Questions from an Atheist about God

[shmogie]

But why would you have to proof free will can be abused, I don't really get that, isn't it obvious that it can? I mean God must realize that we know that by now, I would even go as far as to say that the story about Cain and Abel should have been enough to proof that it could be abused. And would go even further and say that the moment Adam and Eve ate from the tree that they would have discovered this as well.

The entire process needs to be played out so that it can be totally clear that humanity cannot at any point wise up and correct their problems.

Your scenario begs the question, if they had had time to learn from their mistakes, humans could have solved their problems, eliminated conflict, eliminated disease pain and suffering.

God wants it clear that humanity had all the time it needed without following him. to provide what he can provide.

 

[Nimos]

I want to break it up a bit, as I do actually agree with some of the points, even though we might see it differently.

Whether we are believers or not we feel an inward desire to do what is right and good that appears to be unique in the sphere of the animal realm.

I would agree with that, I share the view that we from a very early age as we developer self consciousness start the process of "figuring" out desires. I find this article quite interesting about babies:

Most psychologists have believed that children cannot really lie until about four years of age. But after dozens of interviews with parents, and years spent observing children, Dr. Reddy has determined that infants as young as seven months are quite skilled at pulling the wool over their parents' eyes.

Rather than being a sign that your child is the next James Frey or Richard Nixon, Dr. Reddy says, baby lies are simply part of learning social interaction.

Long before children can understand complex ideas about truth and deception, Dr. Reddy writes in the April issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, "they are engaging in subtle manipulations of their own and others' actions, which succeed in deceiving others at least temporarily."

"If crying is normally closely connected to some discomfort or distress, and this is its typical use, then disconnecting it from that typical use and using it more deliberately or instrumentally to get attention constitutes its fakeness."

But babies don't deceive their parents out of some malevolent impulse. On the contrary, it's their way of striking up a conversation, Dr. Reddy theorizes.

Humans are born with a desire to get emotional responses from others - lacking vocabulary and mobility, babies may find trickery is an excellent way to make parents react.

The full article can be read here: Sneaky babies learn to lie before they learn to talk

Whether we can make similarities to other parts of the animal realm, im not sure, as it might be connected to our brains and animals might simply not have the capabilities for such thing. So they would react or appear to do, based more on instincts rather than the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Otherwise they might have had a go at the tree of knowledge as well, which would probably not turn out to well, taking into account how we humans treat them

Indeed in the world a lot of injustice happens whether by nature or by humanity yet we feel this should not be so in our hearts.

I would probably disagree with this, unless I misunderstood you. But at least to me, injustice in nature doesn't exist as I see it, which is simply because, why should nature care? When talking about injustice, I think its a human emotional tag that we throw on nature, because we perceive something as being so. Which I assume is solely linked to the complexity of our brain and failure to understand the "rules" of nature.

B. The Biblical description of this mysterious reality is that it arose our of humanities' earliest experience having been created by God and put in a situation in which it might have been otherwise. The implication is that however one finds one self in a reality A. one can choose something better.

Now my view is that in today's over-emphasis on rationality and the factual, believers and non-believers read the Biblical story as B. first and A. second. They should BOTH however read the reality A as primary while using B as inspirational to continue the struggle to do good in an otherwise amoral or immoral reality.

I might have misunderstood you, So what you are saying is, that we should look at the reality we live in and then try or apply that to the bible? I think I lost you somewhere, your view is very different from anything I have ever heard before or it might simply be because I misunderstand it

How would you describe God as you see and experience him? What is he capable of?

Do you think the Bible describe him well as you see him?

 

[Nimos]

In the case of Adam and Eve - they did know. Although Eve was deceived because she added to the commandment statements that were not true - she still violated what she thought to be true. Adam knew better.

But if Eve were created with free will, weren't she allowed to make that choice, even though she unluckily chose the wrong one? Otherwise what would be the point of free will, if there are choices she are not allowed to make?

Everybody has some sense of what is right and wrong - even if they are wrong - they still violate their own sense of right and wrong and it is still sin for them.

My view is, that its not possible to do that. Its like a lion killing a new born gazelle and eating it, knowing it have no chance to defend it self or for anything to help it, why would the lion think that it is wrong, it could kill some old one that have at least lived for a while? An to me, Adam and Eve would not be more capable of making such judgement, when they don't know the difference. To me, I think the a decent argument against what Im saying, or at least for a while as it also falls short as I see it, would be the threat of dying maybe, as it would sort of be the same of us not jumping off cliffs in massive numbers. But then are we truly afraid of dying? or do people fear potential ways to die? Personal for me, I don't fear it. Lets say I were hit by a meteor or something, I really couldn't care less.
But trapped in a burning house for several hours slowly knowing that there were no way out or drowning, I really wouldn't like. Then you could argue whether there is something wrong in jumping off a cliff. For some people taking their own life is considered the best solution, so how do you explain that. Which is not easy either, as I think its difficult to make a case for it, I don't think its an easy choice to make for those that end up doing it, but the fact that they do, must proof that it is considered the best solution that they could see at least. Whether the rest of us agree with it or not.

