recipe would be The Bible, the ingredients are living life through Jesus and our attempt to do His will.

I am done playing your word games here. You can eat the brownie or leave it on the plate for the next person that comes along. Either way, someone will eat it, and when they all run out, Jesus will come pick us up.

[mynameiskc]

going back to the OP, i think our basic misconception is that we consider all things that are unpleasant for us to be inherently evil, which is untrue. no experience is wasted unless you spend the rest of your time moping about it and commt suiced. but even then, someone else will learn from your mistakes. everything has an opposite, even if those opposites are a matter of degree.


i may have had an extremely difficult childhood and some severe ugliness to deal with in my life, but i wouldn't change a thing. i like who i am now, and i wouldn't be this person without those experiences. just like getting an innoculation may give you a sore arm, it's a lot better than not having it at all.

all those things we love best about human kind are responses to hardship and discomfort. courage, charity, fortitude, love. without the bad, we'd never see the good. i find the people who spend most of their time complaining about the bad are the ones who'd rather feel sorry for themselves than do anything to correct their situation.

[geckopelli]

bandit28,

your argument is the same as his- blind faith sans understanding.

[ledbynarration]

Here are a few of my opinions on the debate so far. I'm in a little bit of a rush, so I'm afraid these aren't as concisely put as they could be, but feel free to question anything I say.

BlackBillBlake suggested that the laws of cause & effect cannot be applied to any arguement regarding free will. I believe they can, as all actions (effects) are caused by genetics and enviroment (causes). I'd be interested to hear what other factors BlackBillBlake (and others) believe contribute to the decision making process in order to defend the position of free will.

(ALSHRAD) What I am disagreeing with is that God could NOT have prevented man from sinning and maintained His integrity.- I don't see why he couldn't. I'm guessing by integrity you mean free will, which I've debated above. The simple crux of the matter is, God did Force Adam to eat the apple. At the point in time where Adam chose to eat the apple, God was responsible for a) The actual existance of the tree b) the existance of the snake c) the desire in Adam, when faced with certain circumstances and stimuli, to eat the apple. For me, this leads to a group of conlcusions. Either a) God is not omnicient and did not forsee Adam eating the apple or b) God wanted Adam to eat the apple.

(Mynameiskc) without the bad, we'd never see the good- I've heard this response many times as an attempt to answer why God lets bad things happen. The simple fact of the matter is certain things are considered bad across the globe, and whereas they may not be bad by definition, they are bad by the perception of the majority. I don't think I need flash floods, earthquakes etc. just to appreciate how pretty flowers are.

[mynameiskc]

- I've heard this response many times as an attempt to answer why God lets bad things happen. The simple fact of the matter is certain things are considered bad across the globe, and whereas they may not be bad by definition, they are bad by the perception of the majority. I don't think I need flash floods, earthquakes etc. just to appreciate how pretty flowers are.
those flash floods and earthquakes are essential mechanisms of the earth. we wouldn't have any pretty flowers without the whole machine running smoothly. i think you just want the easy way, no struggle, no strife. well, that means no life. without death, there could be no more birth.

[geckopelli]

those flash floods and earthquakes are essential mechanisms of the earth. we wouldn't have any pretty flowers without the whole machine running smoothly. i think you just want the easy way, no struggle, no strife. well, that means no life. without death, there could be no more birth.
Touche!
..........

[ledbynarration]

Touche? I thought this was a theistic arguement, not a fencing arguement!


those flash floods and earthquakes are essential mechanisms of the earth. we wouldn't have any pretty flowers without the whole machine running smoothly. i think you just want the easy way, no struggle, no strife. well, that means no life.How are the flash floods and earthquakes essential? Surely God could make a world that doesn't need earthquakes and flash floods, and surely that would be better. I don't so much want an easier way, I'm an aethist so I believe things are like they are and there's nothing I can do to change things like nature. BUT if you believe in God, I can't see why you don't expect things to be easy. Why have struggle and strife in a world that's created by someone who is supposed to be love incarnate? And as for the 'no life' bit, did Adam and Eve have no life in Eden pre-snake?

without death, there could be no more birth.Sure if there were no death things would get pretty crowded. But why not have death being some angel tapping a perfectly healthy person on the shoulder and going "come to heaven with me, it's groovy!" rather than people dying horribly everyday.

