Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

[plindboe]

If he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it, why did he create it in the first place? Why was it placed in the middle of the garden? And why was it beautiful when it apparently meant death to even touch it? Why did he grant it the powers to give knowledge about good and evil, if he didn't want Adam and Eve to have that knowledge? Why did he even care if Adam and Eve had that knowledge in the first place?

Oops, sorry for all those questions. I initially just wanted to just ask one, but more and more questions kept popping up.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by plindboe
If he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it, why did he create it in the first place? Why was it placed in the middle of the garden? And why was it beautiful when it apparently meant death to even touch it? Why did he grant it the powers to give knowledge about good and evil, if he didn't want Adam and Eve to have that knowledge? Why did he even care if Adam and Eve had that knowledge in the first place?

Oops, sorry for all those questions. I initially just wanted to just ask one, but more and more questions kept popping up.

Adam and Eve were created with reasoning abilities in order to qualify to be called God's children since God himself reasons and has all the qualities man has to a superlative degree.

So there was nothing in his human nature that needed anything extra . That included the so-called tree of good and evil.

Man was already aware of what was evil.
He knew that going contrary to God's will was wrong.
He knew that he owed his existence to his heavenly father who had placed him in pleasant conditions and provided him with sustenance and the promise of eterenal life.

God also had assigned Adam the job of tending to the Garden and its animals. He and his descendants were to expand it until it became global.

Adam was given the honor of the naming each animal. So Adam was no grunting inarticulate beast. He was created with the abilities of language and of imagination to use that language creatively. So Adam knew that to refuse to tend to the Garden and its animals was evil.

After eve was created, he knew that to mistreat her was evil because she was given him as a helper and it was his responsibility to teach and protect his younger physically weaker companion. Anything contrary to this he knew would be wrong or evil.

In short, Adam definitely did not suffer from some inherent moral or intellectual inability to differentiate evil from good. Adam knew that living was good as opposed to not existing. After all, he had once not existed and knew thast living is preferable. So choosing not to exist or causing himself or Eve not to exist via the wrong choice he knew was evil.

Since Adam and Eve already view what is evil, the tree of knowledge of good and evil could not have been one that granted Adam moral sensibilities since he possessed these already.

The tree then had to have a symbolic meaning. as eating from its fruit must also have.

The meaning becomes clear when an angelic son of God tempts Eve to eat.

This spirit creature using a serpent as a puppet proceeded to tell Eve in a roundabout way what the eating from the tree signified and called God a liar.

God, remember, was the one who determined good and evil, Such a privilege was not granted man. So Satan accused God of being selfish--of not wanting to share that right with others. In short, eating from the fruit in clear violation of the commandment would mean rejecting that arrangement where God is the lawgiver and man the law keeper.

Eating from it, Satan said, would make man like God knowing by himself what is good and evil and not having to be told. In that way man could aspire to be like God in stipulating morality.

In short, disobeying God and eating would be a deceision to go it alone as well as a request for God to out of the picture and let man try to govern himself.

It was also an accusation against God in reference to his right to rule the universe inthe way he did--as a moral LAW GIVER.

BTW
The tree became attractive in appearance to Eve only after Satan described it is false terms of granting things that God wanted only for himself. Then the tree became desirable to look at. Prior to that it had provably been avoided due to the restrictions in reference to it.

[Doctor X]

The serpent was not a satan figure.

The myth has previous myths it was based on.

It is a good story.

Good night.

Some seem to want to waste a lot of ignorance on it, however.

--J.D.

[plindboe]

Hi Radrook, thanks for your long reply. Hope it's alright if I'm a little direct in mine. ;)

Originally posted by Radrook
Adam and Eve were created with reasoning abilities in order to qualify to be called God's children since God himself reasons and has all the qualities man has to a superlative degree.

So there was nothing in his human nature that needed anything extra . That included the so-called tree of good and evil.

Man was already aware of what was evil.

So in your opinion Gen 3:22 is false? (3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever)


Originally posted by Radrook
So Adam knew that to refuse to tend to the Garden and its animals was evil.

How do you know that? Where in Genesis is that mentioned? Maybe he was just following orders from God, but was without morals.


Originally posted by Radrook
After eve was created, he knew that to mistreat her was evil because she was given him as a helper and it was his responsibility to teach and protect his younger physically weaker companion. Anything contrary to this he knew would be wrong or evil.

Where does it say that? Maybe he did mistreat her.


Originally posted by Radrook
Adam knew that living was good as opposed to not existing. After all, he had once not existed and knew thast living is preferable. So choosing not to exist or causing himself or Eve not to exist via the wrong choice he knew was evil.

So he could remember how non-existance felt like? Where does it say that?


Originally posted by Radrook
Since Adam and Eve already view what is evil, the tree of knowledge of good and evil could not have been one that granted Adam moral sensibilities since he possessed these already.

I don't think you have argued well for such a conclusion, and you seem to have spiced the whole story up alot with your own fantasies about the story.


Originally posted by Radrook
The tree then had to have a symbolic meaning. as eating from its fruit must also have.

So you have choosen that this is symbolic. Why can't the entire story might as well be symbolic then?


Originally posted by Radrook
The meaning becomes clear when an angelic son of God tempts Eve to eat.

This spirit creature using a serpent as a puppet proceeded to tell Eve in a roundabout way what the eating from the tree signified and called God a liar.

Maybe I have missed it, but where does it say that the snake is an "angelic son of God" & "spirit creature using the serpent as a puppet", thanks?

Lastly, I don't really think you answered the questions I posed. Ah, well.

[Ossai]

Radrook
Man was already aware of what was evil.
He knew that going contrary to God's will was wrong. Goes directly against the text.

Since Adam and Eve already view what is evil, the tree of knowledge of good and evil could not have been one that granted Adam moral sensibilities since he possessed these already. Again, goes directly against the text.