Otherwise an example of how you could do something that is considered right or wrong without knowing good from evil.

I think 10 questions might be hard to answer all at one time since I’m sure that with just one it will produce more questions and make the post too long.

Focusing on one is fine, I know its not simply yes/no answers

 

[Nimos]

The entire process needs to be played out so that it can be totally clear that humanity cannot at any point wise up and correct their problems.

Your scenario begs the question, if they had had time to learn from their mistakes, humans could have solved their problems, eliminated conflict, eliminated disease pain and suffering.

God wants it clear that humanity had all the time it needed without following him. to provide what he can provide.

Not really following you, because from how I understand you. It needs to be like this, so God want or "forces" it to fail without giving us a chance, it doesn't really feel like much of lesson or something we can learn anything from, if the conclusion is decided before hand? Did I misunderstand you?

 

[sealchan]

I want to break it up a bit, as I do actually agree with some of the points, even though we might see it differently.


I would agree with that, I share the view that we from a very early age as we developer self consciousness start the process of "figuring" out desires. I find this article quite interesting about babies:

Most psychologists have believed that children cannot really lie until about four years of age. But after dozens of interviews with parents, and years spent observing children, Dr. Reddy has determined that infants as young as seven months are quite skilled at pulling the wool over their parents' eyes.

Rather than being a sign that your child is the next James Frey or Richard Nixon, Dr. Reddy says, baby lies are simply part of learning social interaction.

Long before children can understand complex ideas about truth and deception, Dr. Reddy writes in the April issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, "they are engaging in subtle manipulations of their own and others' actions, which succeed in deceiving others at least temporarily."

"If crying is normally closely connected to some discomfort or distress, and this is its typical use, then disconnecting it from that typical use and using it more deliberately or instrumentally to get attention constitutes its fakeness."

But babies don't deceive their parents out of some malevolent impulse. On the contrary, it's their way of striking up a conversation, Dr. Reddy theorizes.

Humans are born with a desire to get emotional responses from others - lacking vocabulary and mobility, babies may find trickery is an excellent way to make parents react.

The full article can be read here: Sneaky babies learn to lie before they learn to talk

Whether we can make similarities to other parts of the animal realm, im not sure, as it might be connected to our brains and animals might simply not have the capabilities for such thing. So they would react or appear to do, based more on instincts rather than the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Otherwise they might have had a go at the tree of knowledge as well, which would probably not turn out to well, taking into account how we humans treat them

Interesting stuff! Understanding how we first experience "lying" as we develop I think is fascinating in the light of the story of The Fall which, to me, has a basis in truth if it speaks to our actual direct experience of how we become moral agents who are, in turn, capable of being judged for our actions. As a child who says things in order to learn of the utility of those things producing results that meet the child's needs, how might this reality shed light on the story of Adam and Eve as "adults" who exhibit a child-like naivete regarding moral issues?

I would probably disagree with this, unless I misunderstood you. But at least to me, injustice in nature doesn't exist as I see it, which is simply because, why should nature care? When talking about injustice, I think its a human emotional tag that we throw on nature, because we perceive something as being so. Which I assume is solely linked to the complexity of our brain and failure to understand the "rules" of nature.

In my previous post I glossed over the idea that we recognize that in nature animals do not have moral agency. I see nature as amoral (not concerned one way or the other with morality) with the exception that some animals do have some recognizably moral behaviors when we look at those animals most closely related to ourselves. But my point really is that our human morality seems to clearly not appreciate being subject to matters of life and death as mere opportunities and happenstance. We would much prefer that the process not be wasteful and cruel. So I agree with your disagreement here.

I might have misunderstood you, So what you are saying is, that we should look at the reality we live in and then try or apply that to the bible? I think I lost you somewhere, your view is very different from anything I have ever heard before or it might simply be because I misunderstand it

Yes this is essentially correct. My view is originally inspired by Joseph Campbell whose take on myth is that it is literature written or spoken in order to put us in contact with the mystery and possibility of human experience. Myth helps us to make meaning of our real experience and if taken literally the meaning, the spiritual dimension, is destroyed. Myth, like much of the world's great literary works, is an art and it speaks to the creativity of the human psyche. Much of myth can find its roots in the dreams and visions of those who told of their strange experiences. These experiences at some level touch on objective qualities of our psyche and give us "leverage" on effecting change in our consciousness on many levels. In a way hearing the right story, the right myth, at the right moment in one's life when one is struggling with an inner conflict, can sort of bootstrap you right out of that inner conflict by presenting you with a creative "work-around" to one's long-developed sense of the inevitable and inescapable.

The stories in any sacred work of literature must successfully speak to our actual human experience or they fail to communicate any significant truth that has a chance to impact us at the psychological level and effect real change. The idea that a religion is merely a set of truth propositions that one has to declare loyalty to and that there is no demonstrable impact or need to prove the efficacy of such beliefs is a modern corruption of the understanding of what religion is supposed to be about.

