Why Did God Even Bother?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The message would be the meaning of the allegory.

Allegory
An allegory is a story, poem, or painting in which the characters and events are symbols of something else. Allegories are often moral, religious, or political.​

So if the story is explaining something else as an allegory, just what is this something else?

.

​

It's not explaining "something else." It's trying to explain the conundrum posed by the belief in a supreme deity that loves you, and the observable fact that most of the time, it actually doesn't look like that, to those who are presumably the beloved.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The message would be the meaning of the allegory.

Allegory
An allegory is a story, poem, or painting in which the characters and events are symbols of something else. Allegories are often moral, religious, or political.​

So if the story is explaining something else as an allegory, just what is this something else?

Nothing more than this: "there must be a god, or whence came everything; god must love what it created, or why bother?; and yet it certainly doesn't look like god loves it anymore, given how wretched, bloody, cruel and short life is."

That's what it's trying to explain -- and it can't.

 

[Grandliseur]

Curious as to what this second source is. Care to share?

.

I have been exposed to the Chinese, Japanese characters, kanji - for many years. These, at times, contain strong clues to their origin, the history that shaped them. In a sense they are pictographs and may tell us what people thought of when they were established in what they meant.

A missionary in China made a curious study of Chinese and found something interesting. His study has been recorded by an American university where it may be examined. Naturally, many people will brush this under the rug if it stands in opposition to their paradigm, however, what is noteworthy is that it gives independent support to the Bible's Genesis account all the way perhaps to the confusion of languages at Babel. (I forget exactly)

link: ---> https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/chinese/bible.shtml

 

[Ingledsva]

I have been exposed to the Chinese, Japanese characters, kanji - for many years. These, at times, contain strong clues to their origin, the history that shaped them. In a sense they are pictographs and may tell us what people thought of when they were established in what they meant.

A missionary in China made a curious study of Chinese and found something interesting. His study has been recorded by an American university where it may be examined. Naturally, many people will brush this under the rug if it stands in opposition to their paradigm, however, what is noteworthy is that it gives independent support to the Bible's Genesis account all the way perhaps to the confusion of languages at Babel. (I forget exactly)

link: ---> https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/chinese/bible.shtml

Nothing to do with Berkeley other then the guy that put this up was a student there. He got the information from a book published by missionary C.H. Kang and medical pathologist Ethel R. Nelson, called The Discovery of Genesis,

There is absolutely no evidence given there. He just has a bunch of characters,- tells us what he thinks they mean, - and puts them together in supposed Genesis sentences.

Did you read the bottom of his page?

"COUNTERARGUMENTS
I've relayed this material to Christians, and some of them respond with much happiness, declaring that God has preserved a wonderful record of Biblical accounts in the Chinese language. Well, I dunno about that. I haven't come to any conclusion myself. But here are some counterarguments I've thought of, which should hopefully persuade the reader to be wary of this material.

1. The author of this theory is a missionary!
2. Many Chinese characters can be interpreted so that you see whatever you want. It's like looking at clouds. However, there do exist particular interpretations that are probably correct -- ones that reflect the intentions of the character's maker. Etymological dictionaries can be researched to find these correct interpretations, which are derived from studies of character evolvement over time. The fact that I've seen many characters whose standard etymological interpretations conflict with Kang's suggests to me that Kang may have conjured many interpretations out of his own volition. Admittedly, some of the interpretations seem very convincing; however, some others are just laughable.
3. Flood stories and tree-based creation stories are found in many cultures besides Hebrew. Flood Stories from Around the World has a giant collection of flood myths. We see similarities in myths across the world. So even if some of Kang's interpretations are valid, that does not necessarily indicate a correlation to the Hebrew myth in particular. It shows a correlation to myths in general.
4. Lambs are also considered sacrificial in some other cultures besides Hebrew and Chinese. For instance, the Sidama religion of Ethiopia.
5. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/chinese/bible.shtml

*

 

[Grandliseur]

What did I say: " recorded by an American university where it may be examined."

Nothing to do with Berkeley other then the guy that put this up was a student there. *

So, if you read more into it that what I said, that cannot be helped.

There is absolutely no evidence given there

What you believe is quite beside the point. You have your views, and others have theirs.

The fact is that the material shows an independent source from the Bible with no agenda to support the Bible. That we can see that there is support of the Biblical account is only something a believer may be happy for. That unbelievers mock is their problem.