Your entire post.

So people were good little zombies doing everything correctly until Satan shows up and says, hey break the rules. Looks like, from your post, Satan shows humanity the first uses of freewill and the consequences.

God was menial labor, Satan was product testing.

Ossai

[plindboe]

If anyone are interested I asked the same questions at the fundy site Christianity.com. Seems to have taken a different turn about free will, check it out if you want and perhaps join the discussion: http://forums.christianity.com/html/P1042515/?sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view _collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[Ladewig]

God himself reasons and has all the qualities man has to a superlative degree.

Bloodthirstiness: I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh; the blood of the slain and the captives; the head of the enemy leaders - Deuteronomy, 33:2.

Jealosy: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me - Exodus 20:5

Arbitrariness: And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. - Genesis 4:3-5

Stylishness:_Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them._The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure._The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other five curtains shall be coupled one to another._And thou shalt make loops of blue upon the edge of the one curtain from the selvedge in the coupling; and likewise shalt thou make in the uttermost edge of another curtain, in the coupling of the second._Fifty loops shalt thou make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shalt thou make in the edge of the curtain that is in the coupling of the second; that the loops may take hold one of another._And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold, and couple the curtains together with the taches: and it shall be one tabernacle. And thou shalt make curtains of goats' hair to be a covering upon the tabernacle: eleven curtains shalt thou make._The length of one curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and the eleven curtains shall be all of one measure._And thou shalt couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and shalt double the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tabernacle._And thou shalt make fifty loops on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling, and fifty loops in the edge of the curtain which coupleth the second._And thou shalt make fifty taches of brass, and put the taches into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one. And the remnant that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang over the backside of the tabernacle._And a cubit on the one side, and a cubit on the other side of that which remaineth in the length of the curtains of the tent, it shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it._And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. _And thou shalt make boards for the tabernacle of s**ttim wood standing up. _Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and a cubit and a half shall be the breadth of one board._Two tenons shall there be in one board, set in order one against another: thus shalt thou make for all the boards of the tabernacle._And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards on the south side southward. _And thou shalt make forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his two tenons. _And for the second side of the tabernacle on the north side there shall be twenty boards: And their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board._And for the sides of the tabernacle westward thou shalt make six boards._And two boards shalt thou make for the corners of the tabernacle in the two sides._And they shall be coupled together beneath, and they shall be coupled together above the head of it unto one ring: thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two corners. _And they shall be eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board. - Exodus 26

[Skeptical Greg]

Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

Absolutely no chance we are dealing with a metaphor here, in a made up story??


Oh, well..

[Agammamon]

Couldn't we sue God under the "attractive nuisance" tort theory?

And Radrook, according to the Bible man didn't know good from evil, wasn't embarrased by his nakedness etc before eating from the tree.

[hgc]

For the same reason he chose to plant apparently millions-year-old fossils in the ground of our 6000-year-old planet: To give his puppet creatures something to not think about as a test of their faith.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Radrook

So there was nothing in his human nature that needed anything extra . That included the so-called tree of good and evil.

Man was already aware of what was evil.

So ancient storytellers are telling us through metaphor what we should already know: that man is complete, and the search for anything above and beyond their own lives is "evil".

Including God.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Agammamon
And Radrook, according to the Bible man didn't know good from evil, wasn't embarrased by his nakedness etc before eating from the tree.

But nakedness is not inherently evil. Therefore, the tree represents something else. Perhaps it represents civilization and societalization? We are speaking metaphor here.

[Ipecac]

Here's a question. Why the heck do we have to worship a "creator"?

For all intents and purposes, I "created" my kids. Yet I do not seek their worship; in fact if I did, people would be scandalized. If I created a lower life form, I certainly wouldn't want it to worship me.

I didn't ask to be created. So why do I owe anything to the (supposed) deity that did it? Maybe I owe it a hearty "thanks!" but worship? No way.

[LostAngeles]

Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge?

A: Because he felt like it.
B: God is ineffable.
C: Because he knew what would happen, wanted it to happen, and made it apples so Adam wouldn't have to pluck out an eye and hang himself so as not to continue blatantly borrowing from other myth cycles.

[Dancing David]

Because the god of creation (AL) is not the god that tell ADM that he created him (YVHV), AL created the tree, YVHV told ADM not to eat of it.

[Iacchus]

Yes, but what do grubs know? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71) ... except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly? :)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what do grubs know? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71) ... except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly? :)


Raise your hands, everyone who suspects that "Iacchus" is just a bot programmed to restate arguments as logical fallacies and randomly print out naive, nonsensical questions.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what do grubs know? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71) ... except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly? :)

Point or order, Iachuss, they are not grups they are catepillars and/or larvae.

I have wondered that myself, but i don't think seeds remeber the flower. There is some tissue in the larvae that gets transformed during the pupation. There are so few brain cells, I don't know what a butterfly remebers. Most of it seems to be response cues.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Raise your hands, everyone who suspects that "Iacchus" is just a bot programmed to restate arguments as logical fallacies and randomly print out naive, nonsensical questions.

There's at least three major posters here who I can name that have this as their standard mode of operation.

I think Iacchus belongs on the list, after my conversation with him yesterday. He thinks he's a sophist, but in fact he's just a parrot.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Point or order, Iachuss, they are not grups they are catepillars and/or larvae."There is a differency between a grub and a butterfly, yet your butterfly was a grub." ~ Shakespeare

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"There is a differency between a grub and a butterfly, yet your butterfly was a grub." ~ Shakespeare

That's a metaphor as it is used there, and are you going to rely on an Elizabethan to provide your terms?

Just because a poet or a dramatist uses a word in a certain way that does not make the word preferable for that use in all other cases.