How would you describe God as you see and experience him? What is he capable of?

Do you think the Bible describe him well as you see him?

For me I have experienced God in two specific instances as follows:

• a necessary imaginal other who is responsible for the creation of the Universe
• a fearsome approaching presence in a dream

I also have a fairly clear sense of what it is like to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit where one is experiencing loss and suffering but you feel "strangely uplifted" in the midst of that.

I believe that the description of Abraham's encounters with God is very much similar to my own. I also believe that many people have had dreams involving God which share many similar motifs to my own dream experience. As such I see God as a psychological reality and I make no claims regarding his existence outside of the human psyche. i see the human psyche as part of the layered creative unfolding of systems in creation (so the chemical system out of the physical, the biological out of the chemical, etc.) that has evolved over time. I may primarily use language that reflects the Biblical view but I have also a deep appreciation and affinity with the Hindu and Buddhist understandings. I find myself in a culture which is primarily Christian and so I find my subjective, spiritual experience is most easily understood and described in that context.

I would actually say that I feel called by God to share my thoughts on this subject. I am, however, as confortable in the world of science as I am in the world of faith. My willingness to enter into the "fantasy" of faith may unsettle my atheist acquaintances while my calling my faith an act of imagination unsettles my believer acquaintances. I am living in-between the two attitudes convinced that that is the ideal place to be even if it is difficult to communicate in many cases. My participation on this forum is largely fueled by my desire to share this perspective and to explore it more fully in dialog with others who care to think about such things whether from a perspective of belief or non-belief.

 

[MJFlores]

So it could explain why he doesn't put up a fight at the crucifixion maybe, is that correct?

Yes, he showed the example.
What great love is.

John 15:13 New International Version (NIV)
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

The real reason why the Lord Jesus did not put up a fight is to fulfill the prophecies

Isaiah 53:3-12 New International Version (NIV)
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

But it have no meaning for us as individuals? as its about enemies of Jesus and not those that is out to hurt or destroy you personally?

 

[Nimos]

Interesting stuff! Understanding how we first experience "lying" as we develop I think is fascinating in the light of the story of The Fall which, to me, has a basis in truth if it speaks to our actual direct experience of how we become moral agents who are, in turn, capable of being judged for our actions. As a child who says things in order to learn of the utility of those things producing results that meet the child's needs, how might this reality shed light on the story of Adam and Eve as "adults" who exhibit a child-like naivete regarding moral issues?



In my previous post I glossed over the idea that we recognize that in nature animals do not have moral agency. I see nature as amoral (not concerned one way or the other with morality) with the exception that some animals do have some recognizably moral behaviors when we look at those animals most closely related to ourselves. But my point really is that our human morality seems to clearly not appreciate being subject to matters of life and death as mere opportunities and happenstance. We would much prefer that the process not be wasteful and cruel. So I agree with your disagreement here.



Yes this is essentially correct. My view is originally inspired by Joseph Campbell whose take on myth is that it is literature written or spoken in order to put us in contact with the mystery and possibility of human experience. Myth helps us to make meaning of our real experience and if taken literally the meaning, the spiritual dimension, is destroyed. Myth, like much of the world's great literary works, is an art and it speaks to the creativity of the human psyche. Much of myth can find its roots in the dreams and visions of those who told of their strange experiences. These experiences at some level touch on objective qualities of our psyche and give us "leverage" on effecting change in our consciousness on many levels. In a way hearing the right story, the right myth, at the right moment in one's life when one is struggling with an inner conflict, can sort of bootstrap you right out of that inner conflict by presenting you with a creative "work-around" to one's long-developed sense of the inevitable and inescapable.

The stories in any sacred work of literature must successfully speak to our actual human experience or they fail to communicate any significant truth that has a chance to impact us at the psychological level and effect real change. The idea that a religion is merely a set of truth propositions that one has to declare loyalty to and that there is no demonstrable impact or need to prove the efficacy of such beliefs is a modern corruption of the understanding of what religion is supposed to be about.



For me I have experienced God in two specific instances as follows:

• a necessary imaginal other who is responsible for the creation of the Universe
• a fearsome approaching presence in a dream

I also have a fairly clear sense of what it is like to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit where one is experiencing loss and suffering but you feel "strangely uplifted" in the midst of that.

I believe that the description of Abraham's encounters with God is very much similar to my own. I also believe that many people have had dreams involving God which share many similar motifs to my own dream experience. As such I see God as a psychological reality and I make no claims regarding his existence outside of the human psyche. i see the human psyche as part of the layered creative unfolding of systems in creation (so the chemical system out of the physical, the biological out of the chemical, etc.) that has evolved over time. I may primarily use language that reflects the Biblical view but I have also a deep appreciation and affinity with the Hindu and Buddhist understandings. I find myself in a culture which is primarily Christian and so I find my subjective, spiritual experience is most easily understood and described in that context.