You act very much like my flat-earth acquaintance, everything is brushed aside lest you should have to admit that the Bible is right. It is not the evidence that is the problem, but your paradigm. Your worldview poisons all things having to do with God.

 

[Ingledsva]

What did I say: " recorded by an American university where it may be examined."

It is not recorded by an American University where it can be examined.

It is on a University server because a student used it like all such students.

It cannot be examined because it is just pictures from the OTHER person's book. No evidence given what so ever. Which this student notes.

So, if you read more into it that what I said, that cannot be helped.

I read exactly what you wrote.

What you believe is quite beside the point. You have your views, and others have theirs.

The fact is that the material shows an independent source from the Bible with no agenda to support the Bible. That we can see that there is support of the Biblical account is only something a believer may be happy for. That unbelievers mock is their problem.

No it doesn't show an independent source. The student tells us it is in question because it is written by a missionary. Not an independent source. And no proof shown.

You act very much like my flat-earth acquaintance, everything is brushed aside lest you should have to admit that the Bible is right. It is not the evidence that is the problem, but your paradigm. Your worldview poisons all things having to do with God.

Brushed aside, - are arguments and conclusions with no facts behind them.

AGAIN - THE STUDENT - had this on his page that YOU sent us to, - -

2 Many Chinese characters can be interpreted so that you see whatever you want. It's like looking at clouds. However, there do exist particular interpretations that are probably correct -- ones that reflect the intentions of the character's maker. Etymological dictionaries can be researched to find these correct interpretations, which are derived from studies of character evolvement over time. The fact that I've seen many characters whose standard etymological interpretations conflict with Kang's suggests to me that Kang may have conjured many interpretations out of his own volition. Admittedly, some of the interpretations seem very convincing; however, some others are just laughable.

*

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My question is, what purpose did it serve to put the tree of knowledge in the garden?

I'm on a Journey to the West kick right now. It's like everyone in the world has a "divine garden with superpower-giving/god-giving food" in it somewhere. Someone always gets stuck protecting the garden while some human comes and steals from it. Usually it's a goddess who makes the Garden. Maybe God shouldn't have kicked out Asherah?

God put the tree there to give A & E the freedom of choice to choose to disobey Him or to choose to obey Him

But why not tempt them with something less dramatic? You don't go tempting a toddler with an automatic weapon.

Tempt them with a book or something.

God doesn't want robots.

As long as they choose not to go against the rules programmed, right?

So God is not here among us.

But God still shows up to talk to Cain and such. So, God is bad at staying consistent.

The woman was certainly understood she was not doing god's will and maybe the enticement to be like god but the bible never explains her reasoning because the point is that she had a choice.

Eve wasn't even around when the rule was pronounced, though, plus she gets it wrong. And her reasoning IS included: she thought it looked yummy and then she started thinking about the perks involved. But yum was first.

Adam supposedly walk with God, at least spoke with God. Certainly I suspect folks be asking why can't they speak with God too.

Abraham had God over for tea or something.

This is corroborated by a second independent source, a fascinating study in its own right.

What source?

she was thoroughly deceived.

*sigh* The serpent was the only one telling the truth.

Since there was an abundance of food, fruit bearing trees, in the garden, the edict was about rulership, who has the right to determine what is good and bad. By refraining from touching and eating the forbidden fruit, they acknowledged their submission to Theocracy. When they disobeyed, they thereby claimed their right to determine for themselves what is good and bad, in other words, the right to rule themselves.

Theocracies are always bad, because you always just have a human playing God, not God ruling Himself.

Do you have scripture that supports this claim?

I don't know about the future, but He can't find the only two members of the species He created last in an oasis.

Nala finds Simba in less time.

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm on a Journey to the West kick right now. It's like everyone in the world has a "divine garden with superpower-giving/god-giving food" in it somewhere. Someone always gets stuck protecting the garden while some human comes and steals from it. Usually it's a goddess who makes the Garden. Maybe God shouldn't have kicked out Asherah?


But why not tempt them with something less dramatic? You don't go tempting a toddler with an automatic weapon.

Tempt them with a book or something.


As long as they choose not to go against the rules programmed, right?


But God still shows up to talk to Cain and such. So, God is bad at staying consistent.