You can Google the phrase and get the play, but who is it spoken in reference of? :p

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore

You can Google the phrase and get the play, but who is it spoken in reference of? :p

It was spoken in reference to a PERSON?!

Well, then I guess that destroys whatever Iacchus' point was anyhow.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by scribble


It was spoken in reference to a PERSON?!

Well, then I guess that destroys whatever Iacchus' point was anyhow.

I'd bet money he Google'd "grub" and found the Shakespeare quote.

This play is one I haven't read either, just skimmed.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I'd bet money he Google'd "grub" and found the Shakespeare quote.


It's funny how the instant access to information that we enjoy in these modern times can often remind us of the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Anyone with a PC effectively has the knowledge of virtually anyone who ever wrote down a word.

But not neccessarily the intellect to apply that knowledge, as we see here at the JREF day, after day, after day.

Iacchus isn't even the best example of this behaviour at the JREF, as far as I'm concerned.

(Unrelated note: Your avatar looks a lot like the VW bus our CEO drives, and it kind of freaks me out. Is that your bus?)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by scribble
(Unrelated note: Your avatar looks a lot like the VW bus our CEO drives, and it kind of freaks me out. Is that your bus?)

Yup. I doubt I ever would have picked out an orange car, but this one became available just when I was thinking about getting myself a vehicle (there's a longish story that goes with it that would make the woo-woo-'s ears twitch :)) Now that I do I love it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

There's always been some fundy wrangling about how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Usually this is about making some apocalyptic chronological theory come out right.

But a close look at the text implies that it was less than one day. That is, that the fall from grace was a necessary last step in the creation of Man.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

That's a metaphor as it is used there, and are you going to rely on an Elizabethan to provide your terms? You betcha! ... "As sure as the day follows night." ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Just because a poet or a dramatist uses a word in a certain way that does not make the word preferable for that use in all other cases.Well, since nobody bothered to follow the link, maybe this will make it more plausible? ...

From the thread, What do Grubs Know? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71)


What do grubs know, except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly?

Could it be this is a reflection of our own condition, where we too are earthbound and in need of a grubstake, as we look around with ravenous appetites and devour everything in sight?

It all seems kind of narrow-minded dosen't it? But then what does a grub know? Not much beyond being a grub I suppose ... but, there will come a time. ;)

Indeed, we go to the ends of he universe to discover the truth, with a slew of fancy instruments and calculations and God knows what else? (and only He can) but, when you get right down to it, what do we really know beyond what a grub knows, as we grub around in the dark?

But, there will come a time in the life of the grub when he says enough is enough, I've had it, leave me alone, I would like to lay down for awhile.

You see I've stripped the Tree of Knowledge bare, and now that I'm full (of myself?), what's the point? Where's the silken thread (wisdom) to this big walking sack of knowledge? I need some time to reflect.

Ah, what's that you say? Something is coming out my rear end? What? I have everything back to front? Could it be? Yes, there it is! ... The thread ... and, what does the thread say? 1 + 1 = 2. Wow! Even a little child can understand that! ... and therein lies the answer.

Perhaps what we need is to take some time out from our worldliness and reflect on why 1 + 1 = 2? For if in fact you can see this for yourself, without someone else to say it was so, then why isn't it possible to acknowledge the existence of God? Once again, if you were to ask little children about this, most would probably reply, "Yes."

And from the one mind we have fallen, to accept the two, and hence the knowledge of opposites. 1 + 1 = 2.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, what's that you say? Something is coming out my rear end? What?


No, I said you're typing nothing but s**t. I can't see your rear end, I assume you type with your fingers.

[The idea]

Originally posted by plindboe
If he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it, why did he create it in the first place?
That sounds like a Homer Simpson question. "If pork chops are high in saterated fat, then why did scientists create the pig?" Maybe the hypothetical tree was hypothetically created to provide shade or to provide wood for furniture.

Originally posted by plindboe
Why was it placed in the middle of the garden?

I have no idea. You might as well ask why there's so much hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen bombs are dangerous. Wouldn't the world be a safer place if hydrogen were a very rare element?

Originally posted by plindboe
And why was it beautiful when it apparently meant death to even touch it?
Why do foods that are high in sugar and fat taste good? Maybe the moral is that we should learn to judge things by their true essence rather than by mere appearances. Jesus said, "Clean the inside of the cup." Here the cup is a metaphor for the person. The inside is a metaphor for the real you.

Originally posted by plindboe
Why did he grant it the powers to give knowledge about good and evil, if he didn't want Adam and Eve to have that knowledge?
It sounds like a trap. Why put real cheese in a mousetrap?

Originally posted by plindboe
Why did he even care if Adam and Eve had that knowledge in the first place?

If you had adolescent children and you found out that they were trying to learn how to manufacture counterfeit money, then wouldn't you be concerned?

[scribble]

Originally posted by The idea
[B]
Why do foods that are high in sugar and fat taste good? Maybe the moral is that we should learn to judge things by their true essence rather than by mere appearances. Jesus said, "Clean the inside of the cup." Here the cup is a metaphor for the person. The inside is a metaphor for the real you.


Are you saying it's a made-up story, a metaphor for something else?



It sounds like a trap. Why put real cheese in a mousetrap?


The Bible claims the "trap" as you call it was baited with REAL cheese. Have you read the Bible? They DEFINATLY gain the knowledge of Good and Evil - the reward for eating the fruit was no lie. There's no fake cheese.


If you had adolescent children and you found out that they were trying to learn how to manufacture counterfeit money, then wouldn't you be concerned?

I'm not sure. What was it God said when he threw them out of the Garden?