I would actually say that I feel called by God to share my thoughts on this subject. I am, however, as confortable in the world of science as I am in the world of faith. My willingness to enter into the "fantasy" of faith may unsettle my atheist acquaintances while my calling my faith an act of imagination unsettles my believer acquaintances. I am living in-between the two attitudes convinced that that is the ideal place to be even if it is difficult to communicate in many cases. My participation on this forum is largely fueled by my desire to share this perspective and to explore it more fully in dialog with others who care to think about such things whether from a perspective of belief or non-belief.

Interesting view. This is just me wondering, you write the you live in a Christian culture and in the top right, the quick info box, or what its called. You have written that as well. But from what you write, it doesn't seem as if you share a lot of the common views that other Christians do. So you saying that you experienced an encounter much similar to that of Abraham is that the main reason, why you call yourself a Christian and how did you come to the conclusion that this were the biblical God and not some other?

And in the cases where you meet contradictions, I know you said (pretty sure it were you ) that you saw it as a way of teaching or lesson. How do you decide what is correct, meaning your experience of reality, as I think you called it or what is written in the bible which I understood you saw more as a spiritual thing? Because to me it seems like its "A God" that you believe exist, but don't really get the impression or see the reason why or how you get to the conclusion that it should be the God of the bible?

 

[Nimos]

Yes, he showed the example.
What great love is.

John 15:13 New International Version (NIV)
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

The real reason why the Lord Jesus did not put up a fight is to fulfill the prophecies

Isaiah 53:3-12 New International Version (NIV)
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Ok cool, I see what you mean

 

[shmogie]

Not really following you, because from how I understand you. It needs to be like this, so God want or "forces" it to fail without giving us a chance, it doesn't really feel like much of lesson or something we can learn anything from, if the conclusion is decided before hand? Did I misunderstand you?

No, not at all. You aren´t following me.

From the beginning, it has been free choices right down the line. Humanity is free to choose whatever it wants to mitigate crime, murder,rape, child abuse, whatever. It continually fails.

If you tell your child not to touch the stove, and he does, whose fault is that ? What if your child says ¨ I don´t care about what you say is best for me, I am going to do to touch the stove whenever I choose. I am going to do whatever I want. The kid does exactly what he wants, till he kills someone and winds up in prison.

Humanity has said, we will do it our way, we don´t care about what you think is best, just like your kid.

Collectively it is disaster after disaster.

 

[sealchan]

Interesting view. This is just me wondering, you write the you live in a Christian culture and in the top right, the quick info box, or what its called. You have written that as well. But from what you write, it doesn't seem as if you share a lot of the common views that other Christians do. So you saying that you experienced an encounter much similar to that of Abraham is that the main reason, why you call yourself a Christian and how did you come to the conclusion that this were the biblical God and not some other?

And in the cases where you meet contradictions, I know you said (pretty sure it were you ) that you saw it as a way of teaching or lesson. How do you decide what is correct, meaning your experience of reality, as I think you called it or what is written in the bible which I understood you saw more as a spiritual thing? Because to me it seems like its "A God" that you believe exist, but don't really get the impression or see the reason why or how you get to the conclusion that it should be the God of the bible?

My answer is complicated, but I will try and keep it brief. Your questions to me are more spot on as to how I wonder what other people make of me than I usually receive. In short, I was an atheist before I came to identify as a believer. I believe that what religions are speaking of are truths of psychological experience but for whatever reason seen as more or less literal truths rather than "merely" cherished stories with deep wisdom. I see that there are Christian preachers who have found the gold in the Bible in terms of psychological wisdom (like Joyce Meyers). I feel that I have had objective experiences which can be interpreted as part of the Judeo-Christian religious experience even as they are typical sorts of experiences that can be classified by a scientist as a God experience and explained as brain activity. So I feel myself with one foot squarely planted within Christianity and one foot squarely planted outside and in a skeptical position with respect to Christianities' exclusive value.

I literally feel I could see myself as an atheist but then I would be abdicating my subjective experience and its deep meaning as well as obfuscating that same deep subjective sense of God's truth that so many others have that I could sincerely relate to. I accept the responsibility for just criticisms of Christianity and acknowledging the need of "my faith" to hold itself accountable. In many ways I feel caught between two truths and I am, like the original Rusalka fairy tale protagonist, caught between two worlds. But I also believe that Christ's crucifixion is symbolic of the need for all of us to put ourselves in the same situation whether it is between belief and non-belief or liberalism and conservatism...whatever the polarizations are in our society we should find our truth personally outside a single community and suffer the criticism of trying to live in both realities simultaneously. In a way I believe that through a sort of "cognitive dissonance" we find a truth with more depth which is analogous to how the two eyes combine their separate 2-dimensional maps of the visual world and through differences in those two maps create a sense of depth (Depth Perception).

One of my personal revelations is the metaphor that truth is like looking at the world with two eyes, you can only see the world with depth if you use more than one way of knowing.

