Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-08-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

I find this biblical passage to be both true, and beautiful.

But why should anyone else agree with you?

Since you have already admitted that the Bible contains errors, why do you quote the Bible? How certain are you that Adam and Eve existed? How do you determine which parts of the Bible are true, and which parts are false.

Even if the story of Adam and Eve is true, that is reason enough for people to reject Christianity. First of all, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God has forced everyone to commit sins at least some of the time. That is wrong. Second of all, it was wrong for God to unnecessarily create such harsh conditions in the world after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. There are not any fair, just, and reasonable goals that cannot be achieved without God injuring and killing people with hurricanes. Third of all, it was wrong for God to cause animals to kill each other after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Or, it was wrong for God to cause dinosaurs to kill each other before he created Adam and Eve, which would have been even worse.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject it because your emotional perceived self-interest has caused you to reject any promises that you believe will not ultimately benefit you.

Time and chance decide what people believe, not God. Under certain circumstances, there is no way that you would have heard about the God of the Bible. No early native Americans Indians heard about the God of the Bible.

Baalazel · 01-08-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

It's a stupid story anyway. It's all about the glory of ignorance and the evil of knowledge. It's about a creator who wants to keep his creation childlike and incurious. What modern person would take it seriously or believe it teaches anything worth knowing?

No Roland, it is about the courage of a woman who took on the Almighty and won our humanity. Read the story with that point of view and see if it makes more sense.

Baal

xaxxat · 01-08-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

No Roland, it is about the courage of a woman who took on the Almighty and won our humanity. Read the story with that point of view and see if it makes more sense.

Baal

Yeah, but she picked the wrong tree. Think about how much fun it would have been if she had gone for immortality first...

Baalazel · 01-08-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

No Roland, it is about the courage of a woman who took on the Almighty and won our humanity. Read the story with that point of view and see if it makes more sense.

Baal

Yeah, but she picked the wrong tree. Think about how much fun it would have been if she had gone for immortality first...

A woman who doesn't know good from evil but lives forever. I'll have to think about it for a while.

Baal

Malachi151 · 01-08-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

It's a stupid story anyway. It's all about the glory of ignorance and the evil of knowledge. It's about a creator who wants to keep his creation childlike and incurious. What modern person would take it seriously or believe it teaches anything worth knowing?

No Roland, it is about the courage of a woman who took on the Almighty and won our humanity. Read the story with that point of view and see if it makes more sense.

Baal

Its actually a very interesting and informative story about the origins of civilization and the process of "wild people" coming into the cities and learning and becoming civilized and being brought under the law.

angelo · 01-09-2008, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Oh, brother...

:banghead:

Double that.

:Cheeky: :notworthy:

That's preaching if I ever heard it. :banghead:

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Speak for yourself.

Matt Stone · 01-09-2008, 05:12 AM

I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

I find this biblical passage to be both true,and beautiful.

It's good that you find it true and beautiful. How is it true? In what capacity is there truth? In the existence of Adam and Eve as real human beings, or in the principals of the story?

Quote:

It is a perfect demonstration of Gods consistent character in regards to his dealing with man.

How is he consistent? The only consistency is that he punishes them with the same sentence for a huge array of offenses that are widely varying in comparative severity, etc.

Quote:

God states that without faith it is impossible to please God.For you have to first believe that he is,and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.

Why? Why is belief without evidence such a virtue? Why isn't evaluation through reason, a faculty that is "god given," of greater virtue than ignorant reliance on unprovable, unsubstantiated theories?

Quote:

It further states that whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Well, of course it does.

How else do you justify your own BS without adding in BS caveats? Can't explain it through your understanding of god? Claim that god is beyond understanding (the fact that it contradicts the original claim(s) notwithstanding). What else would it say? "Don't believe in me, and you'll still be okay, no worries?" I doubt it.

Quote:

It appears that Adam had what was ideal and what all of Christians long for.

Precisely. A child-like innocence and unquestioning acceptance of whatever the authority figure(s) promulgate(s), establishing the "divine" and unquestionable authority of said authority figure(s), and condemning the slightest variance or disagreement with the most severe penalties possible, the better to ensure their pet-like servility as well as the continued power of those who "speak for God."

Quote:

That is they literally fellowshipped with God,intimately in this utopian garden.

WTF does "fellowship" mean, as a verb? It's a noun, not a verb; it's something you have, not something you do. It's a BS contrived usage by religious who want a special word to describe their "hanging out together." The dictionary definition of "fellowship" includes the "company of friends or equals." So, does this "fellowship" with God imply that Adam and Eve were equal to God? I grasp that that's not what you intended to say, but the proper employment of that word, in it's correct usage (as opposed to its common usage; people commonly mispronounce "specific" as "pacific," but that doesn't make it right), does in fact imply just that.

