syo
Well-Known Member
he was lonely.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Why Did God Create Mankind if He Knew Man Would Sin?"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I came up with that from you. You said this:
To which, I pointed out that if it already existed prior to humans, then it was created by someone or something where it had not previously existed. It had to have a beginning point, a point of creation, of coming into existence. Unless, I argued, you were arguing it had no point of beginning and was as eternal as God.
It is your argument in this quote and all subsequent posts where I came up with that. It's nothing my mind would ever imagine. I consider sin not a thing, but simply a measure against a standard of something. In this sense, it doesn't actually exist. It's not some "it", that "already existed" this is "allowed to enter the world," like letting a racoon into your house.
As I've just pointed out, it was your theory, not mine. In each of your subsequent posts, you continued to speak of it as some force have an existence of its own. It appears, you don't understand what it is you are saying in your words. I have been simply pointing that out to you, and how it creates a contradiction on many levels.
Christians have lots of widely differing ideas about these things as part of their beliefs. Which "Christian" are you referring to as the standard of all Christian ideas? Why should I assume you understand what sin means when you speak of it in the terms you do? You said sin is basically another word for disobedience. That indicates to me you have a different idea than any Christian understanding of "sin" that I have heard before. There's lots of Christian ideas out there, and yours would be another one of those.
And that proves my point. Sin doesn't exist as a thing, a force, an entity either. It is a measure of falling short of the mark. In other words, an error or inconsistency. It's a measure. To say it was "allowed to enter", makes it into a "thing". You don't say they "allowed the grading system to enter into the school", do you?
So then why say "sin was allowed to enter the world", and not just simply say sin is the result of freewill, a byproduct, like an upset stomach is the result of eating a bad piece of fruit? You don't say that any upset stomach god entered into your digestive tract. Yet, that is how you speak of sin, "existing" before humans and being allowed to come into the world. You speak of it as if it were a god or a demon, or something.
I'm hoping in this quote here you're going to see my point and why it seems you say one thing, yet speak another that says something else, the opposite. Please look at your worlds here from the last quote and compare with your words in this quote: "Free will was not made", and just now, "Prior to the making of free will". So, which is it? It was made, or not made?
I don't claim that. I don't believe that. It is however how you speak of it in the way you describe it being in existence prior to humans, and being "allowed" to enter the world. If something has existence, unless it is self-existent as God, then it had an origin, a beginning. I would say that origin is the human imagination, as sin is a measure against a standard. It is an artificial distinction that call something we see that is not Perfection.
Again, do you have scripture which says God has free will? That applied to God makes no sense to me. For God to have free will, that would make him like a human who has choices. If God has choices to do this or to do that, then there are options for him, and that would mean there is something outside of God for him to choose from!
That makes no sense to me at all.Fair enough. I hope I've done that in this thread above, quoting from you.
I'm not moving the goalposts. The goalpost has been there the whole time. You said sin is disobedience. You are redefining the terms, and that moves the goalpost. I make the argument that disobedience is a symptom, not what sin is. You can have obedience, and still failure. It doesn't have to be an act of disobedience, which you seem to make it and state that it is. It doesn't have to be a willful choice of active rebellion. I do not believe that is what is portrayed in the story of A&E. It's not about wilful defiance. Do you believe the story is about an act of wilful defiance, like the Devil in rebellion against God? I don't.Ready the goalposts! I think they're about to be moved.
Please stay with thread theme and the context of our discussion. We're discussing A&E's sin which was disobedience to a command of God.
Again, to apply things like "free will" of "disobedience" to God is nonsensical. God is the Goal. You can't move that Goal. God is God, not a free agent. Talking about moving Goalpost!
If God could choose to be other than God, then God would no longer be God, which is impossible.Actually, no we are not talking about a man and a woman. We are talking about Adam and Eve as the imagined first humans. Being an adult means you grow up having learned lessons of life. Prior to this we are naive children, innocent. Adam and Eve, while imagined in adult bodies, were as naive and innocent as children. They were children, playing around, dancing and skipping, naming animals, eating fruit, and playing in the streams like little naked children running around full of the joy of discovery. And then, in their naive gullibility, like the gullibility of any child who is preyed upon by a predator, they believed a lie, as the story unfolds.
You are ascribing all manner of adult sensibilities to those who would have had no way to have developed them. Don't confuse one's biological maturity with one's psychological and emotional and spiritual maturity. These are all different things and mature at different rates. And so, understanding that, the nature of the story takes on a very different flavor than that of "they knew better". You think you as a parent telling your innocent naive child to not do something, is going to result in them not trusting others? Why? That's naive as hell too. You would have to first instill fear and distrust of others in them. Did God say don't believe others?
You see the problems you get into reading this stuff literally?
continued.....
Last edited:
continued....
"Here Billy, this is a loaded gun. Now you can look at it, play with it, admire it, but don't pull the trigger!". What the heck do you think is going to happen, and who the heck is responsible for what inevitably is about to happen? In any adult society, it would be the parent sent to jail, not the child.
It's allegorical. A parent speaks truths to their children using fables and lore all the time, the little engine who could, Jack and the beanstalk, Adam and Eve, and so forth. It does not mean there is not truth in the story and valuable lessons to be learned.
If you take it allegorically, then you can relax such literal conclusions, such as "How can santa possibly lift off the ground in his sleigh with all those toys in it, in order to overcome gravity he would have to have X pounds of thrust...". That misses the point of the myth.
So then, would it be safe for me to say that you see God as being both wholly transenceded, and wholly immanent, in a paradoxical way? If so, you would agree with me.
Wrong. It could not have been purposeful decision. That's like saying a naive child "knew better". That's the ignorance of the parent to assume that! That's projecting an adult's mind and responsibility on a child, assuming they are capable of thinking as an adult. The sin there, the falling short of the mark, lands on the parent, not the child.