 

[sealchan]

And in the cases where you meet contradictions, I know you said (pretty sure it were you ) that you saw it as a way of teaching or lesson. How do you decide what is correct, meaning your experience of reality, as I think you called it or what is written in the bible which I understood you saw more as a spiritual thing? Because to me it seems like its "A God" that you believe exist, but don't really get the impression or see the reason why or how you get to the conclusion that it should be the God of the bible?

I actually have a sort of multi-modal way of approaching truth. I believe that each of our brains processes what we might call truth in four basic ways:

• Irrational truths - perceptions in the form of sensory information and a complimentary intuitive pattern recognition mechanism
• Rational truths - a mental stitching together in a comprehensive and cohesive way of word-definitions as well as value statements associated with moral agents

So my idea is that each type of truth-mode is differently preferred and/or utilized by various ways of knowing (such as a religions belief system or the methodology of science) and that one can provide perspective for the other with none being categorically superior in all things such that all truth resolves into a single way of knowing.

I think that Biblical stories and other stories (I have recently become a huge fan of the Mahabharata) can help us become aware of those mysteries of our existence that we might tend to forget. For example how we seem to be born out of an immoral nature but have this added burden of a moral sensitivity to deal with. We forget about this but reading a story such as in Genesis, we are reminded of it. Being reminded of it we can see our personal struggles in a better light whether or not we buy literally into the existence of A God. The Genesis story does a great job of showing how our own sense of free will plays into our experience of our moral awareness.

But if I look at other stories such as Carl Sagan's Contact or various figures in the Mahabharata who have their personal qualities and make choices whose outcomes are unwelcome but, perhaps, unavoidable at some point no matter how virtuous they are...you get to see a deeper pattern than any one story can tell. We seem to be caught in a web of choice which links everything back upon itself in a way that our very sense of who we are is eventually challenged by the choices we "freely" make. How do we come to understand and accept this state of affairs?

By reading these sacred stories we live through various different answers to essentially the same question. We realize we are not alone and that people from all over the world struggle with these questions. The answers must be deeply embedded in our experience. Stories are a form of experience sharing that allows us to add to our personal experience without having to reproduce the risk. But the impact of empathizing with the stories characters leads us through, at some level, the same emotional journey and grants us a benefit by merely reading it. This benefit is, in fact, explicitly claimed within the text of the Mahabharata itself.

If I say that my experience matches to that of the Christian tradition I am not necessarily saying that it matches exclusively to that tradition. But the fact that I live in a Christian culture means that I am statistically likely to have the best spiritual language for interpreting my raw psychological experience in terms of the Christian tradition because of the availability of that tradition to me. I recognize this subjective fact and allow it to influence me even as I fully acknowledge the subjectivity of that statement. I see that an honestly lived religious approach to life is sufficient to serve one's spiritual needs even if it is not the only way of doing so. Its very much like language...it would take a great deal of effort to learn a second language and that would undoubtedly benefit me, but I can certainly spend a lifetime getting my knowledge out of the language I was born into.

 

[Nimos]

No, not at all. You aren´t following me.

From the beginning, it has been free choices right down the line. Humanity is free to choose whatever it wants to mitigate crime, murder,rape, child abuse, whatever. It continually fails.

If you tell your child not to touch the stove, and he does, whose fault is that ? What if your child says ¨ I don´t care about what you say is best for me, I am going to do to touch the stove whenever I choose. I am going to do whatever I want. The kid does exactly what he wants, till he kills someone and winds up in prison.

Humanity has said, we will do it our way, we don´t care about what you think is best, just like your kid.

Collectively it is disaster after disaster.

Ok, I see what you are saying. But I have to admit that I fail to see how it reflect reality. Basically there are two cases as I see it:

1. If humans are free to choose, why did God then add the law? Also some of the laws are not really meant to mitigate crime or to secure free choices.

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live."

Didn't we already try this once, and Ill put my head on the chopping block here and say that, Im pretty certain that we got the wrong ones. Wouldn't you consider the whole witch thing a crime in it self?

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

At least from the daughters point of view, wouldn't you agree that her freedom of choice is somewhat limited?

Which leads to the other case.

2. That we are adding laws to prevent these things, because they ought to be like those in the bible?

So when you say that it continually fails, im not really following you, unless you are talking about point 2. These things including a huge amount of the other laws are considered illegal in most Christian countries today as far as I know, so I have a hard time seeing how we are failing or what you think we should do differently?

 

[Kenny]

But if Eve were created with free will, weren't she allowed to make that choice, even though she unluckily chose the wrong one? Otherwise what would be the point of free will, if there are choices she are not allowed to make?

She did have free will. She did have the choice and she chose the wrong one. I'm sorry if I made it sound like she didn't have a free will.