Oh yeah, it was, "They have eaten from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now we must cast them out, because now all they'll have to do is eat from the Tree of Eternal Life (and become immortal) and they'll be just as powerful as we (God) are!"*

You think abut that. And if you think I'm lying, go read the Bible. God is AFRAID of Adam and Eve because he FEARS they will become JUST AS POWERFUL AS HIM.

(*I mix singular and Plural for God above. The actual passage definately refers to plural Gods.)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Here's a question. Why the heck do we have to worship a "creator"?

You don't. It's sufficient to seek truth, to work for the implementation of justice, and to be generous.

Originally posted by Ipecac
For all intents and purposes, I "created" my kids.
A woman who knows very little about biochemistry can produce milk for her baby, but a rocket scientist who knows nothing about science cannot produce a functioning rocket. You excrete sweat. You don't create it the way that a perfume manufacturer creates perfume.

Originally posted by Ipecac
Yet I do not seek their worship; in fact if I did, people would be scandalized. If I created a lower life form, I certainly wouldn't want it to worship me.

Okay, but wouldn't you want it to be able to sit still long enough to attend a few classes and learn something so that it wouldn't rush off and destroy itself?

Originally posted by Ipecac
I didn't ask to be created.
That sounds rather childish. "I didn't ask to be born. Why should I have to go to school and learn how to read and write? I can just get a job as a baseball player."

[scribble]

Originally posted by The idea
Okay, but wouldn't you want it to be able to sit still long enough to attend a few classes and learn something so that it wouldn't rush off and destroy itself?


Again, bad analogy. You can't "destroy yourself" after you're an immortal, which is what God(s) was desperate to prevent. Have you read the story we are talking about here?

[psy kick]

You think abut that. And if you think I'm lying, go read the Bible. God is AFRAID of Adam and Eve because he FEARS they will become JUST AS POWERFUL AS HIM.

(*I mix singular and Plural for God above. The actual passage definately refers to plural Gods.) [/B]
That was my thought.
That reminded me of the Tower Of Babel story.
God was upset that humans had bee working together and said Let us go down and confuse their laguage for look what they have done and there will be NOTHING they cannot do if they all work together.

Hmmmmmmm

[Radrook]

Originally posted by plindboe
Hi Radrook, thanks for your long reply. Hope it's all right if I'm a little direct in mine. ;)

So in your opinion Gen 3:22 is false? (3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever)

Are you asking me to spice things up a bit?



How do you know that? Where in Genesis is that mentioned? Maybe he was just following orders from God, but was without morals.

A robotic Adam would have been an imperfect Adam.
What you are saying is that God created a robot.
If so, then God would have programmed that robot with the inability to disobey.
But Adam did disobey.
So he wasn't a programmed automaton.


Where does it say that? Maybe he did mistreat her.

Adam expressed appreciation for Eve when he poetically waxed melodic in appreciation for her company. There is absolutely no evidence which justifies your casting suspicion on his behavior.

BTW
The Bible also doesn't say that Adam never flew by flapping his arms, urinated molten gold, or preferred to eat elephant manure for supper. Such things remain unsaid because the readers of normal intelligence are expected to come to a reasonable conclusions without constantly being reminded of everything that is not directly said.


So he could remember how nonexistence felt like?


That is an impossibility.
There is no feeling in nonexistence.
Yet you do know that the absence of sense perceptions is not a condition that you prefer to be in. You also know that once you had no such perceptions because you were as yet not conceived or born.


Where does it say that?

Things need not be said in order for one to conclude.
If so then philosophy would not have developed very far.


In court, when a person is accused of a crime based on evidence, the person is considered innocent of crime until proven guilty. You seem to prefer not to consider Adam innocent until proven guilty. even though there is no evidence to indicate that he did anything wrong to Eve. Why?


I don't think you have argued well for such a conclusion, and you seem to have spiced the whole story up a lot with your own fantasies about the story.

Sorry you feel this way.

So you have chosen that this is symbolic.
Why can't the entire story might as well be symbolic then?


I don't choose.
I am guided.
I let the Bible itself idicate how things are to be undserstood.

The entire story cannot be symbolic because Jesus and his Apostles refer to it as historical fact.

Biblical Reverences to Genesis as Historical Fact.
http://www.varietygalore.shoppingcartsplus.com/page/page/1083181.htm


Maybe I have missed it, but where does it say that the snake is an "angelic son of God" & "spirit creature using the serpent as a puppet", thanks?


Maybe you did.

Revelation 12
9 The dragon was thrown down. He was that old snake who is called the devil and Satan. He fools all the people in the world. He was thrown down to earth and his angels were thrown down with him.

WE


Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

KJV

That is not the only incident where an angel uses an animal as a puppet.


Lastly, I don't really think you answered the questions I posed. Ah, well.

God placed the tree in the Garden in order to give man an opportunity to demonstrate his appreciation for his creator by voluntarily being an obedient respectful son.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Scribble

You think abut that. And if you think I'm lying, go read the Bible. God is AFRAID of Adam and Eve because he FEARS they will become JUST AS POWERFUL AS HIM.

(*I mix singular and Plural for God above. The actual passage definately refers to plural Gods.) Originally posted by psy kick

That was my thought.
That reminded me of the Tower Of Babel story.
God was upset that humans had bee working together and said Let us go down and confuse their laguage for look what they have done and there will be NOTHING they cannot do if they all work together.

Hmmmmmmm God must be pretty wimpy then, huh?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
God must be pretty wimpy then, huh?

You are the most blasphemous Christian I've ever read!!

And you're still incapable of comprehending simple english. All these comments suggest is that God is a JEALOUS GOD. Surely even you who have never read the Holy Bible have heard that phrase.

He doesn't want us to achieve His level of power. The Bible has said so. The very fact that we have not achieved His level of power pretty clearly makes *US* the wimpy ones, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm making assumptions here that aren't warranted. You are a Christian, aren't you? Do you take these same fingers that call God wimpy to church with you?! I would be ashamed.