Quote:

Dare I say it is what every atheist and agnostic demands,show me yourself then only will I believe!

Precisely! So, if God could walk and talk and hang out all day with Adam and Eve, what stops him (can anything stop him?) from showing himself and clearing up all the confusion? Adam and Eve didn't have faith - they saw God right there in front of them!!! By your own argument, they lacked faith but had knowledge of God from direct observation - the same thing non-believers would accept as proof of God's existence in the first place (or the same thing God seems unwilling or unable to provide).

Quote:

Yet they did not possess what only we can have.Dare I say it? It is the word that we Christians come to love,and Agnostics and atheist alike despise.Why don't we all say it in unison: FAITH:Cheeky:

See above. Of course they didn't have faith; there was no need to believe without seeing/knowing, as they walked and talked with God daily.

Quote:

Faith involves persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.There is no way they could have had this absent their ability to know right from wrong or good from evil.

How could they know "false" if they couldn't tell the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, etc. Truth/falsehood is just another aspect of the same dualistic description process. You cannot know "hot" without having "not hot" with which to compare it.

Quote:

So we have a situation where man is dumb fat and happy,and God is saying this is not it.It's not enough for you to know that I exist,I need you to have trust in me.

Why? What's God's big hang up on the trust/faith issue? Why won't he just prove things? What's the mechanism of redemption that is so intrinsically bound up in blind faith belief?

Quote:

So God orchestrated the events that would bring this about.For you can't have trust without conflict.

What? God orchestrated the fall, and subsequent demise/destruction/damnation of his evidently most favored creation just to make a point about trust? Sounds like BS again...

Quote:

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

No, you could, but you'd have to have some pretty severe emotional issues powering your pen and inspiring your story arc.

Quote:

So Adam had no advantage over us his position not to be envied.He needed to have faith just as we,and he had to come by it honestly.He fell flat on his face following his wife in her disobedience.

Do you not see (apparently you don't) the contradictions in this? Adam and Eve were innocent and could not have known the difference between right and wrong beyond the explicit threat of violent action from God for disobedience. There was no appeal to their intellect, no attempt at creating an understanding of the consequences of their actions, just the fear of retaliation. Where is trust supposed to be earned? Where is the relationship developed so Adam or Eve would "trust" God, especially when he threatened them with death for doing nothing more than learning the difference between right and wrong (something God apparently expected them to know in the first place, and punished them for simultaneously not knowing and learning)?

Quote:

So in their disobedience they learned that God was faithful to do just as he said,and in learning they were able to walk as God intended them to.

WTF??? So, through disobeying, they didn't learn that "God was faithful," rather they learned he was vengeful and would certainly follow up on his threats. There was no lesson beyond "do what I told you not to do, and you'll be punished." Nothing there about trusting in him, just plenty about being afraid to piss him off...

Quote:

They walked by faith,not by sight.They were cast from the sight of God,that place that contained the tree of life.

Whatever that's supposed to mean... It's not even good poetry. It's contrived nonsense. What's "walking by faith, not by sight" even mean? Closing your eyes and walking, in the "faith" that the ground will be there, is BS; the ground will be there not because you have faith that it will, but rather you have direct knowledge that it will be there. Walking with your eyes closed where you might have reason to believe the ground might open up isn't "faith," it's "stupid" and "dangerous" and proves you lack "common sense."

Quote:

This tree was and still is guarded by the sword.The sword is his holy word,the bible which still guards the tree of life.

More bad poetry, nothing else.

Quote:

Lord show me a sign that I might believe.

You can pray this prayer and still say non-believers have to have faith??? Why do you need a sign if you have faith? Still more contradictory BS.

Quote:

Lord anything but that sword which turns every way so that I can not access this tree of life you speak of.For in passing through it it will surely cut off my flesh and kill me.

Bad poetry.

Quote:

Hebrews 4 vs 12-13 For the word of God is living and active.Sharper than any double edged sword,it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,joints and marrow: it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Bad poetry.

Quote:

Nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight.Everything is uncovered and laid before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Sure. Definitely something to reiterate endlessly. We get the fact that he's all knowing, all powerful, all seeing, all everything, except when it's not convenient for that definition to really apply, in which case he's just as limited as his flawed creations, thereby denying his all everything nature and proving he's not really God in the first place...

Thoughts from those of you able to reason?

sonofone · 01-09-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Stone

I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

I find this biblical passage to be both true,and beautiful.

It's good that you find it true and beautiful. How is it true? In what capacity is there truth? In the existence of Adam and Eve as real human beings, or in the principals of the story?

How is he consistent? The only consistency is that he punishes them with the same sentence for a huge array of offenses that are widely varying in comparative severity, etc.

Why? Why is belief without evidence such a virtue? Why isn't evaluation through reason, a faculty that is "god given," of greater virtue than ignorant reliance on unprovable, unsubstantiated theories?