Here is another example:
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you lifeand death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

We all have choices

]

My view is, that its not possible to do that. Its like a lion killing a new born gazelle and eating it, knowing it have no chance to defend it self or for anything to help it, why would the lion think that it is wrong, it could kill some old one that have at least lived for a while? An to me, Adam and Eve would not be more capable of making such judgement, when they don't know the difference. To me, I think the a decent argument against what Im saying, or at least for a while as it also falls short as I see it, would be the threat of dying maybe, as it would sort of be the same of us not jumping off cliffs in massive numbers. But then are we truly afraid of dying? or do people fear potential ways to die? Personal for me, I don't fear it. Lets say I were hit by a meteor or something, I really couldn't care less.

But they did know. Like a father who tells a child... "don't play with matches or you will get burnt". God said "Don't eat from that tree or you will experience deaths."

And the "death" that God was talking about was more than just stop breathing... it is actually plural in the actual Hebrew language.

Otherwise an example of how you could do something that is considered right or wrong without knowing good from evil.

That is why God set the parameters for them. "I have given you the whole world, the plants, the trees, the fruit, the animals, the gold, the silver, the diamonds, the fish, the birds.... all of it is yours... just don't take from my tree. That one thing is mine and if you take it, you will die"

Reminds me of what Moses said:
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you lifeand death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Not only did they ask them to choose, but then told them which one they should choose.

 

[Nimos]

For example how we seem to be born out of an immoral nature but have this added burden of a moral sensitivity to deal with. We forget about this but reading a story such as in Genesis, we are reminded of it. Being reminded of it we can see our personal struggles in a better light whether or not we buy literally into the existence of A God. The Genesis story does a great job of showing how our own sense of free will plays into our experience of our moral awareness.

I think it depends on how you look at it, I would agree that we exist in a natural world with no apparent objective morals. But I don't think I would agree or see moral sensitivity or subjective morals, if I understand you correct, when you use that word? as a burden as much as a requirement or necessity for human survival. Simply because of the time it takes for us to actually be able to survive on our own, for instant animals like Zebras etc.are able to walk and run very fast, because it they couldn't they wouldn't survive. But humans can't do that, we would most likely go extinct if it worked like that, simply because of our brain and the time it takes for it to develop. So I think its somewhat logically for humans to have the moral sensitivity we have, because it is the only way we would be able to survive. To put it very simple, imagine a girl just having given birth to a child having to survive and care for it while its screaming on/off whenever it feels like it, while at the same time having to get food, the chances of her surviving would be minimal, if we weren't able to form connections with each other. You have to remember that back in the days, humans were not exactly at the top of the food chain

So at least to me, moral sensitivity or what to call it, makes pretty good sense when it comes to forming relationships, as it help us to define ways of living together with the complex brains that we have. So looking at it from that perspective, it might not differ that much from other mammals as I see it. For instant why doesn't wolves just eat each other? It is know that they also form social bounds, which serves to maintain the pack.

But if I look at other stories such as Carl Sagan's Contact or various figures in the Mahabharata who have their personal qualities and make choices whose outcomes are unwelcome but, perhaps, unavoidable at some point no matter how virtuous they are...you get to see a deeper pattern than any one story can tell. We seem to be caught in a web of choice which links everything back upon itself in a way that our very sense of who we are is eventually challenged by the choices we "freely" make. How do we come to understand and accept this state of affairs?

I don't really understand what you mean? Can you give an example?.

By reading these sacred stories we live through various different answers to essentially the same question. We realize we are not alone and that people from all over the world struggle with these questions. The answers must be deeply embedded in our experience. Stories are a form of experience sharing that allows us to add to our personal experience without having to reproduce the risk. But the impact of empathizing with the stories characters leads us through, at some level, the same emotional journey and grants us a benefit by merely reading it. This benefit is, in fact, explicitly claimed within the text of the Mahabharata itself.

Are you referring to altruism? If so I do believe you see it in nature as well, maybe not as much as in humans as our ability to be altruistic is incomparable with any other animal, which again is due to the complexity of our brain, I think.

Quite funny and strange video:

 

[Nimos]

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

I think you are taking it out of contexts, You ought to include v15 to v20 i think. Taking into account, that the following is written in the law, by God as well:

"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed."

So would it be reasonable to assume, that since God want you utterly destroyed as it is written in the law. That he means the same here, when he is using the words "you will certainly be destroyed"?

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them,
18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But they did know. Like a father who tells a child... "don't play with matches or you will get burnt". God said "Don't eat from that tree or you will experience deaths."

I understand your comparison, but a child at the age of which you are talking to already know what right and wrong is. Studies have shown that babies not even a year old, shows a tendency toward good behavior rather than bad. Whether its conclusive I don't know. But it is explicit said in the bible that, that they do not no the difference as they haven't learned it yet. I honestly don't think you can compare it to a child that would understand what you are saying, as these concepts are already known, at least to an degree where they would know the difference.

To me its almost impossible to even imagine, how it must be not to know.

 

[Riders]

Edit: This is aimed mainly at Christians that believe that God is Ultimately good and all knowing. others are welcome to share their views as well.

I watch a lot of debates between atheist and religious people, in fact I have watched so many that I can't even count them.