I think my concentration on natural disasters may have distorted my point. I meant to say that I think the belief that you need bad as an opposition to good is a fallacy. I doubt the Jews saw much in the way of silver linings during the holocaust, and I can't imagine Adam and Eve sitting in Eden saying "well the free food, no labour and ever lasting paradise is okay, but I'm damn near suicidal because I can't fly." From what I understand Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden. Why can't we have Eden now? Because some bint ate an apple over 2000 years ago? I never ate the forbidden fruit, if God is compassionate, fair and forgiving why aren't we in Eden? What did we do to deserve cancer, aids, rape, murder, paedophilia, natural disasters, air/road/train crashes, suicides, depression, poverty etc. etc. And even if your naiive enough to believe that it's all part of some plan that's far beyond mere human understanding, why not give us the capacity to understand it? Why make millions and millions of people suicidally upset just to keep God's impeccable plans secret?

[mynameiskc]

i don't see how my believing in god necessitates that i believe things should be easy because god coulda made it different. like i said, i believe in the power and necessity of the honing through strife and pain. i believe god set this world up to exist this way for a reason. there's a balance in everything. without bad, there can be no good, since both are just a matter of perspective. adam and eve are an allegory for me. eating of the tree of knowledge said to god, we want more than what we have here. we want to know, we want to learn. the problem with learning, however, is that it can be very painful. we became adults there, instead of children just accepting everyting that headed our way.


who's to say there wasn't death in the proverbial garden? i say everything was running just the same as it is now, except that god protected his kids much the same way that modern parents strive to shield their own children from the knowledge of pain and death. but it does our children no service to keep shielding them forever. eventually they all have to make the choice of leaving the nest. when that happens, they're gonna find a world of hurt, and we can't just jump in there a fix it for them every time. we're more than willing to help when asked for it, but we can't control our children completely. they'd hate us then. what kind of parent would we be? crippling our children.

[glynos]

It seems that God has laid the smackdown on me. I typed up a large response, clicked the submit button, and somehow, it all disappeared. :(

I'll just run through some of the recent points made.

those flash floods and earthquakes are essential mechanisms of the earth. we wouldn't have any pretty flowers If God is omnipotent, then he could make pretty flowers without the need of earthquakes. They are only essential now, because God made it that way. If God is omnipotent, he could have made a world where earthquakes weren't neccessary. Where rape, murder, violence or any other hardship wasn't the key to understanding, moving on and eventually accepting and being happy. If God is omnipotent, he can make a world where there is absolutely no displeasure. If God is omnipotent, good could exist without bad, right without wrong, pleasure without pain; and if he was benevolent, good would exist without bad, right would exist without wrong, and pleasure would exist without displeasure.

Oh, and for Bandit 28, could you please answer me this one question, and answer it only with a yes or no.

Can God create the perfect brownie?

[geckopelli]

glynos,
Your question is a meaningless trick of logic:

Define god, and define the perfect brownie, and an answer will be forthcoming.
----
Rock on, kc!
You are my favorite believer.

[ledbynarration]

i believe god set this world up to exist this way for a reason
- Would I be right in believing that allthough you believe god created the world this way for a reason, you can't actually imagine a coherent reason why he can? As Glynos said, surely god could make a world which has a conception of good but without bad. It's all well and good claiming that good and bad are a matter of perspective, but the general fact of the matter is that all societies have main concepts of good and bad set in stone, and these don't differ that much from culture to culture anyway. Does the world really need rape? Or any other token "bad" act that we all agree on? Personally, I believe if God set up the world like this then his only reason must be that he's some kind of sadist.

they're gonna find a world of hurt, and we can't just jump in there a fix it for them every time
You can if your god surely? And why not make a world that isn't full of hurt, or full of beings that don't have a capacity for things such as grief, sorrow and such.


Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
- Freddy Nietzsche -

[mynameiskc]

some more responses

- Would I be right in believing that allthough you believe god created the world this way for a reason, you can't actually imagine a coherent reason why he can? As Glynos said, surely god could make a world which has a conception of good but without bad. It's all well and good claiming that good and bad are a matter of perspective, but the general fact of the matter is that all societies have main concepts of good and bad set in stone, and these don't differ that much from culture to culture anyway. Does the world really need rape? Or any other token "bad" act that we all agree on? Personally, I believe if God set up the world like this then his only reason must be that he's some kind of sadist.