"Here Billy, this is a loaded gun. Now you can look at it, play with it, admire it, but don't pull the trigger!". What the heck do you think is going to happen, and who the heck is responsible for what inevitably is about to happen? In any adult society, it would be the parent sent to jail, not the child.
Why does inerrancy negate allegory? I'd argue you can still see it as the word of God if you wish, but then read it right.
It's allegorical. A parent speaks truths to their children using fables and lore all the time, the little engine who could, Jack and the beanstalk, Adam and Eve, and so forth. It does not mean there is not truth in the story and valuable lessons to be learned.And the more we learn about these things, we can leave the understanding of a child behind and grow in our understanding. I think reading these as factual stories that really happened is how children take things literally, like Santa being a real person. That's not an insult, it's just the reality of how our minds initially cannot think in abstractions, like allegory, symbol, and myth. Myth is fact, to the mind of a child. As an adult we see truths in the myths and find the stories to be parts of our cultural touchstones. They have true value, far more truth and value than if they literally happened.
I'd say if it was "disobedience" it was on the level of a child who in their naive innocent made an error of judgement, not being mature enough to deal with such a dangerous object left in their midst, like a loaded handgun by their parent. Would a responsible parent then project his failing on to his child and curse him and his descendants, sending them to the ovens to roast in hell for his own mistake? This is the problem you get reading this literally. The logical conclusion sort of defeats the point of the story.
If you take it allegorically, then you can relax such literal conclusions, such as "How can santa possibly lift off the ground in his sleigh with all those toys in it, in order to overcome gravity he would have to have X pounds of thrust...". That misses the point of the myth.
I find understanding others points of view helps to shape and inform my own. To rely on only those that affirm my thoughts, doesn't do much for growing in knowledge and awareness. I think your map could benefit from some other perspectives.
I believe the Holy Spirit is in everyone, as it cannot not be. It's not some entity that roams around and spreads and contracts based on some person opening and closing to it. The only factor is whether we close ourselves off to it, or open to it, like the water in a pot with a spigot. The water is already in it, and we avail ourselves of it or not by choice of opening or closing the spigot. Closing the spigots of our hearts to it, doesn't make the water leave the vessel.
So then, would it be safe for me to say that you see God as being both wholly transenceded, and wholly immanent, in a paradoxical way? If so, you would agree with me.
So you believe a 5 year old is a defective 12 year old? Do you hold children to adult standards? Or do you have a different level of expectations for them, allowing them certain wider latitudes because they are not yet capable of what adults are? Would you beat, threaten, and punish a child to get him to grow up? If so, isn't that like yelling at their bones, "grow!". How well does that work?
Again, you are back to treating "sin" as if it were some force. These are your words in how you express this. How in the world, is what they did handed down to me as some inheritance, if it isn't some "thing" that exists outside myself and my own personal choices? How could I be "degraded" by the actions of others? Wouldn't that be like someone polluting my drinking water with something? Do you not see how your words create this image?
I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the Garden of Eden myth? I take this more like, "Remember how well you were doing on that diet and how much weight you were losing before you started eating Big Macs again? Try to get back on path, and do that work again you were doing." I think you are stretching this to something far greater than what it is saying, trying to say we need to remember how far we have fallen from when we were in the Garden of Eden ourselves. We weren't there, and we imagine what it must have been like, this "paradise lost" that is common in most creation myths of the world's religions, including Christianity.
I like that verse applied to this. Good reference!
But that is still violence. It's like trying to get rid of hatred, by hating it. It's like trying to overcome impatience, by being impatient with it. And so on and so forth. Like beget like. Rather, I see in Jesus example speaking to the storm, "Peace, be still" is far more effective than him hitting it with another storm to do battle with it. Think of this in terms of a true martial art. You don't do battle with the aggressor by hitting it with equal or greater force. You simply step out of the way and use their energy to defeat themselves. You don't feed the aggression with more energy. You overcome, by not engaging in the battle with your own force. You win the battle, but not engaging in battle. "Peace, be still".
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I'm not really comfortable with what's been left out here Windwalker. Let's get my sentence in context because when talking with you I notice it's something you like to leave out. I've railed against biblical proof-texting before, but this is the first time someone's actually tried to do the same with my comments.
That's better! As we can see the statement "sin entered the world" is based on Romans 5:12. There is nothing about Adam "creating" sin here (or for that matter, anywhere else in scripture, including the Genesis account).
To which I pointed out that yes it obviously existed prior to humans (otherwise how was the serpent involved?) and no, this does not mean sin was created. It means their were angels that had free choice prior to humans.
I understand that. It's apparent you do not accept scripture as authoritative.
I'm not sure I'm following you here. It sounds like you're saying sin is a measure that doesn't exist. If that is so, how can it be a viable measure?
I disagree. You can let love come into your heart and set up shop just as easily as you can sin.
Of course. I believe scripture to be "God breathed".
It seems like "foolishness" to many. But Christians were already been warned of this at 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 2:14
I'm referring to the Genesis narrative. The original sin...disobedience to God...is pretty much settled doctrine from the perspective of the traditional, historic Christian church.
Original sin, also called "ancestral sin", is a Christian belief of the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Original Sin Wikipedia
If you add in post-Millerite religions your results may vary.
I'm not sure why my idea is a "different idea than any Christian understanding of "sin" that you have never heard of before. It could be because you have not met many Christians or only know Christians from a certain sect. I would be idly speculating and only you can answer that.
Actually that what I would say. I live in the US. Here virtually all schools have a grading system. I'm not sure where you are so your system may be different.
As fare as "falling short of the mark", in Genesis the mark was to keep God's commandment. Adam fell short of this when he partook of the prohibited fruit
Because sin is not a byproduct of free will. God has free will and their is no sin with God.