Well, of course it does.

How else do you justify your own BS without adding in BS caveats? Can't explain it through your understanding of god? Claim that god is beyond understanding (the fact that it contradicts the original claim(s) notwithstanding). What else would it say? "Don't believe in me, and you'll still be okay, no worries?" I doubt it.

Precisely. A child-like innocence and unquestioning acceptance of whatever the authority figure(s) promulgate(s), establishing the "divine" and unquestionable authority of said authority figure(s), and condemning the slightest variance or disagreement with the most severe penalties possible, the better to ensure their pet-like servility as well as the continued power of those who "speak for God."

WTF does "fellowship" mean, as a verb? It's a noun, not a verb; it's something you have, not something you do. It's a BS contrived usage by religious who want a special word to describe their "hanging out together." The dictionary definition of "fellowship" includes the "company of friends or equals." So, does this "fellowship" with God imply that Adam and Eve were equal to God? I grasp that that's not what you intended to say, but the proper employment of that word, in it's correct usage (as opposed to its common usage; people commonly mispronounce "specific" as "pacific," but that doesn't make it right), does in fact imply just that.

Precisely! So, if God could walk and talk and hang out all day with Adam and Eve, what stops him (can anything stop him?) from showing himself and clearing up all the confusion? Adam and Eve didn't have faith - they saw God right there in front of them!!! By your own argument, they lacked faith but had knowledge of God from direct observation - the same thing non-believers would accept as proof of God's existence in the first place (or the same thing God seems unwilling or unable to provide).

See above. Of course they didn't have faith; there was no need to believe without seeing/knowing, as they walked and talked with God daily.

How could they know "false" if they couldn't tell the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, etc. Truth/falsehood is just another aspect of the same dualistic description process. You cannot know "hot" without having "not hot" with which to compare it.

Why? What's God's big hang up on the trust/faith issue? Why won't he just prove things? What's the mechanism of redemption that is so intrinsically bound up in blind faith belief?

What? God orchestrated the fall, and subsequent demise/destruction/damnation of his evidently most favored creation just to make a point about trust? Sounds like BS again...

No, you could, but you'd have to have some pretty severe emotional issues powering your pen and inspiring your story arc.

Do you not see (apparently you don't) the contradictions in this? Adam and Eve were innocent and could not have known the difference between right and wrong beyond the explicit threat of violent action from God for disobedience. There was no appeal to their intellect, no attempt at creating an understanding of the consequences of their actions, just the fear of retaliation. Where is trust supposed to be earned? Where is the relationship developed so Adam or Eve would "trust" God, especially when he threatened them with death for doing nothing more than learning the difference between right and wrong (something God apparently expected them to know in the first place, and punished them for simultaneously not knowing and learning)?

WTF??? So, through disobeying, they didn't learn that "God was faithful," rather they learned he was vengeful and would certainly follow up on his threats. There was no lesson beyond "do what I told you not to do, and you'll be punished." Nothing there about trusting in him, just plenty about being afraid to piss him off...

Whatever that's supposed to mean... It's not even good poetry. It's contrived nonsense. What's "walking by faith, not by sight" even mean? Closing your eyes and walking, in the "faith" that the ground will be there, is BS; the ground will be there not because you have faith that it will, but rather you have direct knowledge that it will be there. Walking with your eyes closed where you might have reason to believe the ground might open up isn't "faith," it's "stupid" and "dangerous" and proves you lack "common sense."

More bad poetry, nothing else.

You can pray this prayer and still say non-believers have to have faith??? Why do you need a sign if you have faith? Still more contradictory BS.

Bad poetry.

Bad poetry.

Quote:

Nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight.Everything is uncovered and laid before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Sure. Definitely something to reiterate endlessly. We get the fact that he's all knowing, all powerful, all seeing, all everything, except when it's not convenient for that definition to really apply, in which case he's just as limited as his flawed creations, thereby denying his all everything nature and proving he's not really God in the first place...

Thoughts from those of you able to reason?

The only thought I can offer you is that you too like Nicodemus and so many others can not grasp what has been hidden.

Matt Stone · 01-09-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

The only thought I can offer you is that you too like Nicodemus and so many others can not grasp what has been hidden.

There's the problem... Why does it have to be hidden? Why can't simple information, that an allegedly all-everything deity apparently wants me to have because he really, really loves me, be promulgated in a manner in which there is little room to debate its authenticity and veracity? With free will, mankind will still have the choice to listen or not - just like children growing up in their parents' homes - so that's a non-issue.

Why the smoke and mirrors? Why all the bad poetry and confusing wording? Why can't God just say what he has to say, in a manner that won't befuddle the listeners (regardless of their cultural and linguistic origins), and let us work it out from there?

Because holy books are written by men to subjugate the intellects of other men, providing the writers with power, position, and entitlement. Nothing more.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.