--i believe human beings are animals. we were put on this earth to exist like the rest of them. animals don't complain about harshness, pain or rape. rape DOES fulfill a purpose inthe grand scheme of things, loathe as i am to say it. think of all the gene pools in this world that have been saved from inbreeding by invading forces in the past. the only difference between us and animals is that we get all hurt when bad things happen. what's that line in that poem? a wild thing will fall frozen, dead, from a limb before it'll ever feel sorry for itself. something like that.

--while i feel priveledged to have knowledge of complexities, somewhere, somehow, along the line it made us a bunch of crybabies. death and pain are not bad, they serve a greater purpose. like i said, it's a matter of perspective.

You can if your god surely? And why not make a world that isn't full of hurt, or full of beings that don't have a capacity for things such as grief, sorrow and such.

--can doesn't mean you should. i cold stop my baby from crawlingup the furniture so that she doesn't fall, but then she'd never learn to stand.


Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
- Freddy Nietzsche -

[glynos]

--can doesn't mean you should. i could stop my baby from crawling up the furniture so that she doesn't fall, but then she'd never learn to stand.
This is where benevolence should come into it. If God could stop bad things from happening, then a benevolent God would.

i believe human beings are animals. we were put on this earth to exist like the rest of them. animals don't complain about harshness, pain or rape.So you don't believe that humans have a soul? Or you believe that animals have souls? Surely that would be a Christian's view on the difference between animals and humans wouldn't it? That humans have a soul and animals don't? I highly doubt it is a Christian belief that humans are the same as animals.

Also Adam, pre being part of a species of crybabies, in his animalistic state, isn't responsible for eating that apple? If you told a rat not to eat an apple and he ate it, would you consider him to be morally responsible?

[mynameiskc]

once again, some more

This is where benevolence should come into it. If God could stop bad things from happening, then a benevolent God would.

--you say "why not," i say, "why?" this is a beautiful world, this is a beautiful system. it's only bitterness in humans that makes us say it isn't perfect. should every human perish from this earth, it would still be beautiful, it would still carry on. why should the entire world be changed to suit our purposes and wants? we're still the minority on this earth.

So you don't believe that humans have a soul? Or you believe that animals have souls? Surely that would be a Christian's view on the difference between animals and humans wouldn't it? That humans have a soul and animals don't? I highly doubt it is a Christian belief that humans are the same as animals.

--you don't know this christian very well, then. i don't happen to think that human beings having a soul and an ability for abstract understanding EXEMPTS us form our role as natural animals on this planet. we still consume, we are still consumed. like i said above, i think that when we decided to enter this world fully, we gave up our right to special treatment. therefore any special treatment we DO receive is a gift, not an obligation.

Also Adam, pre being part of a species of crybabies, in his animalistic state, isn't responsible for eating that apple? If you told a rat not to eat an apple and he ate it, would you consider him to be morally responsible?

--"adam," whom i consider to be strictly an allegory, was created with the capacity for complex understanding. while i do not believe in an actual fruit of understanding, when the first humans struggled for something more than they were previously conditioned to take, that breakthrough of abstract thought was a break from the innocence of animals. while i think the concept has been overly dramatized and put in to terms of black and white, original sin style, i still believe that is where our moralistic troubles began.

by forcing perceptions of good and evil onto the world around us, beginning with what we find convenient or inconvenient, we become personally responsible for following those same precepts that we force upon the world and other people around us.

for example, in terms of sexuality, a bull elk is not going to hate a cow for going off with another, stronger bull, he's just gonna try to get her back, even if it means killing the other bull. human beings will do this, too, but we're responsible for it because WE KNOW IT'S wrong. why? because WE"RE the ones who said so first. when we began forcing concepts of primacy on each other, we also became responsible for following the same rules and regs we force on other people. i believe this was the beginning of god's biblical laws.

[TrippinBTM]

You have some good points there. My understanding of the thing is that God made things perfect in the beginning, but everything was marred by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God. The whole creation fell along with Adam.
Just to throw my two cents in here:

If Adam and Eve knew nothing about Good and Evil until after eating the apple, how could they know it would be wrong to disobey God? It's like God deliberately trying to screw humanity, setting the rules against themselves. Oddly enough, once Adam and Eve discovered that they were naked, they knew it was wrong and shameful...yet God created them that way, and had they not eaten the apple, they would have run around in sinful nudity for their (eternal?) lives. Like I said, the rules set against themselves...