Free will was not made, and it was "Prior to the making of free will creatures." That is, prior to the making of creature that have free will. This would include angels and humans.
In Christian theology, sin was in existence prior to humans because angels were in existence prior to humans. I am not aware of any traditional Christian church teaching otherwise.
Not a human imagination but you are correct when you say it is a measure against a standard.For Christians & Jews that standard is God's laws and commandments.
Several verses...I'll only include a few here:
Psalm 115:3
But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Psalm 135:6
Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
Ecclesiastes 8:4
Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?"
But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Psalm 135:6
Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
Ecclesiastes 8:4
Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?"
We were made in the image of God and we have choices:
Genesis 1:26-27
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
So God is not in our image but we are in the likeness of God.
Yes, which is why "missing the mark" doesn't fully encompass the meaning of sin. You may have a mark to run a 4 minute mile. Instead you run a 10 minute mile. Have you sinned? No.
So even though you obeyed and ran the mile you did not engage in any type of "spiritual sin" by "falling short".
Yes, I believe the story is an act of willful defiance. God specifically told Adam "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
Later, it was snack back and enjoy.
God is the goal now, but remember, we had already attained that goal in the garden and threw it all away.
Then we are close, but not exactly on the same page. Sin, as you say, is "falling short of the mark" and that "mark" is God's holiness and righteousness. These attributes are conveyed to us through His instruction, laws, and edicts. His laws, instructions and edicts are bounded in love and our condemnation for failing to "meet the mark" is tempered by grace.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
What part of the command to not eat of the tree do you think A&E did not learn?
Yes, they were in adult bodies with adult minds, but not adults with the mind of a child. We have names for folk who's minds do not grow with their bodies. I see no evidence of this in the Genesis account. Go blessed each creature so that it had all it needed to grow and prosper in the garden. Why folks insert this narrative that God "held back" when it came to A&E is beyond me.
Indeed, they did believe the lie. The lie was more attractive to them than the truth.
So God held back on their psychological and emotional maturity? I am an exegete WIndwalker. I can't just insert stuff that never appears in the biblical narrative that isn't there.
If we can recast A&E as immature children rather than adults, then we can recast Moses into a woman.
As a Christian, I think the problem we get into is when we start adding to scripture. We have been forewarned not to:
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
It's extremely late (2:30 am) and I'll be dragging tomorrow. I'll respond to the rest of your post as soon as I'm able.
I am familiar with the verse, and with anything in scripture or anywhere else in the world, people read and understand things in many ways, some literally, some figuratively. I for the most part understand things as the latter. I get the imagery Paul was expressing, and in my mind I understand that like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It appears that way to a certain framework of perception, and we talk of it as if that were the case, knowing the reality of it is not literally the case.
My point has been, the way you speak of this metaphor of "sin entering the world," indicates you were viewing it literally, as how it happened because scripture said it (which statement is always a reflection of the thinking of the one reading it). I see that as an "as if" statement, like the sun rising in the east. I'll add here too, that even if Paul himself literally believed sin "entered the world", that reflects his mind at the time.
He like most people back then would have probably literally believed the sun moved around the earth and the earth stood still. Nothing wrong with that. It just shows he was human, and we have a better and clearer understanding of things today, and are allowed to think beyond the thoughts he had back then. To make the understanding of culture and society back then the standard, is ludicrous. This is the fatal flaw of fundamentalist expectations, that backwards is better than forwards. Learn from the past, but don't escape into it.
In its entirety? No, of course not. When it speaks Truths that resonate with the soul, then sure, but that is only understood as born witness by the spirit within which knows God prior to and beyond the reading of religious texts.
The nonsense I hear out of these Biblical Inerrancy camps is pitiable, by comparison. The earth is only 6000 years old, science is wrong because Genesis speaks of Adam and Eve being created whole cloth as fully mature human beings in the form of modern man, and so forth. Intellectual suicide, a denial of evidence, is never a valid spiritual path. Ever. That too is ego refusing to let go of its own ideas of truth.
It is a standard that exists, but in application it is really more reflective of the religious believers perspective of how they see God and how others measure up to that belief. That is the reality of what is called "sin" by people. How God sees however, is entirely a different matter. Sin literally cannot exist within God, but it is a non-reality. It is only real to us, from our perspective of ourselves projected forth onto God.
I don't have a problem accepting and embracing inspiration. I just don't make the mistake of seeing that as magical knowledge. I see "God breathed" to exist in vastly far more expressions that just one's adopted religious texts, many of which really fall short of inspired. Great scores of music can be equally as inspired as the psalms of passages of scripture, and touch the soul in even deeper ways, speak
Truth in even higher ways, and so forth. "Consider the lilies of the field". They too, are scripture.
Be very careful in where you tread here. What another may call foolishness in your thinking, may in fact be foolishness. To hide that thinking behind your reading of scriptures, and to call that the words of God, and that if others don't accept your thinking they are rejecting God, is point blank arrogance, coupled with judgmentalism.
"Who are you to judge another man's servant?" "With what judgement you judge, it will be returned unto you." Those that do this, to me are very insecure in their faith, needing to be right over others, to validate their beliefs to themselves by calling others lost. They haven't begun to walk that path to understanding.
Okay. If you add in Pre-Augustine views of Christian faith, your results will vary as well. You have heard of Pelagius? "Settled from the perspective of the traditional, historic Christian church"? You you are Catholic and except the Pope of Rome and the Authority of the Holy See?
I'm familiar with the traditional Augustinian teachings of original sin the Church adopted as its office theological stance in the 5th century CE, branding all other points of view other than their own as heresies.
One could make the argument that Adam already fell short of that mark before eating that fruit. That's why he did it!