However one thing that bothers me about the whole discussion and that never seems to be very well answered, at least not to my satisfaction, is the claim that God is all knowing and all good, at least that is the general impression I get and hear a lot. But I have never felt that the religious side of the debate have really justified why that is the case, except that it is stated in the bible. Which, maybe not all that unexpected is not really a good answer for an atheist.

My own view on the whole matter is that people can believe what they want, im not an "anti" religious atheist. As I do think that religion in some places can add value to our lives. But I do however think that any belief that affect ones society ought to justify it self of why they should be treated different and why there should be benefits for them due to this. This is not only in regards to religion, but could be the same for atheist, had they some benefits.

The list of questions consists of 10 main ones and some secondary ones, that bothers me and hope that someone can answer and share their views on.

I don't expect people to "speak" for God, simply to share their opinion and justifications on the topics as they see them.

If you don't think some of the questions are clear enough let me know and ill try to explain them better.

Questions.

1. Is it possible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong, without knowing the difference between good and evil?

a. If the answer is no: How do you justify that God punishes Adam and Eve when they don't know the difference between them? And what reason would Eve have to assume that the snake is trying to deceive her?

b. If the answer is yes: Can you give an example of it?

2. It is written in the Bible Genesis "3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Why do you believe God made the serpent more crafty than all the other animals? Why is it important for it to be highlighted in the text?

3. The above text say that God created the serpent and its believed that this is Satan

why do you think God allowed Satan do to evil in the Garden of eden?

4. The following is from Genesis 1 6,6: "6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

if God knows everything and can do anything he wants, how is it possible for him to regret, wouldn't he be able to foresee this?

5. God is commonly referred to as being ultimately good and unable to lie. In Deuteronomy 21,18-21 the law says the following: "18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Given the ability to distinguish good from evil, do you think this is a good way of dealing with such issue or a bad way?

Why do you believe that God, which is all good, thought that death were the best solution to this problem?

Do you agree with the statement that a son per definition should obey their parents, regardless of how the parents might behave?

Do you consider the punishment of death for being stubborn and rebellious towards your parents, justified or a murder?

a. If you consider it murder, doesn't it conflict with one of the ten commandments?

b. If you believe it is justifiable, why do you think that such law is not in effect today, at least in most countries and would you support such law, knowing that God is only good and unable to do evil?

6. Also in Deuteronomy 25, 11 it says the following: "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Of all the things God can do, why do you think this topic were so important that it needed to be added to the law? And do you think that the punishment for it is justifiable?

7. Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 it says the following: "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Do you believe that a women or father experiencing something as described above, would agree with this being the definitely best way to solve the issue?

Do you think rape (only if discovered) as a crime ought to be considered worse than being stubborn?

8. Based on the previous questions and given the ability to know the difference between good and evil, can you explain why God is considered ultimately good?

9. Regardless of whether the law is in effect or not, can you explain how something that is considered all knowing and all powerful decided that this were the best laws, what do you think is his reasons for them to be like that?

10. Can you think of any more reasonable laws with more justifiable punishments than those God made in the laws mentioned above, even though you are not all powerful and ultimately good?

The only thing, I would like people not to do, is use the phrase "God work in mysteries ways", "We just can't understand God" etc. Be honest and just write "I don't know" if you have no answer to a specific question.

Thanks

I do think Christians use the Adam and Eve story to demonize women's sexuality. Eve was more guilty then adam because she seduced Adam? So she and all of us have to got through pain to five birth. Well I don't see Adam defending himself against seduction or trying to do the right thing at all................

You know that my sisters Jewish Christian church Messianich believes in having a i forget the name nurse that helps you give birth naturally. They say its more natural, I suspect some Christians think its best for women to give birth at home so we can go through the pain God meant us too.

So drugs for pain is against God.........thats my take on it. Screw God if I had gotten pregnant I would want to the heaviest drugs I could forget the pain I'm not doing it.

 

[Nimos]

I do think Christians use the Adam and Eve story to demonize women's sexuality. Eve was more guilty then adam because she seduced Adam? So she and all of us have to got through pain to five birth. Well I don't see Adam defending himself against seduction or trying to do the right thing at all................

You know that my sisters Jewish Christian church Messianich believes in having a i forget the name nurse that helps you give birth naturally. They say its more natural, I suspect some Christians think its best for women to give birth at home so we can go through the pain God meant us too.

So drugs for pain is against God.........thats my take on it. Screw God if I had gotten pregnant I would want to the heaviest drugs I could forget the pain I'm not doing it.

Yeah, agree with that

 

[Deeje]

I don't doubt that people have personal experiences of God and Jesus, which in some cases such as yours would make you believe. And don't get me wrong, I can understand that it must be rather frustrating why others, atheist, Christians, muslims etc. Just don't get it. But wouldn't you agree, that you are not the only one making such claim for what you believe in? I mean, I highly doubt that a terrorist that decide to blow himself up for what he/she might believe, is just as convinced of their beliefs as you are, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong?