I see this story as just that: a story meant to illustrate a few things; namely, why men have to work, why childbirth hurts, why snakes slither and flick their tounges (an important philosophical issue, mind you). I don't put much stock in these kinds of things (scripture and dogma), though, nor am I a christian anymore (sort of a atheist/buddhist/seeker...very hard to label me, haha).

[mynameiskc]

Just to throw my two cents in here:

If Adam and Eve knew nothing about Good and Evil until after eating the apple, how could they know it would be wrong to disobey God? It's like God deliberately trying to screw humanity, setting the rules against themselves. Oddly enough, once Adam and Eve discovered that they were naked, they knew it was wrong and shameful...yet God created them that way, and had they not eaten the apple, they would have run around in sinful nudity for their (eternal?) lives. Like I said, the rules set against themselves...

I see this story as just that: a story meant to illustrate a few things; namely, why men have to work, why childbirth hurts, why snakes slither and flick their tounges (an important philosophical issue, mind you). I don't put much stock in these kinds of things (scripture and dogma), though, nor am I a christian anymore (sort of a atheist/buddhist/seeker...very hard to label me, haha).
i think that the evil of the serpent was a throwback to the snake-goddesses worshipped heavily in the region. it was an attempt to discredit their worshippers. snakes being historically related to female sexuality.

[TrippinBTM]

i think that the evil of the serpent was a throwback to the snake-goddesses worshipped heavily in the region. it was an attempt to discredit their worshippers. snakes being historically related to female sexuality.
Yes, but more importantly, to spiritual growth and change. Snakes were a common symbol for that, due to snakes shedding their skin. In fact, one might look at the serpent in the Genesis story as a savior, saving us from dumbness and setting us on a spiritual path one level higher than before, now that we understand good and evil.

Still an alegory but maybe a better way of understanding it...

[mynameiskc]

Yes, but more importantly, to spiritual growth and change. Snakes were a common symbol for that, due to snakes shedding their skin. In fact, one might look at the serpent in the Genesis story as a savior, saving us from dumbness and setting us on a spiritual path one level higher than before, now that we understand good and evil.

Still an alegory but maybe a better way of understanding it...
that's an interesting point, one to chew on. i myself feel no sadness over the acts of adam and eve. i'm pretty grateful, to be honest. i thrive on a good conflict. i think that all happened for a reason, and the symbology of the story is so deep and layered that it never fails to fascinate. after all, isn't it funny that anthropologists figure it was probably women who figured out how to plant seeds and such since their role was that of the gatherer? they were more closely examining plants and such. men had the role of hunters, which requires less DAILY effort, those as a hunter myself, i do know how hard it is, even with my modern instruments.

but when you think about the punishment, that adam now has to toil in the fields for his food after eating the fruit of knowledge, isn't it funny that eve was the first to eat? perhaps that fruit of knowledge was partially just an understanding of how to more fully exploit our environment, and eve was the first to eat of it. also, that childbirth should be so much harder on women now. well, they say the head to hip ratio is higher in human females than any other species. how interesting that our brains are so much bigger and more complex, and that this causes the greater danger of childbirth in humans.

AH! chewy concepts! you gotta love 'em!

[richyboy21]

hey guys, now i dont know an awful lot about Christianity and quite frankly im glad i dont but thats neither here not there,

just wanted something cleared up, if you are a Christian does this mean that you as a person believe that Adam and Eve actually existed and that the Garden of Eden was a factual place?

oh yea and that the Earth was created in 7 days? ppl trully believe this?

im not here to start a massive argument on the subject coz the argument can never be won, u cannot prove god just as i cannot disprove god but i do find religion sickening at times. A concept concieved through fear and self doubt, it is not just a control mechanism past down through the ages in varying guises but it is also a very convienient way to take the fear away from death.

as a person i just find it astounding that a person would devote so much of their lives to something that they cannot prove, infact there isnt even the slightest smallest proof of god is there, nothing at all. yet Billions of ppl will accept the idea of a god as truth, even without the evidence.

maybe the jury on O.J Simpson trial were all religious, they blatently disregarded the evidence...., in this case the evidence that there is in fact no proof of a higher being.
no doubt those of u who are religious will talk about things like, the miracle of life and the earth and bla bla bla.

Jesus performed Miracles (Magic) u bow to him, Paul Daniels performs Magic, why dont u worship him.

Rich

[geckopelli]

The bible is filled with allegory.