Eve wasn't even around when the rule was pronounced, though, plus she gets it wrong. And her reasoning IS included: she thought it looked yummy and then she started thinking about the perks involved. But yum was first.


Abraham had God over for tea or something.


What source?


*sigh* The serpent was the only one telling the truth.


Theocracies are always bad, because you always just have a human playing God, not God ruling Himself.


I don't know about the future, but He can't find the only two members of the species He created last in an oasis.

Nala finds Simba in less time.

 

[bobhikes]

Eve wasn't even around when the rule was pronounced, though, plus she gets it wrong. And her reasoning IS included: she thought it looked yummy and then she started thinking about the perks involved. But yum was first.

So who is the woman in this quote then:

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

[Sanzbir]

Every time we bring in a text considered negative to Baha'i, - we are told it is not an accepted translation, or not from an accepted site, or meant for a later date, - but we are not directed to the actual "accepted" Baha'i translations. We are just told to go to the Baha'i site, which is huge and includes many works, making it near impossible to find the text, especially if we don't know the "accepted" translation. As well as things that are negative might be purposely made impossible to find. Not being able to find the negative texts that actual speakers of the language are bringing up - to verify them, or not, - leaves the texts in question, and thus Baha'i.

Interesting. Such as??

*Probably should move discussion to messages since it is off topic.

 

[Nakosis]

But God still shows up to talk to Cain and such. So, God is bad at staying consistent.

The Bible is bad at staying consistent, but you have a point.

 

[Ingledsva]

So who is the woman in this quote then:

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Hearsay, - inadmissible.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Interesting. Such as??

*Probably should move discussion to messages since it is off topic.

What do you mean, such as? What I said is clear. Since we are not being given an "accepted" Baha'i translating to counter the negative translation, THEN - negative material - such as the translations being brought up by other speakers of the language, - could be being specifically made hard or impossible to find.

In other words if I had a translation proving someone wrong, - I would post it.

*

 

[Sanzbir]

What do you mean, such as? What I said is clear. Since we are not being given an "accepted" Baha'i translating to counter the negative translation, THEN - negative material - such as the translations being brought up by other speakers of the language, - could be being specifically made hard or impossible to find.

In other words if I had a translation proving someone wrong, - I would post it.

*

I mean it sounds interesting, do you have any examples you'd be willing to share??

The language you use "the translations being brought up by other speakers of the language" seems a bit suspect to me, as Iranian propaganda is a real thing, and trusting it would seem to me to be akin to trusting medieval Christians who insisted: "no really, the Jews commit blood libel!!" It's not exactly an unbiased source if it is from the Iranian propaganda machine, but it is still worth looking at.

But, surprisingly, I cannot know what translations you are specifically referring to if you speak only in vague allusions and not direct references. As it happens, I am not psychic.

But again, super off topic for this thread, probably should move to private messaging.

 

[Ingledsva]

I mean it sounds interesting, do you have any examples you'd be willing to share??

The language you use "the translations being brought up by other speakers of the language" seems a bit suspect to me, as Iranian propaganda is a real thing, and trusting it would seem to me to be akin to trusting medieval Christians who insisted: "no really, the Jews commit blood libel!!" It's not exactly an unbiased source if it is from the Iranian propaganda machine, but it is still worth looking at.

But, surprisingly, I cannot know what translations you are specifically referring to if you speak only in vague allusions and not direct references. As it happens, I am not psychic.

But again, super off topic for this thread, probably should move to private messaging.

Just go back through the pages. Several translations have been brought up, - with the standard Baha'i response, - already mentioned.

It obviously makes me wonder why you folks are not sending us to the "accepted" translation page for the verses.

*

 

[Sanzbir]

Just go back through the pages. Several translations have been brought up, - with the standard Baha'i response, - already mentioned.

It obviously makes me wonder why you folks are not sending us to the "accepted" translation page for the verses.

*

Okay, I just re-read through the thread just to make sure and I can tell you that whatever thread you think this is, it is not that thread!! You're the first one to use the word "Baha'i" apart from me mentioning the "Baha'i perspective" on the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I get the distinct impression that you mistakenly thought that this thread was another thread that you maybe were once posting in and responded to my post thinking that you were in a completely different thread.

Again this is so far off topic for this thread, that I'd prefer if you were to move this discussion to private messaging because this thread is not what you think it is. And your last few posts have absolutely nothing to do with that topic.