I'll frame that in a way that may make some sense of that statement. The only way a temptation to something can exist, is if there is an appeal to it for some perceived gain or benefit. It appeals to some "lower nature" that seeks for itself, the ego, for example. If someone is fully immersed in the Spirit of God, no such temptation can exist. "In him is no darkness". So then, Adam, being tempted to gain something he perceived as lacking, had to be experience that lack in order to find it tempting in the first place. That lack existed in himself first, before the action. Actions are the last event in that series of causes. That first spark of intent, came from something that fell short of God - in other words, "sin".
Never thought of it like that, I'll bet?
. I don't see how that is not true, however. So, again, you see, if you read the story literally, you have to look at it critically like this, and the result you'll see is that it doesn't make sense rationally. If read lightly, reading it as a poetic expression, then you can understand it "loosely" that the action created the problem. In reality however, the problem already would have existed before the act. The act was just the natural result of a "fallen nature," existing first. In other words, God created Adam with that fallen nature. There isn't any other logical conclusion - if you choose to read this story literally.
Alright, that's fine. English is a flawed language. I read it like this, "Prior to the making of free will, creatures sin was not possible". You meant that as "free-will creatures." The hyphen would have helped, as the comma to separate isn't always used. I implied it. I'll accept this clarification.
All measurements of any kind whatsoever are created by the human imagination. They are arbitrary scales by which we create maps of where things fall on a scale we make up. A 12 out of 1000, is an arbitrary scale that we come up with, as are all the points in between. So "sin" as a measure with God at the top, assumes what God is as "1000" on that scale. And that assumption is from the human perspective, or "imagination".
Does God measure us? I don't believe so. I don't believe God sees us in terms of "good boy or bad boy". We do that to ourselves. Or, when we imagine how God thinks, in terms we do, and excuse that by saying we were "created in God's image", so therefore we do it, in some circular argument.
And do you accept God has literal fingers, eyes, feet, hands, etc? Scripture speaks of these as well, I'm sure you are aware. These are anthropomorphisms. These are expressions of humans speaking of God attributing human qualities and realities to God. They are however, a fiction in reality. They are simply figures of speech, not definitions of God.
If you're going to use that verse to justify anthropomorphizing God as literal definitions of God, you're going to create quite the problem for yourself theologically! Does God go to the bathroom? Does God have temper tantrums? Does God envy? Does God get jealous? Does God get impatient? Does God get spiteful and vengeful like humans? Oh wait... yes, the OT is full of these anthropomorphisms! That to me says something informative about the nature of scripture, not God, actually.
No, I don't think man being created in God's image means things like this at all. It means that Divine Nature is in all of us, not psychological traits, or emotional states, or behaviors, or expectations, or desires, or, any other human realities. We are created with the Nature of the Divine within us. That is what being created in God's image means to me.
I don't see the difference. If the standard is 4 minutes, and you are expected to run that, then doing 10 minutes is a failure. You fell short of the mark. If not acting outside the nature of the Divine is the goal, and you fail to meet that goal, then you failed. You fell short of the mark. You "sinned." You are just supplying other meanings here, other connotations you supply as defining what the word means. As far as it being a "spiritual sin", of course it is when you curse someone else, when you act in violence, when you lie, when you cheat, when you steal, when hide your face from truth when it contradicts something you believe, and so forth. All of these are spiritual sins. Anything that does not meet that standard of the 4 minute mile, or God as the standard, is sin.
That said however, I don't believe we are punished by God for falling short. God is not that Strict and abusive Parent that many see him as. That image is too a projection of our human realities upon God, and interestingly enough mirrors our actual experience of our parents we grew up with. I for one, see God as Nurturing. My parents were that way with me, not dictatorial, not stern, not shaming, not scolding, etc. Love is way stronger than force.
I don't read it that way myself. Why do you suppose? What accounts for that difference? Is it "sin" I see things differently from you, because you are right and I must be wrong, not understanding spiritual truth? Or is it that we are both human beings and our experiences and thoughts contribute to us seeing God differently from each other?
As I pointed out, the fact the fruit tempted Adam and Eve would indicate they already were short of that Goal. If they weren't. It would have been in nowise a temptation to them. In other words, as the old saying goes which dog wins in a fight, is the one you feed the most. That dog existed already before it was given the fruit to eat.
Yes, Grace is the Nature of God. Not condemnation. But I'll add here, this Nature is conveyed to us through all of Creation. Ro. 1:20.
I'll reply to the rest when you've finished your reply to the next part. Sorry for this getting so long. That tends to happen with me.
But I appreciate the discussion with you.
Last edited:
dfnj
Well-Known Member
You do not believe in an omnipotent God? What is your God's limitations?
Oeste
Well-Known Member
True, children are not capable of thinking as adults. But it would be wrong to insert the creation of A&E as boy and girl when it specifically states man and woman. But your change does not stop there. No only do we have to change A&E to suit our narrative we have to change our narrative about God. So A&E are now children instead of adults, and our Omniscient God is not bright enough to tell the difference.
If we're free to take liberties here, where else in scripture would you have us take them?
That narrative doesn't suit the Genesis account. Here's one that does:
I invite you and your wife into my garden. I give you free reign over the entire garden except for the apple tree in the middle. That's my heirloom tree, not yours, and if you eat from it I'm going to be very pissed. You agree. God blesses you, which means you not only know how to take care of the garden in the proper manner, but you understand your relationship with God as well as your relationship to every creature in the garden, so much so that the one true Holiest of Holies and Omniscient being in the universe does not pronounce your relationship and ability to interact with Him and the garden "immature" or "undeveloped", but "very good".
I go out for a few minutes and when I return I find the fruit of my prized tree is missing. When I asked if you picked the fruit you and the wife tell me it was delicious.
It doesn't. That would be a false dichotomy. You can have inerrancy with allegory. Allegory does not mean no inerrancy and inerrancy does not mean no allegory.
I think thread theme is why did God create man if He knew man would sin. I'd rather stay focused on that theme rather than which parts are literal, allegorical, or symbolic. Like the Trinity, it would involve a long discussion that takes us off thread theme.