Only fanatics take it literally.

I should say fanatics and atheist.

[mynameiskc]

hey rich. well, there ARE those who believe that the genesis story is an actual fact. however, there's some points made in the debate thread on the subject. not all believe the bible literally. i myself find most of it to be allegorical, but no less valid. much of the bible is a history of human experience, and as we all know, a smart person may learn from their mistakes, but a truly wise person can learn from the mistakes of others. in this sense i find much of it to be valuable. it's also very handy for dredging up good personal questions regarding various ethical concepts, at least for me. i find i come away from the bible with more questions than answers, but that just makes me love it more.


tell me, what do you spend much of your life doing? is it any more valid than what christians do to bring themselves joy and peace? prove it's more valid. sure there's some christians out there who are real assholes. but they'd be assholes without christianity, too. for them christianity is just a handy framework.

[mynameiskc]

The bible is filled with allegory.


Only fanatics take it literally.

I should say fanatics and atheist.
hehe. that's so funny.

[richyboy21]

someone posted this elsewhere and i have to paste it, its brilliant...

"Your religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these 10 things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time...but he loves you.

How do you feel about that?"



u see how ridiculous the idea of God sounds now? really truly think about it and ask yourself honestly... u think thats true??

whats so concerning is that millions of ppl believe this...

[mynameiskc]

someone posted this elsewhere and i have to paste it, its brilliant...

"Your religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these 10 things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time...but he loves you.

How do you feel about that?"



u see how ridiculous the idea of God sounds now? really truly think about it and ask yourself honestly... u think thats true??

whats so concerning is that millions of ppl believe this...
you should probably just read the rest of that thread.

[richyboy21]

tell me, what do you spend much of your life doing? is it any more valid than what christians do to bring themselves joy and peace? prove it's more valid. sure there's some christians out there who are real assholes. but they'd be assholes without christianity, too. for them christianity is just a handy framework.
my argument is not with the validity of a christian and what they do, u are free to do and believe whatever u want, i have no probs with that.
the point i try to make is that for all ppls arguments for the existence of God, no evidence is being used. it never is when ppl try to argue their case.

now whats great about this kind of debate is that there is no proof of what i believe either. myself being Agnostic, now i have just as much right to take this stance as u do with yours, Your beliefs however require evidence to be proven, mine dont.

[mynameiskc]

my argument is not with the validity of a christian and what they do, u are free to do and believe whatever u want, i have no probs with that.
the point i try to make is that for all ppls arguments for the existence of God, no evidence is being used. it never is when ppl try to argue their case.

now whats great about this kind of debate is that there is no proof of what i believe either. myself being Agnostic, now i have just as much right to take this stance as u do with yours, Your beliefs however require evidence to be proven, mine dont.
i disagree that my beliefs require proof that you can understand. that's why it's faith. and i have this faith because certain experiences and understandings have brought me to this point. these personal experiences MIGHT be explained, but there's nothing for you to lay your hands on that will 'prove' it to you. it's a pretty risky, but i've come to believe, brave position to take, having faith.

[geckopelli]

richboy21,


Ah, but your beliefs DO require evidence to be accepted as correct.

Simply stating "there is no god" begs the question: what is your explanation?

[mynameiskc]

richboy21,


Ah, but your beliefs DO require evidence to be accepted as correct.

Simply stating "there is no god" begs the question: what is your explanation?
he's actually saying he's an agnostic, therefore his stance is we cannot know.

[glynos]

My main problem with faith is thus -

People with faith will generally have faith regardless of clear cut evidence that disproves their faith. Usually people won't question their faith, which is something that surely needs to be done if one really wishes to prove their faith to be true.

One without faith isn't bound by his beliefs. Should evidence arise to support the idea of a theological idea, the sceptic will change his ways.

mynameiskc, I do appreciate you for the way you try to find reasons for your faith, which is what has kept me interested here. However, I still worry about the fact that you will go to great efforts to re-word the Bible to fit your personal beliefs, but I can't help thinking that your interpretation is merely reactionary to the obvious lack of integrity the Bible holds, if it is to be taken literally. Had people not criticised the Bible for these things, then I'm sure you wouldn't be seeking the allegorical aspect of it.

Do you believe that the big bang and evolution are compatible with Christianity, or do you simply not believe in these ideas? It seems you'll do anything to hold on to Christianity, even when faced with what seems to be the blatant truth amongst the enlightened.