 

[Ingledsva]

Okay, I just re-read through the thread just to make sure and I can tell you that whatever thread you think this is, it is not that thread!! You're the first one to use the word "Baha'i" apart from me mentioning the "Baha'i perspective" on the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I get the distinct impression that you mistakenly thought that this thread was another thread that you maybe were once posting in and responded to my post thinking that you were in a completely different thread.

Again this is so far off topic for this thread, that I'd prefer if you were to move this discussion to private messaging because this thread is not what you think it is. And your last few posts have absolutely nothing to do with that topic.

In order -

Well since you placed it in "general religious debates" I might as well answer from a Baha'i perspective: ...

And yet no one argues that Luke 10:25-37 refers to a literal Samaritan man who existed and helped a man in need. That particular book already has a clear standard of prophets talking in parables and that particular passage about Eden was written by a prophet, Moses, who lived thousands and thousands of years after the claimed event. If people are willing to accept Jesus' sayings as mere parables why not the stories written by other prophets in that same book?? It's a weird double-standard.

Now in my Faith we don't think the Bible is 100% authoritative. But just realize that if we are to hold the Bible to the standards you propose, that means the Bible claims that the Good Samaritan was a literal person who existed, and that God made Moses into a literal God (Exodus 7:1), and that we are all literal Gods (Psalms 82:6). There's plenty of stuff in the book that is obviously not intended to have a literal meaning. You aren't arguing for a literal interpretation, you're arguing for a vacuous one.

But in the case of my religion, the Bible, especially the old testament, is not considered authoritative but books that have corrupted and their meaning lost over time. And furthermore authoritative texts from recent messengers of my Faith outright state that the meaning of Genesis was as I stated. Your criticism might work for someone else, but I'm using a technically literal interpretation based on my own scriptures, as that is what is literally written within my scriptures.

Now if I was a member of a faith that said "the Bible is literally true" you might have a point. But in this case I'm part of a faith that says different books are literally true, and that's what those books say on the subject of that story. Literalist figurativism, if you will.

I agree with you that the books of the Bible, - and most other ancient sacred texts have been misunderstood, mistranslated (purposely, or in error,) etc.

However I would add the Baha'i texts to that list. Every time we bring in a text considered negative to Baha'i, - we are told it is not an accepted translation, or not from an accepted site, or meant for a later date, - but we are not directed to the actual "accepted" Baha'i translations. We are just told to go to the Baha'i site, which is huge and includes many works, making it near impossible to find the text, especially if we don't know the "accepted" translation. As well as things that are negative might be purposely made impossible to find. Not being able to find the negative texts that actual speakers of the language are bringing up - to verify them, or not, - leaves the texts in question, and thus Baha'i.

I also wanted to add that the Tanakh texts are not calling Moses or the others actual Gods. The word Elohiym has multiple meanings including JUDGE. Moses would be the Judge over Pharaoh.

In Psalm 82:2 they also are talking about human JUDGES.

Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph: The Elohiym/Magistrates/Judges stand to assembly before El (Almighty) the Elohiym He to judge.

Psa 82:2 For how long will you judge unjustly, and by reason of, advance the wicked?

Psa 82:3 Defend the weak and bereaved, needy and destitute, be righteous!

Psa 82:4 Deliver the weak and destitute from the hand of the wicked.

Psa 82:5 Of a truth, they observe and don't understand. In misery they walk. Rotten is the whole foundation.

Psa 82:6 I said Elohiym/Judges thou are; and sons elevated above all others!

Psa 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders, fall.

Psa 82:8 Arise o Elohiym/Judges, execute judgment on the land/nation; for you shall inherit the whole nation/people.

You are correct that I crossed over two texts at this point below.

Just go back through the pages. Several translations have been brought up, - with the standard Baha'i response, - already mentioned.

It obviously makes me wonder why you folks are not sending us to the "accepted" translation page for the verses.

However as you can see - up to that point I had already pointed out Baha'i verse problems - in reply to your -

...But in the case of my religion, the Bible, especially the old testament, is not considered authoritative but books that have corrupted and their meaning lost over time. And furthermore authoritative texts from recent messengers of my Faith outright state that the meaning of Genesis was as I stated....

The go-back should have been a link to the other thread.

*