Certainly I do not believe the account to be allegorical but my reasons are based on scripture so to expound on them with your on this particular forum is pointless but better discussed within a "Christian only" format.
So now we have a Adam who wasn't bright enough to understand a command, and a God who wasn't bright enough to understand that Adam did not understand.
If God is no brighter than you or I, then He is not bright enough to be God, and if we interject this fictional narrative into Genesis , "Voila!"...we undermine both Judaic and Christian God. As skeptics, we then go home congratulating ourselves on our amazing spiritual coup and twofer".
Suffice it to say, the only children seen the Genesis account are Adam and Eve's offspring, not A&E.
The Santa account is not biblical and scripture is not myth. It would be the equivalent of comparing "apples to oranges". Adam and Santa are simply incommensurable.
That's exactly what I did!
When I first posted the map on RF I posted it with another map showing a different perspective and invited public comment. With this map I illustrated Christianity's traditional/historic view of God. This makes it easy to understand. IMO, conveying other perspectives on the same map would make it "busy" and more difficult to understand.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). That is God’s transcendence. “In him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). That is God’s immanence.
I'd rather not go much beyond that since their are a lot of pantheists and deists on this section of the forum and we would be inviting commentary that would deviate from thread theme.
I'm really not aware of anyone who thinks this way save for the skeptics who attribute such thinking to God.
God prohibited Hebrew men from serving in the military until age 20. Priests couldn't serve until they were 25, but for some reason I'm to believe the skeptic's account that God was clueless about A&E's maturity in the Garden of Eden. Go figure
I understand the perspective of skeptics. It's absolutely essential to inject their own narratives into Genesis. But it doesn't change the fact their narratives just aren't there.
No. Here are my word on how I express this:
From my perspective this greatly conflicts with the inspired words of Paul at Romans 5:12. Of course, if you do not believe Paul or the apostles your far less likely to believe Genesis as well.
Genesis is an inspired book in Christian theology. As such it was authored by someone who was there. The fact religions share creations stories does nothing to detract from the Genesis anymore than Zeus detracts from Yahweh.
Of course we should hate hatred. The alternative would be to love, like or be indifferent to hatred which are not viable alternatives for Christians.
I am sure you would agree with me there is a time and season for either.
Storms obey Jesus' commands immediately. The haters, on the other hand, do not. God has already told us "Peace, be still" when He commanded us to love our neighbor yet we see national, religious, ethnic and racial hatred throughout.
When dealing with evil I think a combination of tactics are in order.
Sounds like an argument for pacifism but again we would be off thread theme.
I'm getting out of order in my response to you, but when I read this just now I had to comment right away. Yes, this is good point! You're right, you would have to look at the narrative differently that reflects God as not able to tell the difference! Exactly! This is the problem you run into when you read this story as literal fact! As I said elsewhere, if you read it poetically, you allow for such inconsistencies to be glossed over, a certain artistic license, as it were.
But here's where I want to really comment. If you were telling this story to a child, having a child's mind, then they get the basic message, the moral of the story as it were, without getting hung up on details. BUT if you are telling this to a rational adult, not as a story of epic figures of legend where we are supposed to not read or understand them literally but figuratively, suspending our disbelief for the intent of the tale, and instead tell them they should rationally understand this as the fact of human history, you will have failed miserably to say anything about the story that will or can mean anything to them at all. The rational mind will spot these problems in the story, if you are asking it to be critical rather than poetic.
In other words, literalism makes God look as the one who messed up on several levels and blamed others for his mistakes. That is in fact, how many of the modern atheists read this. And is it any wonder when they are taught this is fact, as opposed to a story meant to capture some truth about the human condition, like the story of Romeo and Juliet is a tale about human love? You want to try to convince them they were real, in order for them to hear the truth spoken about in the fictional figures?
I for one, am able to see the truth of the story, while not accepting the "facts" of what happen as literal history. I find that far more capable of an approach, than literalism.
I'll expand this and support what I say further as I go back and pick up the points I skipped to reply to this now, as time permits.
Really? You can support this scripturally? Aside from lacking that, there are many huge logical inconsistencies here (since we are applying literalism to the text we must therefore use a critical analysis to it and see if it stands).
An adult mind is what it is because of life experiences, coupled with a mind that has proper development from one stage of growth to the next in multiple lines of development; cognitive, moral, emotional, values, etc. If you assume God created them fully mature, magically placing that lifetime of maturity already complete in their bodies as they stood up for the first time out of the mud (or the surgery depending on which creation story you are reading), then if they failed to be responsible to their programming God gave them, again, God is responsible. He didn't give them everything they needed in order not to stick their hand into the fire. There was a flaw in the design.
An adult knows not to drink poison. Most adults don't see a bottle of ammonia under the sink, and go against what they heard their parent say to not drink it because some bad person said its ok. Instead, the narrative I read, sounds a hell of lot more like a child who truly doesn't understand the danger, and just has to find out for himself! That is how the story actually reads. I'm seeing a child whose innate curiosity is stronger than the external words of a parent, and they have to learn by making their own mistakes.
This is not a fault of the child, but the parent. If God had made them truly adults, they would have understood innately the dangers and never have done it. Would you drink ammonia as an adult? Is it because you're not "disobeying God", or is it because you're a mature and responsible adult? Had God made them that, would they have ate it? Would you drink ammonia?
You mean 97% of humanity? I'm not talking about retardation. I think one of the biggest fallacies around today is the one that assumes when someone hits biological adulthood, this means they are now fully developed cognitively, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and so forth. No, that is not the case at all. We continue to grow and mature our entire lives, far beyond when our physical bodies have hit adulthood. I am far more an adult now than I was in my early 20's though my body had fully grown by then. Many people do stop growing however in the earlier adult life.