[The idea]

Originally posted by scribble
Oh yeah, it was, "They have eaten from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now we must cast them out, because now all they'll have to do is eat from the Tree of Eternal Life (and become immortal) and they'll be just as powerful as we (God) are!"*

You think abut that.
I'm thinking. The situation is now X. To deal with it, Y must be done.

Originally posted by scribble
God is AFRAID of Adam and Eve because he FEARS they will become JUST AS POWERFUL AS HIM.

I don't detect an emotion of fear. I detect a simple, rational decision-making process. Are those who buy various kinds of insurance or install various kinds of safety devices in factories guilty of being fearful?

Originally posted by scribble
(*I mix singular and Plural for God above. The actual passage definitely refers to plural Gods.)
Your point is what? The Bible also refers to Satan and it doesn't seem that Satan has the powers of the boy next door. Maybe we can conceive of a distinction between the concept of a total number of gods equal to one versus an unknown number of gods one of whom deserves our full respect?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

You are the most blasphemous Christian I've ever read!!Glad to hear it! ... It's just a label anyway.


And you're still incapable of comprehending simple english. All these comments suggest is that God is a JEALOUS GOD. Surely even you who have never read the Holy Bible have heard that phrase. Holy Bible? Wait a second, isn't that just a bit of leap of faith for you?


He doesn't want us to achieve His level of power. The Bible has said so. The very fact that we have not achieved His level of power pretty clearly makes *US* the wimpy ones, doesn't it?Yes, but aren't you one of those who claim the Bible is full of discrepancies?


Maybe I'm making assumptions here that aren't warranted. You are a Christian, aren't you? Do you take these same fingers that call God wimpy to church with you?! I would be ashamed. I Am that I am ...

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
God must be pretty wimpy then, huh?

Here is an article that sheds more light on this subject:
Tower of Babel
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1236521.htm

[scribble]

Originally posted by The idea

I don't detect an emotion of fear. I detect a simple, rational decision-making process. Are those who buy various kinds of insurance or install various kinds of safety devices in factories guilty of being fearful?


Fear:
A reason for dread or apprehension: Being alone is my greatest fear.

Dread:
To anticipate with alarm, distaste, or reluctance: dreaded the long drive home.

I think fear fits. You don't. Fine - it's semantics. We both agree that Gods saw the possibility that Man could achieve the Gods' level of power, and They decided to kick him out of the Garden pre-emptively.


Your point is what?

I wasn't trying to make a point; it's just that that passage is one of the passages where it clearly refers to plural Gods making the decision to throw Adam and Eve out.

I wasn't making a point, I was only stating the obvious.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Here is an article that sheds more light on this subject:
Tower of Babel
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1236521.htm Thanks for the link!

No, I don't think God has anything to fear from man. The angels in heaven perhaps? (i.e., those who have died and gone to heaven). Quite possibly. But this is why God sees to it that heaven is protected from man and his folly.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Glad to hear it! ... It's just a label anyway.


If you only wear your religion as a label, you're as bad as I accused you of being.



Holy Bible? Wait a second, isn't that just a bit of leap of faith for you?


It says right here, "Holy Bible." :shrug:


Yes, but aren't you one of those who claim the Bible is full of discrepancies?


Full? As in leaving no room for anything else? No. I am among the number that believes the Bible contains discrepancies, right along with every Christian Bible scholar who's ever actually read the Bible.


I Am that I am ...


Blasphemer.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook


Here is an article that sheds more light on this subject:
Tower of Babel
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1236521.htm

That link seems to leave this verse completely, and totally unaddressed:

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

What on Earth could THAT mean... ?

Oh yeah, exactly what was said: God again sees that Man is going to achieve His level of power if left unchecked.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The angels in heaven perhaps? (i.e., those who have died and gone to heaven).

Maybe if you studied your religion for a change, you would know that angels are not "those who have died and gone to Heaven." They were, in fact, created quite seperate from Man, and are a different class of being altogether.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

If you only wear your religion as a label, you're as bad as I accused you of being.No, you don't know who I am ...


17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. ~ Revelation 2:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+2)It says right here, "Holy Bible." :shrug:Does the sun not also shine in the desert? ... where the state of Israel is by the way? Indeed, appearances can be deceiving.


Full? As in leaving no room for anything else? No. I am among the number that believes the Bible contains discrepancies, right along with every Christian Bible scholar who's ever actually read the Bible.Are you saying the only way a person can find God is by reading the Bible? By the way, which Bible did Abraham refer to?


Blasphemer. Hairlip ... Hairlip ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Maybe if you studied your religion for a change, you would know that angels are not "those who have died and gone to Heaven." They were, in fact, created quite seperate from Man, and are a different class of being altogether. And what makes you the expert? Is this something you read in a book?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, you don't know who I am ...


And you don't know who I am - yet at every turn you have misrepresented me. Here, I make no misrepresentation of you, you're the one who said it's merely a label.


Does the sun not also shine in the desert? ... where the state of Israel is by the way? Indeed, appearances can be deceiving.


And?


Are you saying the only way a person can find God is by reading the Bible? By the way, which Bible did Abraham refer to?


No, and none.


Hairlip ... Hairlip ...


Yet I do not have a hairlip - and yet you have blasphemed.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what makes you the expert? Is this something you read in a book?


The Holy Bible. Try it, you'll like it.

(hint: screw a hint. Read the Bible. )

[Iacchus]

Just a couple of ideas about angels here ...


23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. ~ Matthew 22:23-32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+22)6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ~ Revelation 19:6-10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+19)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just a couple of ideas about angels here ...




Where?