[mynameiskc]

My main problem with faith is thus -

People with faith will generally have faith regardless of clear cut evidence that disproves their faith. Usually people won't question their faith, which is something that surely needs to be done if one really wishes to prove their faith to be true.

One without faith isn't bound by his beliefs. Should evidence arise to support the idea of a theological idea, the sceptic will change his ways.

mynameiskc, I do appreciate you for the way you try to find reasons for your faith, which is what has kept me interested here. However, I still worry about the fact that you will go to great efforts to re-word the Bible to fit your personal beliefs, but I can't help thinking that your interpretation is merely reactionary to the obvious lack of integrity the Bible holds, if it is to be taken literally. Had people not criticised the Bible for these things, then I'm sure you wouldn't be seeking the allegorical aspect of it.

Do you believe that the big bang and evolution are compatible with Christianity, or do you simply not believe in these ideas? It seems you'll do anything to hold on to Christianity, even when faced with what seems to be the blatant truth amongst the enlightened.
our questioning nature is one of our most valuable precepts of understanding. people questioning the bible have ben the cornerstone of my understanding of it. of course i believe evolution and the big bang are compatible with the bible and christianity. let there be light, and god creating life from the earth. it seems to be such a simple thing for me. it makes sense. i don't so much hold onto christianity so much as it holds onto me. i am who i am. and following the loving teachings of a brilliant and loving man make sense to me. i will, and always have, fully accepted that the bible has men's hands all over it. it MUST be questioned. my faith is not blind, it's forever seeking and questioning. but some things are just so SENSIBLE to me that no questions i ask of them matter in the entirety of the belief.

[geckopelli]

glynos seems to believe that only fundementalist are christians. He takes the bible literally and insist that all christians must.
-----
as for agnostics, the postion that something is UNKNOWABLE and not merely unknown is a postion of faith and nothing else.

[mynameiskc]

glynos seems to believe that only fundementalist are christians. He takes the bible literally and insist that all christians must.
-----
as for agnostics, the postion that something is UNKNOWABLE and not merely unknown is a postion of faith and nothing else.
yeah, i kinda got that. nevermind the fact that some of us value the compilation of human understanding. i don't think for a minute that we're any smarter than neolithic man, we just have more info to work with.

[mynameiskc]

as for agnostics, the postion that something is UNKNOWABLE and not merely unknown is a postion of faith and nothing else.
i've never thought of it that way.

[glynos]

glynos seems to believe that only fundementalist are christians. He takes the bible literally and insist that all christians must.
Judge not, lest thee be judged thyself. :) Only kidding. Anyway, that's bullshit. I've not come here and said things like 'How can a man walk on water?' I also never insisted that every Christian must take the Bible literally, so why are you making that up? My original query was a fair one I feel, and it is still my main argument against Christianity. This is something that all Christians believe is it not? That God is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

Also, the problem with not taking the Bible literally is that the assumption one makes when transfering from the literal to the metaphorical is a personal belief. Does that mean that when the Bible claims Jesus died on the cross, a Christian may look upon this as a metaphor for Jesus dying because the state of the way we'll vote in the future? That Jesus believes we shouldn't mark our boxes with a cross, but merely a line! So there's a problem that if all Christians have different opinions on what Chritianity stands for, and these opinions are contradictory, something has to give. That's pretty much my main qualm with not taking the Bible literally.

Another qualm I have is that these new ideas are merely subject to today's culture. For example, go back a few hundred years and a Chritian would interpret the Bible as saying homosexuality was completely wrong. Nowadays, one may re-interpret the Bible and claim that it says that it's ok. When social attitudes change, so will the interpretation of the Bible. The importance of this is thus - The Bible is not giving you your views. Society is giving you certain views and you then manipulate your reading of the Bible into agreeing with you.

as for agnostics, the postion that something is UNKNOWABLE and not merely unknown is a postion of faith and nothing else.Geckopelli seems to believe that only fundementalist are agnostics. He takes the main reference point literally and insist that all agnostics must. The reason I believe it is unknowable is because given the current knowledge I have, it is unknowable. With our only experiences coming from within the Universe, I don't believe we can ever know what is outside the Universe. Should I gain further knowledge to counter my stance, I will then re-consider my stance and make a further judgment. What happens to you if something comes along and challenges Christianity? The fundamentalists will denounce it immediately ( a la evolution) whilst the interpretors will go back to their Bibles and forge themselves a new belief, simply because they still want to believe.