But that is not retardation, that at worst would be called stagnation. Or, depending on the environment they live it, just a certain leveling out to match the world they are in. Typically it takes things like major life crisis to upset that equilibrium and spark another growth spurt. These are actually common sense things, once you stop to look at them. We continue growing all our lives. A&E were not showing signs of a fully matured adult in their actions.
God made them what they are wisdom-wise, according to you, and they did not act demonstrating that existed in them. That choice, had nothing to do with free-will. It had to do with being smart enough to understand. Again, a critical eye can destroy the myth - if you insist upon a literal reading.
Apparently not!
If you picked up that bottle of amonnia and took a good swig from it today, is that a choice of "free will and rebellion", or do you lack some basic preservation instincts along with the knowledge of its harmful effects? Or..... are you a child who does not yet truly understand the importance of your parent's words?
An adult whose mind is functionally mature would not drink from it. But a child whose innate curiosity gets a better hold on him than the sounds of his parent's voice might! That's why we put locks on our cabinets in the kitchen!! And that fits the narrative here, not your suggestion they were fully mature adults. A fully mature adult would not choose to poison themselves, unless they were suicidal. In which case, again, that would be how God made them according to you, bypassing normal maturation processes.
Just like a child doesn't always listen to their parents. This is exactly how the texts read.
You are in fact asserting stuff that goes against how it actually reads. I see children not listening to their parent's direction because they lack the discretion of a fully mature adult. It clearly reads like children. In fact, in hindsight, I think the first time I read that story as an early teen, that's what I saw! I do so even more today. Why don't you?
If you can recast them as fully mature and fully aware, and fully responsible adult who willful defied their programming against their parents in a malicious choice of self-destruction, then you can recast Moses as the devil.
Then you should stop doing that.
Last edited:
It seems you're taking liberties of your own, injecting they were fully mature, read that awakened adults. Awakened adults don't generally act like immature children, such as you see A&E doing.
Easy answer. If these people did this, whereas I had the reasonable expectionation they were mature and responsible adults, I would considered their actions to demonstrate there was something deeply wrong with them as people! Something must have gone wrong with them growing up! Their parents must not have been very good parents, or they were defective and incapable of learning proper social skills, like a sociopath or something. That's what I would think. Why wouldn't you?
It seems the problem here in how we read this has to do with how we understand how people are who they become in life. You do not seem to understand some of the basics of human development, such as socialization skills, self-preservation, morality, ethics, etc. Fully mature and functionally healthy people in these areas do not act like this, and such people's "choice" is actually an inevitably based upon these factors which precede that choice.
Great. Then you should have no reason to resit reading it as allegory instead. It works a lot better when you do.
But this discussion is precisely about that. If you read it literally, then God should have known, like a parent should have known not to put that bottle of ammonia where his immature child's curiosity of exploring the world overrides its hearing "no". That's what a responsible adult would do.
If you read it allegorically instead, this problem goes away. Doesn't it?
Not really. I just finished it over in the last sentence.
I think your reasons are outside a scriptural basis, but that is greater than the scope of this thread as it gets into philosophical, psychological, social, linguist, and other areas of study. Though, I certainly don't see why we can't look at that here, since it directly pertains to the topic of this thread. I'm happy to go there here since no one else is adding anything more to this thread for the most part. It's not like it's not related.
Pretty much, yes. Though, I would not say "bright enough". One does not call a child "stupid" for being immature. Children are immature, and beautiful in that innocence, just like Adam was.
BTW, children run around naked too and aren't ashamed. You don't see that in the mind of the writer of Genesis when he cast A&E like this??? To me, this is obvious. It's the story of children awakening from the naive innocence of their childhood to the crulties of the harsh world we adults face. I could see this as a 12 year old, actually.
Is that what you are afraid of? You are afraid it will undermine your faith? This is the source of this?If God is no brighter than you or I, then He is not bright enough to be God, and if we interject this fictional narrative into Genesis , "Voila!"...we undermine both Judaic and Christian God. As skeptics, we then go home congratulating ourselves on our amazing spiritual coup and twofer".
Why then do you suppose other Christians can read it as I am laying out for you here, and yet their faith is stronger than ever? Can you explain that? It pertains to this thread very much. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Please.
Not according to the way it reads.
I never use the word "myth" to describe "falsehood". Mythological is a category of story, which use figures to tell a truth symbolically. These are highly powerful tools and of great importance. The Bible is full of mythological stories, and they carry a great deal of meaning in them. It's a shame you have to image them as facts, in order to value the truth of them.
Not exactly. The depth of the A&E story is far weighter and culturally influential than the Santa story is. But as a "type" they are the same. A&E is far more archetypal than Santa, but symbolic and mythological nonetheless. Embrace the myth, embrace the truth.
I'd enjoy seeing that thread. Can you share the link to it?That's exactly what I did!
When I first posted the map on RF I posted it with another map showing a different perspective and invited public comment. With this map I illustrated Christianity's traditional/historic view of God. This makes it easy to understand. IMO, conveying other perspectives on the same map would make it "busy" and more difficult to understand.
Great. We are in agreement on this.
This, BTW, makes you a Panenthiest, if you didn't realize this. A Theist believes God is wholly transcendent, outside creation. A Pantheist sees God wholly immanent within creation and not outside of it. Panentheism sees God as both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent. Panentheism is paradoxical. It's nice to see you don't struggle with this. Most Christians do.
Now we just have to get you beyond literalism.
If you can embrace a paradox like this, you shouldn't have much of a problem letting go of that mindset when it comes to things like this.That doesn't mean how you read it is infallible.
So.... you're saying the author(s) of Genesis were in the Garden of Eden.