Why don't you look up something actually about angels. Here's some stuff off the top of my head -- I know in Ezekiel somewhere, God describes the angel's pre-existence. I know in ... Jude, maybe (I could look to see if I'm right, but why don't YOU go do some work now) there is a passage to comfort the bereaved that explains the new eternal life of the recently deceased as being "like an angel."

"That supports me!" you yell. No it doesn't, go study.

[Iacchus]

What's the difference between an angel and a son of God? ... And I don't mean Jesus. Would you like me to show you some references to that?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's the difference between an angel and a son of God? ... And I don't mean Jesus. Would you like me to show you some references to that?

No. I'd like you to stick to your point. You said angels are ex-humans.

I'm still waiting for you to provide even a lick of evidence for that claim.

Still waiting...

[Doctor X]

Scribble:

I am sure you realize you are wasting your time.

This individual has been given references and citations from the OT texts yet chooses to ignore them because he does not like what they actually say.

--J.D.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Scribble:
I am sure you realize you are wasting your time.


Yeah...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31121

I never listen to myself.

[Doctor X]

Oh my . . . I missed that thread.

You exposed lifegazer as a moron . . . bad man! Bad man! I wish you into the Cornfield!!

--J.D.

[scribble]

Originally posted by scribble
Full? As in leaving no room for anything else? No. I am among the number that believes the Bible contains discrepancies, right along with every Christian Bible scholar who's ever actually read the Bible.


Iacchus, take a look at Radrook's thread about Hume and Christianity. Radrook is an example of what I'd call a thinking, respectful Christian.

Not a wanna-be-Sophist blasphemer with no point to make.

You could learn something. I've already learned some things in my study to debate Radrook. I learned nothing in my posts to you.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Radrook
Are you asking me to spice things up a bit?

Not sure what you mean, I simply quoted the passage to show that you were contradicting Genisis.


Originally posted by Radrook
A robotic Adam would have been an imperfect Adam.

But he was imperfect since we know that he did eat the fruit


Originally posted by Radrook
What you are saying is that God created a robot.
If so, then God would have programmed that robot with the inability to disobey.
But Adam did disobey.
So he wasn't a programmed automaton.

I didn't say he was a robot. The Bible says he didn't know good from evil before he ate of the tree. To not know good from evil is not being a robot. Do you consider animals to be robots for instance?


Originally posted by Radrook
Adam expressed appreciation for Eve when he poetically waxed melodic in appreciation for her company. There is absolutely no evidence which justifies your casting suspicion on his behavior.

BTW
The Bible also doesn't say that Adam never flew by flapping his arms, urinated molten gold, or preferred to eat elephant manure for supper. Such things remain unsaid because the readers of normal intelligence are expected to come to a reasonable conclusions without constantly being reminded of everything that is not directly said.

Notice I said "maybe". That means I acknowledge the possibility, but doesn't imply anything at all. You were the one that assumed something that was not mentioned in the Bible, not me.


Originally posted by Radrook
That is an impossibility.
There is no feeling in nonexistence.
Yet you do know that the absence of sense perceptions is not a condition that you prefer to be in. You also know that once you had no such perceptions because you were as yet not conceived or born.

That doesn't make the choice to non-exist evil.


Originally posted by Radrook
Things need not be said in order for one to conclude.
If so then philosophy would not have developed very far.

There's a difference between reading the obvious between the lines, and filling out with free fantasy of what one prefers the story to be like.


Originally posted by Radrook
In court, when a person is accused of a crime based on evidence, the person is considered innocent of crime until proven guilty. You seem to prefer not to consider Adam innocent until proven guilty. even though there is no evidence to indicate that he did anything wrong to Eve. Why?

That someone is considered innocent until proven otherwise doesn't make the accused innocent.That a proces is held in the first place is because the "innocent" might not be innocent afterwards. If the accused is truly believed to be innocent there would be no need to hold a trial at all.


Originally posted by Radrook
I don't choose.
I am guided.
I let the Bible itself idicate how things are to be undserstood.

The entire story cannot be symbolic because Jesus and his Apostles refer to it as historical fact.

Biblical Reverences to Genesis as Historical Fact.
http://www.varietygalore.shoppingcartsplus.com/page/page/1083181.htm

That they mention Adam and Eve and the Eden, doesn't make it a historical fact, but can just as easily be references to a symbolic story.



Originally posted by Radrook
Maybe you did.

Revelation 12
9 The dragon was thrown down. He was that old snake who is called the devil and Satan. He fools all the people in the world. He was thrown down to earth and his angels were thrown down with him.

WE


Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

KJV

That is not the only incident where an angel uses an animal as a puppet.

Thanks for providing those. I can see now that the conclusion isn't too bad.


Originally posted by Radrook
God placed the tree in the Garden in order to give man an opportunity to demonstrate his appreciation for his creator by voluntarily being an obedient respectful son.

Ah, thanks, this makes sense. I wonder though, if you believe in God's omniscience, then God already knew when placing the tree, that Adam wouldn't be the obedient respectful son. So he didn't give him an opportunity but set up the conditions knowing that Adam would fail.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by The idea
That sounds like a Homer Simpson question. "If pork chops are high in saterated fat, then why did scientists create the pig?" Maybe the hypothetical tree was hypothetically created to provide shade or to provide wood for furniture.

A normal tree could have filled those needs. There was a reason for the tree being created, the question is what that reason was. The best answer is that he wanted to test Adam and Eve, but that doesn't really fit the omniscience idea.


Originally posted by The idea
I have no idea. You might as well ask why there's so much hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen bombs are dangerous. Wouldn't the world be a safer place if hydrogen were a very rare element?

I'm asking about a story that makes little sense to me. I'm not talking about the real world here.


Originally posted by The idea
Why do foods that are high in sugar and fat taste good?

Because we evolved in a world where food was scarce, so food with a high level of energy was necessary for our survival. But again, I'm not talking about the real world here, I'm talking about a story.