[mynameiskc]

hm. i disagree. learning and discovery are crucial to understanding. without learning and discovery and the inherent curiousity that god knows we have, there would be true faith, only blind faith. much of my faith evolves from a constant communication with my god. yes, he does speak back if you're listening. i come across a text, a scripture, and i question. then the answers come to me in the strangest of ways. sometimes in a dream, sometimes in a conversation, sometimes on tv.


a rigid belief is unhealthy. yet you would prefer that i have such. i'm never so closed minded that i would not quesion my own beliefs. i've actually always thought that to be a good thing. yet here i'm being criticised by yourself for not being rigid, because it falls outside your own comfortable concept of what a christian is supposed to be?

edit to add: a christian, in my understanding, is anyone who accepts the love, guidance and sacrifice of christ. as long as these are the center of their study, the infinite variety the arrives from this is lovely. god meets you where you are, discusses it with you as you will understand it. he has a different role for each of us.

[glynos]

here i'm being criticised by yourself for not being rigid, because it falls outside your own comfortable concept of what a christian is supposed to be? There is no emoticon strong enough on this message board to convey the shock I'm feeling. I have not criticised you, nor anyone else here. The remarks I made about the difficulties of people having their own interpretation on the Bible / Christianity was merely an observation to illustrate a point. The point being that your belief could differ greatly from another Christian's, despite your source being the same. The problem doesn't make my case any weaker as a sceptic, however it does weaken your case as someone from a collective group of Christians if your beliefs are contradictory to others of the same group.

a christian, in my understanding, is anyone who accepts the love, guidance and sacrifice of christ. Here in lieth the problem. That's your view of what a Christian is. I'm sure there are some orthodox Christians who would claim that a Christian is one who takes the Bible literally and follows its rules no matter what.

You can't claim to be part of a group and then complain when someone questions some of the integral aspects of that group by writing it off as me being 'close minded' or saying that I shouldn't be taking the Bible literally.

Do you believe God is non physical? Do you believe heaven is non physical?

I'm just trying to understand what your beliefs are in order to not jump the gun in future posts.

[mynameiskc]

you shouldn't be so shocked, i am who i am.

There is no emoticon strong enough on this message board to convey the shock I'm feeling. I have not criticised you, nor anyone else here. The remarks I made about the difficulties of people having their own interpretation on the Bible / Christianity was merely an observation to illustrate a point. The point being that your belief could differ greatly from another Christian's, despite your source being the same. The problem doesn't make my case any weaker as a sceptic, however it does weaken your case as someone from a collective group of Christians if your beliefs are contradictory to others of the same group.

-but you're ignoring completely my point that my christianity is in no way affected by anyone else's, it's me and god. there's as many different variations in christian interpretation and beliefs as there are christians. it's essential, and it's a very personal religion. that's it. how does your argument or point have anything to do with my belief? how does any orthodox christians?

Here in lieth the problem. That's your view of what a Christian is. I'm sure there are some orthodox Christians who would claim that a Christian is one who takes the Bible literally and follows its rules no matter what.

-as before stated, they have nothing to do with me, i'm not an orthodox ANYTHING, much less christian. my own opinion was asked, and i speak for myself, since i know very little of orthodox beliefs and cannot speak for them.

You can't claim to be part of a group and then complain when someone questions some of the integral aspects of that group by writing it off as me being 'close minded' or saying that I shouldn't be taking the Bible literally.

-lol, yes i can. i have no group outside of the very generalized concept of christian who accepts christ's sacrifice. this is where we're disagreeing. you seem to think that you can lump me in with part of a group/church with rules and regulations when that is not so. this is your assumption, not my own.

Do you believe God is non physical? Do you believe heaven is non physical?

-i believe god IS physical, since god is in everything. there is no matter outside of god, there is no reality outside of god. what we are able to witness is a part of our own mental barriers, both physcial and spritual.

I'm just trying to understand what your beliefs are in order to not jump the gun in future posts.

[glynos]

you shouldn't be so shocked, i am who i am
A more appropriate response would've been "I am what I am."

[mynameiskc]

A more appropriate response would've been "I am what I am."
did you see the rest of my responses to your statement within your quote? I forgot to tell you they were there.

as for "what i am," i'm confused. are you implying i'm not a "who?"