To say a book is "inspired" is not the same thing as saying God wrote it.No it doesn't detract. It helps put it in context however. That context is human creation stories. What is it we share in common in our minds that makes us come up with common themes like this? I can tell it's not a "shared history" culturally. These things evolve independently of one another. I could do a whole thread on just this point alone.
No, no, and again no. Hating hate, is hate. It's still the same energy. Remember hearing your father or mother as a child advise you as you "Never force"? Let me give you a biblical reference, "A soft word turns away wrath".
To not hate in response is not "love, like, or indifference". It's calm Wisdom. You don't fight fire with fire. The Wise man effectively defeats violence through calm resolve, not feeding fire with fire.
No I don't agree. When is impatience effective? "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". Do you believe there are times we should not use the fruits of the Spirit?
Right, and we need to learn how to say "Peace, be still" to all adversity rather than fighting fire with fire. Don't engage at that level. Show Power, not force. There is a difference. Does God force? Yet God is all-Powerful. My point.
In true martial arts, aggression should never happen. You can take the offensive when necessary, you can strike, but it is not as an act of aggression. You remain calm and present the whole time. Aggression can be used against you.
Absolutely not. Pacifism is being a doormat. One can defend oneself and stand up for the good, without being aggressive. Ghandi, for instance, was NOT a pacifist. Nonviolent resistance, is not pacifism.
When did Jesus call for an armed revolt?
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
sorry sooooo late.....but.....
God does not look ahead of the present
I believe He moves with us
He understands this species and can interfere.....but....
looking ahead would spoil the fun
did God know?.... Adam and Eve would partake ......having been told they would die
no
but after the alteration He performed in the garden
the test was needful to be SURE the alteration had taken hold
Man NEEDS to be that creature curious to know
even in the face of death
(and yes we are)
Skwim
Veteran Member
And you know this to be a fact because __________________________________________________. Just asking because it doesn't square with being omniscient.
"Since He can foretell the future, God certainly knows the future. Isaiah recorded these words about God: “Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’” (Isaiah 46:9-10). God is the only One who can stand at the beginning and accurately declare the end.
God is omniscient; He knows everything actual and possible. God is also eternal (Psalm 90:2). As the eternal, omniscient God, He has lived our yesterdays, our todays, and our tomorrows, the past, present, and future. God is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 21:6)."
source
.
God is omniscient; He knows everything actual and possible. God is also eternal (Psalm 90:2). As the eternal, omniscient God, He has lived our yesterdays, our todays, and our tomorrows, the past, present, and future. God is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 21:6)."
source
.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
predicting the future is easy.
Man will go extinct
you don't need to be God to say this will happen
this form we call Man forms a unique spirit on each occasion
it is then needful to not interfere with your thoughts and feelings.....directly
sort of like.....the Prime Directive in Star Trek fame
God can say He knows all......no one knows better
But I suspect....
He will not interfere with your freewill
He will stand back and let you form as you see fit
if it goes well.....you get to stand before God and heaven
if not....you will stand somewhere else
Skwim
Veteran Member
Again I'll ask:
And you know this to be a fact because __________________________________________________. Just asking because it doesn't square with being omniscient.Thief said:
.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:2)
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:2)
Sure, there are plenty of anthropomorphisms in the bible and they help convey specific ideas, but I wouldn't use them to dismiss God's attributes nor dismiss the fact we've been made in God's image.
We differ. I believe scripture in its entirety.
If this is true, then we can do what we want, when we want, how we want, any way we want to do it so long as we don’t get caught or it doesn’t affect our conscience. We just tell ourselves "nobody's perfect...let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die." This is exactly what happens when we raise ourselves up as and recognize no higher authority.
We are under punishment and come to punishment as a result of sin.
I do not recall seeing anything in Genesis which would lead me to believe the narrative is about our human projections upon God. Also, I do not consider God’s ways abusive but instructive, but I do see our ways as abusive and de-meritorious toward spiritual growth.
What makes one person lie while another is honest, one a murder and the other a healer? Each of us is unique. I think we must look at sin from the perspective of God and not our own. Otherwise we have people who see nothing wrong with killing Jews or Muslims, or having relations with little boys and girls. What man considers sin is subject to change at a moment’s notice. What God considers sin doesn’t change at all.
It points out they had free will. It does not point out they were already short a moral or two.
It was at the point they decided to disobey God and eat of the fruit they fell short, or became “fallen”...not before.
Using such logic we could claim God is fallen not because He sins, but has yet to sin.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Biblical exegesis does not allow for “glossed over” inconsistencies. An assertion is consistent with other assertions or it is not. Granted, we should always allow for missing or incomplete information, but the only use I see for inconsistency is to disprove a particular assumption or hypothesis. IMO, cults thrive on inconsistencies and actually need their members to gloss over or accept inconsistent arguments as true.
Inconsistency is injected into the narrative when we convert Adam and Eve from man and woman to boy and girl. If we keep Adam and Eve as man and woman there is nothing to gloss over.
I can certainly see that, but people apply the same to the Genesis account. So rather than an eternal God it’s an eternal universe. And it wasn’t God creating but actually "nothing" that creates.
“In the beginning, nothing created the gas from the singularity that created the heavens and the earth” might fail miserably if we 're to take it literally, but can appear more believable if we suspend our disbelief for the intent of the tale. However as you say, the rational mind will spot these problems in the story if you are asking it to be critical rather than poetic.
I don’t see how. I think we messed up on our own and now it seems we want to blame God for our mistakes. On the other hand, if we literally believe nothing created everything, we can always blame our mistakes on nothing.
Agreed! Some atheists believe the creation has literally been proven in the lab, whilst Christians believe it was literally in scripture.
Well, we could convince them something from nothing was real. Or we could say there was no life before lightning struck some water, mixing carbon and chemicals so there was. Or we could say we descended from ape like creatures rather than A&E and we can change the garden to the wilds of Africa or Mesopotamia.
