ftorresgamez

This is the first time I have been labeled as "arrogant" by asking a simple question. Still, I do not agree with you I'm being "arrogant".

Why would the act of creating an imperfect thing not violate his perfect attributes? Creating something imperfect means making a mistake. Would a perfect being make mistakes?

And how would you know He would not be required to make perfection? Required by whom? Now, who is being arrogant?

And why would God not be perfect?

ftorresgamez

So, if such a God was not intended to be "perfect", then what are the Christians worshiping? A really powerful alien being?

If so, what would be different between them and the Cargo Cult people?

scumble

As it is, the concept of perfection is pretty nebulous. Is it much more than a vague notion?

Koyaanisqatsi

I would take that one step further and get off at the depot. God got rid of them because now that they had knowledge of good and evil, they would reallize that eating from the tree of life would be the good thing to do in order to close the gap and be equal to the gods (btw). It's therefore god's jealousy; god's covetousness of it's own nature that motivates it casting Adam and Eve out of paradise.

Which, of course, makes perfect sense when one reads it properly; as cult control mythology. One "buys" the siren song, because the deity being sold is jeolous of mankind and casts him out of paradise due to this jealousy. Now, who at that time would the psychology of this storyline appeal to the most? Could it be to slaves who have been generationally oppressed by another "god;" the Pharoah?

Isn't it more likely, that this is merely a way to sell the product of Judaism, if not a more benign attempt to give oppressed people a sense of hope, no matter how false it is?

Our god (unlike our oppressor or his gods) is made in our image (looks like us, not them) and he bannished us to be oppressed slaves all of our lives because....we know right from wrong. Not them and their god, but us and our god, who, by the way and after you take that in, is also more powerful than their gods, since he is the one (out of those gods) who has the highest authority; the authority over man.

In almost the same verse, the author of Genesis establishes allusions to the Pharoahs and their gods, separates out the god (which is "our" god and not "their" god) as being more authoritative and bolsters up an oppressed group by implying that the reason they are suffering is because they are special; they are like god and this is why "he" oppresses them.

Picture the first Jewish cult rising out of generations upon generations of being poor, nomadic slaves, existing entirely at the whim of an all powerful being (Pharoah). Now throw in the fact that the "gods" of those days were completely useless for slaves. The Sun god? How does that help with their suffering? Their "god" was Pharoah; he had the power of life and death over them all.

Is it any surprise that such a group would form a mythology that elevated them all to the "chosen ones," at that the god resembles Pharoah, but is more authoritative than Pharoah is? What slave wouldn't want to hear that the being that has godlike power over their lives and deaths (Pharoah) is not the most powerful being? And that the gods that they worship are not as powerful as the One True God; the one who is even God over their own gods?

Does it further surprise anyone that the cult created then starts to immediately curtail and control their followers in the guise of saving it; by instilling in the mythology certain moral precepts of behavior that is deemed permissible by the cult creators? That's what a cult is. That's how you get people to join a cult. You find out what their problems are and then exploit them for your own desires.

The snake, is, of course and obviously, the penis that tempts the evil women of the world into making men disobey their cult leaders. The story of the snake and Eve (the snake tempts Eve, by the way; not Adam) is nothing more than a reference (replete in the Old and parts of the New) toward the seductive qualities of women and sex; that women and sex will make Adam do whatever they want Adam to do. The cult, therefore, is trying to counter that by making Adam do what they want him to do (Adam, of course, representing the followers, not humanity in general).

Sex is free, pleasurable and relaxing, which makes for very poor followers, so women are demonized immediately and the male dominance is reinforced. Remember, we're talking about slaves; people who have no choice but to follow a singular authority. And what cult forms as a result? Why a cult of followers who answer only to one, singular authority.

And what is the number one connection these followers have with their new one authority? Sacrifice of one's best grain and best breading stock. Why? So that they remain slaves.

Judaism is a horrifically oppressive cult that has arguably maintained oppression for its followers for thousands of years (to this day), because it is a psychologically based oppression; one based on generational transference of oppression.

It's no wonder to me that one fraud would beget another. After all, hiding in plain sight is the hallmark of arrogance; hence they even wrote into their own mythology that "evil begets evil."

Think about that and then reflect on who inflicted the first evil. If history teaches us anything, it's that, oppressed, desperate people will worship their oppressors if they think they aren't the oppressors.

Hence, Judaism; hence Islam; hence Christianity; hence slave mentality, generationally transferred over and over and over again.

Just like sheep to the sacrifice.

scumble

Interesting, Koy.

I have heard that some Jews actually accepted the holocaust, which would make sense in light of your theory there...

Devilnaut

Koy:
"Which, of course, makes perfect sense when one reads it properly; as cult control mythology. One "buys" the siren song, because the deity being sold is jeolous of mankind and casts him out of paradise due to this jealousy."


But, how do you avoid this? Isn't every idea and every concept just a product, waiting to be sold? Aren't we all just actors and liars trying to control eachother? It might sound crude, but think about it: how do we really know if someone is telling the truth? What is honesty? Is it tied to originality? Is everything that is derivative (and hence only a representation of something else and not really real) inherently dishonest?

Koyaanisqatsi

No.

I'm not seeing the point of your questions. Are you trying to argue that lies and fraud are to be assumed to be true anyway, because people are liars and frauds?

It's no great feat to determine if someone making a claim is telling the truth. All one need do is apply even the most basic of critical analysis to the claim.

Take the idea of sacrificing your best breeding stock or best grain. All anyone would have had to do (had they been free to do so, of course) is ask what in the world a god would need with a pound of grain or the slaughtered carcas of one "his" alleged creatures. A symbolic gesture that involves the actual death of an innocent creature? From a being that allegedly commanded that no one should kill and who has the alleged power of knowing all; of knowing whether or not one's belief were true without the unnecessary and detrimental ritualistic slaughtering of their best breeding stock?



It's a matter of conditioning, nothing more. The truth is easily discernable.

Dale Merlin

I never noticed this before:

And then later, he "gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life"?

WTF!?!? Did he change his mind somewhere along the line, or did he just not want to miss out on all those fun times like flooding the earth, destrying Sodom and Gomorrah, sending the plagues on the Egyptians, etc.?

mike_decock

I think it's pretty obvious that the NT authors took a lot of *ahem* "creative license" with OT interpretation.

-Mike...

Devilnaut

Why are you confused? I humbly disagree. I can't think of an idea that doesn't have to be sold.

Is that a problem? We've only exchanged a single post so far..


No

Maybe it is harder than you think to determine what is "true". Otherwise you probably wouldn't ever be confused or have to ask me what I mean.

"Is it true that God exists?"

You'll probably say no, but wouldn't the smarter question be to try to figure out what I mean by God? If it's easy to figure out what's true and what's false, most people must be correct in what they say, most of the time, right?


But perhaps all this reasoning, while it certainly seems fullproof while it operates inside its own box of parameters, is based upon a faulty notion of God? Or a faulty notion of "you"... or a faulty notion of "sacrifice".

Have you ever tried cooperating with all of these folks that seem so obviously incorrect, instead of fighting them? They are people too, and the fact that truth is so easy to obtain should really affect them as well...

For instance, I noticed you didn't ask about the part of my post that mentioned originality and honesty. And I'm going to make a guess here (please correct me if I'm wrong)... but I'd say you picked the parts of my post to reply to that you found it easiest to fight against?