Originally posted by The idea
Maybe the moral is that we should learn to judge things by their true essence rather than by mere appearances. Jesus said, "Clean the inside of the cup." Here the cup is a metaphor for the person. The inside is a metaphor for the real you.

So God made the deadly tree beautiful because he wanted a story with a nice moral. That seems rather odd, I must say.


Originally posted by The idea
It sounds like a trap. Why put real cheese in a mousetrap?

It was real cheese. Why did God make that attractive piece of cheese in the first place, that's what I'm asking.


Originally posted by The idea
If you had adolescent children and you found out that they were trying to learn how to manufacture counterfeit money, then wouldn't you be concerned?

Counterfeiting money is a crime. Why was it a crime having knowledge, that's what I'm asking?

You have really made some poor analogies. Try harder, thanks.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

No. I'd like you to stick to your point. You said angels are ex-humans.

I'm still waiting for you to provide even a lick of evidence for that claim.

Still waiting... Evidence? What kind of evidence? I've already provided two good passages which, is two more than you have.

Whereas all I can say, as much as I hate to speculate on the matter, if there were angels before Adam and Even, then there must have been other lifeforms in the Universe which are like us. So, if in fact we were created in God's image, like the Bible says, then it's very plausible that other beings like us could exist as well.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by plindboe

A normal tree could have filled those needs. There was a reason for the tree being created, the question is what that reason was. The best answer is that he wanted to test Adam and Eve, but that doesn't really fit the omniscience idea.Of course unless we're tested and put in a situation of stress, we don't grow do we? So maybe it wasn't so much for God's benefit than ours? ... i.e., Adam and Eve's.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course unless we're tested and put in a situation of stress, we don't grow do we? So maybe it wasn't so much for God's benefit than ours? ... i.e., Adam and Eve's.

Why would one need to ' grow ', if they were perfect in the first place..


The story is not about ' growing ' it is about ' falling '...


Hard to keep things straight, isn't it?

[Ossai]

Radrook
So he wasn't a programmed automaton.
Doesn’t follow. It could have been faulty programming.

God placed the tree in the Garden in order to give man an opportunity to demonstrate his appreciation for his creator by voluntarily being an obedient respectful son. Who had no frame of reference or knowledge of one or the other.

Ossai

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by The idea
That sounds rather childish. "I didn't ask to be born. Why should I have to go to school and learn how to read and write? I can just get a job as a baseball player."

I think you misunderstand. My point is that I didn't ask to be created, so why do I owe my "creator" worship? Your analogy isn't even close to what I'm saying here.

[AtheistArchon]

- I've been asking this same question for a long time (http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/adameve.htm).

- Briefly:

1. Why did God put the tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place?

Typical answer: Because He needed to give them free will.

Wrong, because: If God is a slave to external rules, then He is far from omnipotent. An omnipotent being should be able to provide us with free will without dooming us in the process.

Typical answer: Because He wanted to test A&E.

Wrong, because: God is supposed to be omniscient. He already knew they would fail if He tested them in such a way, with Satan tempting them and all. Why do it when He already knew it? Did He not trust His knowledge? There is no need for such a test, if God is omniscient.

2. Is God omniscient? If so, then didn't he already know what would happen if he placed the fruit there?

Typical answer: Yes, He is omniscient. He already knew what would happen, but He had to give them a choice...

Wrong, because: See above problem with omnipotence.

Typical answer: Yes, He is omniscient. He knew what would happen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have been given the chance to obey God.

Wrong, because: If God knew it beforehand, and God is omniscient, then there could have been no other outcome. IF (big if) God has free will, then God could have chosen a boulder of knowledge instead of a tree with fruit, and Satan would have never been able to corrupt mankind. Any way you slice it, the tree was placed there for a reason, and the only reason possible was to provide a danger to mankind... unless the bible is wrong and someone else placed the tree there.

3. BEFORE Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, was she qualified to make any moral decisions? (If so, then what did the fruit of knowledge do for her at all?)

Typical answer: She knew the difference between right and wrong, since she spoke with God on a regular basis. The fruit was merely an example of what would happen if they disobeyed.

Wrong, because: That's not what the bible says. Anyhow, an explosion is an example of what would happen if they played with TNT, but that doesn't mean God had to let them experience it before they could learn about it. If she knew the difference between right and wrong, then there was no need to have the tree there in the first place, was there? Eating the fruit did nothing for them intellectually... they were fully capable of sin and wrongdoing even before the fruit was eaten, in contrast with the bible. Plus, if we assume they did actually know right from wrong and were in daily contact with God... what person in his right mind would ever disobey God? Even with Satan tempting you, would you so blatantly go against God's commandment if you really knew anything about God and the difference between right and wrong? This answer implies that the believer thinks Adam and Eve, although intelligent and aware of their options, are at the same time tremendously stupid and unable to guess what would happen if they disobeyed God.

Typical answer: It didn't matter if she knew it was wrong or not, she still disobeyed God, and that is enough reason to punish mankind.

Wrong, because: If she didn't know right from wrong, then obviously she didn't know disobeying God was the wrong thing to do. She was morally inadequate... she was unequipped to make such a decision. It was only after eating the fruit that she was supposedly knowledgeable about such things. Besides, Eve did not make such a decision on her own, anyhow, it took Satan to tempt her into it. Without Satan, Eve did not sin, ever. Who let Satan in? (Not Adam or Eve.)

4. If God is benevolent, then why did He not simply forgive A&E?

Typical answer: God did forgive A&E by not killing them outright.