My "experience" with God was nothing miraculous....it was just a sequence of events that has continued throughout my life, letting me know in very real ways that God was taking care of me and my family. Not physically, because I have had my own fair share of tragedy...but always emerging spiritually stronger for having endured the trial.

The right religion does not participate in violence.

Also....if I may comment on these points....

1. If humans are free to choose, why did God then add the law? Also some of the laws are not really meant to mitigate crime or to secure free choices.

If you understand free will, you don't need to understand why there are laws.

In a free society, there is actually no such thing as absolute freedom. It is freedom of choice within the parameters of specific rules that modify human behavior so that everyone is NOT free to do as they wish. Abusing free will is deliberately breaking a set law. It comes at the expense of a stated penalty. That is called justice. We are programmed for justice. And we have a conscience.

A good person obeys the law, not because of the penalty, but because it's the right thing to do. They agree with the law, so obeying it causes no hardship. What causes problems in any free society is those who want to break the law and cause suffering to others because they don't agree with the law and don't care about causing problems for others. Who appreciates the presence of such people?

So when you say that it continually fails, im not really following you, unless you are talking about point 2. These things including a huge amount of the other laws are considered illegal in most Christian countries today as far as I know, so I have a hard time seeing how we are failing or what you think we should do differently?

God stepped out of human life when they chose independence, and allowed us all the freedom to show him who we really are, with little intervention from himself. He has provided an instruction manual and guarantees that if we follow it, our lives will be free of the troubles that plague lawbreakers. The responsibility for harm will never be laid at our feet.

Are we the kind of people God is looking for to become citizens of his incoming kingdom? If so, then he will lead us to his truth....if not, we will spend the rest of our life in this world, wondering what is going on? Either not knowing what to believe, or being confident of our own delusion. The truth is, we won't know until the end comes. And it doesn't matter that we don't know.....God chooses who will best suit his purpose.....we either qualify...or we don't. Since continuing life is all in God's jurisdiction, we really have no say in our own future apart from how we choose to live our life. All we can be is the best version of ourselves and hope that we have put in the necessary effort for inclusion in God's plans for the future....he does not owe that to us, but gives us the opportunity to apply. Not all who apply will make the grade.

Luke 13:24....
24 “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."

If you think God owes us anything.....think again. We already possess his greatest gift.....life. We have the freedom to choose what we will do with it.

 

[Jollybear]

God does not forgive wilful and deliberate sin. There is no expression of remorse from either Adam or his wife. When there is no remorse, there can be no forgiveness. The list of righteous servants of God begins with Abel, not Adam.

Hey Deeje!

Its true adam/eve never showed remorse at first, but, how do you know they didnt later on?

There is no mention of animals being sacrificed to provide the garments provided by God. The first mention of a sacrifice to God was made by Abel and his brother Cain, not Adam and Eve. That ended in Abel's murder.

Where do you think cain and abel learned of sacrifice from? Likely there parents.

Also, the whole idea of clothing in the bible is also a typology of being clothed in the rightiousness of God, right? You are aware of verses like that, yes?

Now of course i believe God wanted them to be warm too.

But heres another thing too, why would God clothe them if he never forgave them?

It was shame that prompted the first pair to become aware of their naked state....sin did that.

Agree

The garments of animal skins replaced the loin coverings that the pair had made for themselves. The garments worn by God's people even in the heat of the Middle East were modest....something reflected by the law concerning God's moral laws. If God made long garments as a way to combat immoral thoughts, then loin coverings are not appropriate attire for Christians either...even today.

The long garments would also have protected the humans from the rugged terrain into which they had been banished. Thorns and thistles would be part of their landscape now. These actions in no way expressed forgiveness on God's part.....he was just assuring that they would survive the harsh conditions that awaited them.

Why would he care if they survived if he did not forgive them?

Adam called his wife "Eve" because she had to become the mother of everyone living. They had to eke out an existence on cursed ground, eating 'bread in the sweat of their face' instead of the beautiful ripe fruit that was there for the picking in the garden. What a change in lifestyle! God's efforts were directed towards Adam's children, not the rebels.

If i forgive someone, im gonna work with them. If i dont forgive them, then ill avoid them all together.

It's the same with the rebel angels that followed satan. There can be no forgiveness for them either. The lake of fire is reserved for them.....eternal destruction.

Ok

The Bible is the most trustworthy source for me. God's assistance to Adam and his wife did not change anything about their sentence. They were evicted from the garden, and God's mandate ...."to be fruitful and fill the earth" was fulfilled only after sin entered the human race. (Romans 5:12) Death was all they could look forward to.

So, its not possible adam/eve could have repented later on?

The other ancient sources say they did. And the bible does not say they did not.

It was their children who were now the focus of God's attention....not the rebels. These two were responsible for the death of the entire human race descended from them.....unrepentantly.....how could God forgive them?

How do you know they didnt ever repent?

God had to send his own precious son to save them.

Right.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why would he care if they survived if he did not forgive them?

Because of love for their as-yet unborn innocent offspring, that includes us.