Literally, I suppose it just boils down to where we place our faith.
I'm pretty sure your literal "facts" of creation will change whilst the Genesis account will remain the same.
I can see how glossing over and applying poetic license to your creation account would be preferably to literalism, but I don't see how it works in the Genesis account where a literal approach makes more sense.
In any event it's late and we're deviating from thread theme.
I know and quote from that verse all the time. In reality, that judging that happens is not from an external judge, but the internal one. It's like the more modern saying, that when you point your finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you. Those that sit in judgement of others, are doing the same and worse to themselves. In fact, that's why they point a finger at others, so they can take the focus of their own self-judgments off themselves because of their own shame and guilt. It's all a great self-deception.
God however, sees us with love, beyond all those antics we do to ourselves. In other words, if you condemn me, you have already been active in condemning yourself, as opposed to loving yourself as God loves you. If you accept God's love for you, then you can love another as yourself.
Yet, you recognize that the finger of God is an anthropomorphism, but the anger or jealousy or "choices" of God is not? That's a very selective reading of scripture to suit one's own mental image. That's not doing an exegesis. That's just basic cherry picking.
But "believe" what? That's it's all literal? That it's all figurative? That it's a magical book without any human errors? In reality, one can accept scripture, without needing to see it as magical, such as the doctrine of a supernatural infallibility superimposes upon it. And that is what that doctrine is. It's a magical/mythological view of scripture which has to either ignore or deny it's actual historical origins in order to believe that way.
One can accept that scripture has great truth and value, without needing to superimpose supernaturalism on it in order to see that. Or do you see thinking in terms like that a necessary prerequisite to faith in God, and those that don't believe in that aren't truly believing God like you see yourself as doing? Be honest. God is watching.
This is a really unrealistic understanding of people such as yourself in this thinking. But I can understand it as a statement coming from seeing God as wholly external to one's own self. This is however an immature view of both man and God, which imagines in essence that all humans are nothing more than unruly and undisciplined children which "When the cat's away the mice will play." The reality of the situation is quite different from this fiction, or projection as the case may be however.
While I may be atypical in many regards, I'll start with me and my own personal experience. I do not believe anything I do is unseen or hidden from God. God sees and knows me better than I know myself, at any given moment. Yet, I always know that no matter how good or bad I may be, how God sees me is with Absolute, Pure, Unconditional Love which is never contingent upon my thoughts, beliefs, or actions. God's Love of me is never less than Absolute at all times. It is impossible for that to be otherwise.
Now, I could "take advantage" of this and go off on some "sinning spree", but why? How would that benefit myself, let alone anything else? I am free at any moment to overindulge myself and eat until I can't stand up, or drink until I pass out, or sit around hating everyone all day, complaining nonstop about how unfair my life is and judging how evil everyone else is, spitting bile out at the world. Even if I chose such a path, God still loves me the same regardless.
God doesn't love me more when I'm good, and less when I'm self-destructive. That's how a child in their immature minds and emotions imagines their parents will see them when they've been bad. They don't understand the true nature of Love yet. They don't have the ability yet to see the difference. They see love as synonymous with approval and the other being happy with them. This is a very immature understanding of the nature of Love.
There are however consequences to myself in my own actions. I can make myself unhealthy engaging in certain thoughts and behaviors. I of course know this from experience. Since these things make me miserable, since they make me feel contracted and removed from the Freedom that a life that is consistent with the nature of God, I chose by an act of the Will to not do these things. The price for myself is too high. I want to enjoy the brightness and the warmth of the sun that is always there, but I have to leave the dark basement of my own house and walk out into the daylight in order to experience it. It really is a matter of choice, and we are free to live our lives as shut-ins, or free out in the daylight.
And so God is there regardless, unchanging, unconditionally loving. The real issue question is what do I want to do with my life? Do I want to waste it in self-indulgent behaviors which rob and deplete me of the benefits of healthy behaviors, or do I want to live my life to its fullest potentials, understanding that love is better than hatred; that if I chose to walk outside and breathe in the fresh Spring air, I will know Life more than hiding inside behind walls I built up around myself to hide from Life? The sun doesn't appear in the sky because I chose it. It's always there regardless of my choices for what I want to do with my life.
So in effect, it's not that we are staying in line because we fear God will kick us out of heaven, so to speak. But rather, we will have wasted our own lives indulging in our own appetites instead as the highest good. God isn't out there punishing us. We are punishing ourselves. So removing God's approval of us from the variables, puts everything on us making a choice for no other reason that we choose life over death. I find this far more beneficial to people growing, than living in fear God will judgment and punish you. It's a far more mature approach.
And the wonderfully ironic thing about this is, I've heard many atheists saying the same thing. Once they got rid of the punishing God concept (even if they get rid of the baby with the bathwater), they actually become more loving and moral people as a result! To put a phrase to it I've heard in so many words time and again, "I am more a Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one." When you can figure out how that can be, then you'll see the error in your thinking. I choose Love because I value it, not because I "have to". And that, means infinitely more, than just mere "obedience". It is far more genuine than those who love others because they're "supposed to" because God told them to. That's not truly love, until it comes from yourself for no other reason than you love for love's sake alone.
We are not under punishment. There is no condemnation in God's Love. "Perfect love drives out all fear". We do however reap what we sow, just like eating fruits and vegetables is healthier than garbage processed fast foods all day. Eat fries and big macs all day? You reap what you sow. This is not God's punishment against us, but our own stupidity doing it to ourselves, ignoring of the signs that stare us in the face, like obesity. It's really more a matter of respecting what Nature tells us is beneficial or not. And the same holds true for spiritual diets as well. Nothing more, or less than that. To live in accord with what brings health over disease, is "obeying God". It is far more than just merely thinking that if you read and believe the words in a health manual, you are actually living healthily.
I'm going to reply to the next parts in a separate post a little while later....