Wrong, because: Actually, according to God, A&E were supposed to die that very day. They didn't, and therefore God was either wrong about a guess, or He lied outright (unless you're one of those people who like to argue that 'a day' in the bible is actually not a day, but instead a billion years or something similarly stupid). But in any case, simply not killing them is not equal to forgiveness. After all, God kicked them out of paradise, made them toil and work for survival, cursed Eve with labor pains, and cursed all of mankind with the burden of original sin. Does that sound like forgiveness to you? Forgiveness means you actually forgive someone, not exact a petty revenge that eventually entails the slaughter of your own son on earth in order to then change your mind ages later (sort of). What type of kind god demands such slaughter before He feels okay with forgiveness?

Typical answer: God is not benevolent. They got what they deserved.

Wrong, because: If God is not 100% good, then that means He is at least partially evil. How evil is God, and why would anyone want to worship someone as cruel, petty, and jealous as such a being?

5. If God needed for mankind to commit this sin in order to have free will, then what rules exist that mandate such a thing to God? Shouldn't God be able to create us with free will WITHOUT condemning us?

Typical answer: No coherent answer has ever been given to me for this question.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by scribble


You are the most blasphemous Christian I've ever read!!

And you're still incapable of comprehending simple english. All these comments suggest is that God is a JEALOUS GOD. Surely even you who have never read the Holy Bible have heard that phrase.



Unfortunately, God is also a contradiction. In the bible, it says

1) God is jealous
2) God is love
but
3) Love is not jealous

Whoops.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by plindboe


A normal tree could have filled those needs. There was a reason for the tree being created, the question is what that reason was. The best answer is that he wanted to test Adam and Eve, but that doesn't really fit the omniscience idea.


I think it is funny how so often that christians, when faced with a tough question about god, resort to an answer that requires an impotent or otherwise fallible god. The "he wanted to test Adam and Eve" thing is a good example, but my favorite is, "Sometimes, in order to teach children a lesson, you have to let them make mistakes." For example, a good way to teach them to not touch a hot stove is to let them touch it once and burn their fingers, and they won't do it again.

That might be half relevent if god were human, but god is supposed to be omnipotent/omniscient. On the other hand, being omni-everything, god can teach us to not touch the stove without having to have us burn our fingers. Yet, he still lets us do it. Is he sadistic or what?

Watch out for the answers that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience. They show up all over the place.

[Radrook]

This answer implies that the believer thinks Adam and Eve, although intelligent and aware of their options, are at the same time tremendously stupid and unable to guess what would happen if they disobeyed God.

Not at all.
I do not assume that they were incapable of knowing consequences. Neither does the NT describe Adam that way since it tells us that he made the decision he made although he was not deceived. Which of course means that he knew Satan was lying and that God was telling him the truth.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.


So why then did Adam choose to disobey?
This is a behavioral issue. Being a behavioral motivational issue means that it is within the parameters of the social sciences.
The social sciences distinguish themselves from the other sciences in one very special way--in the diversity of motives which can cause an identical behavior.
For example,

A man goes to the movies because he:

1. Is bored
2. Is angry and wants to be distracted
3. Is a fan of the actress starring in the film
4. Intends to rob a bank and needs a place to meet with his accomplice.
5. Is trying to hide from the police.
6. Is in mourning over death of relative and seeks distraction.
7. Is studying film-making and going to the movies is part of his assignment.
8. Owns the movie house and wants to inspect how the equipment is working.
9. Is lonely and hopes to meet someone.
10. Is a pickpocket seeking victims.
11. Simply wants to get away from the bedlam of house and kids.

This diversity of possible motives is what makes a definitive answer in reference to any particular behavior a probabilistic one.
In short, in the social sciences one is called upon to weigh all the factors which might have been influencing the person and choosing the motive most likely to have been the cause of the particular behavior.

In the natural sciences you put two and two together chemically and predictably can expect an explosion. Social science doesn/t work that way.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Why would one need to ' grow ', if they were perfect in the first place..

The story is not about ' growing ' it is about ' falling '...

Hard to keep things straight, isn't it? Well, I would go so far as to suggest they weren't perfect (obviously they weren't) because they weren't grounded in their understanding, just like so many so-called Christians today are not grounded in their understanding which, is why they fell to the earth. In fact they were probably terribly naive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I would go so far as to suggest they weren't perfect (obviously they weren't) because they weren't grounded in their understanding, just like so many so-called Christians today are not grounded in their understanding which, is why they fell to the earth. In fact they were probably terribly naive.

Well then, suggest it to Radrook, or someone else who is telling this story...

So, what story book are you reading from? I thought we were talking about the Bible, and A&E's fall from grace ?

You are the one who changed it to some kind of ' growing ' experience ...

If that's your version, we might need another thread..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook




So why then did Adam choose to disobey?





You keep repeating things like this without answering the question:

How could Adam disobey, when disobedience had no definition until he ate the fruit that gave him the knowledge of good and evil?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Well then, suggest it to Radrook, or someone else who is telling this story...

So, what story book are you reading from? I thought we were talking about the Bible, and A&E's fall from grace ?

You are the one who changed it to some kind of ' growing ' experience ...

If that's your version, we might need another thread.. Well, I personally don't see how someone can just come into existence and then pretend like they've always been here. That would be like walking in the clouds with no ground under your feet. Hmm ...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I personally don't see how someone can just come into existence and then pretend like they've always been here. That would be like walking in the clouds with no ground under your feet. Hmm ...

Uhhh.. Are we in the same thread?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I would go so far as to suggest they weren't perfect (obviously they weren't) because they weren't grounded in their understanding, just like so many so-called Christians today are not grounded in their understanding which, is why they fell to the earth. In fact they were probably terribly naive.

You have a different criterion for perfection than God does.



Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.



Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.


Ecclesiastes 7:29
This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."


NIV

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook


You have a different criterion for perfection than God does.




Ecclesiastes 7:29
This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

Another contradiction..

Next.

[AtheistArchon]

Not at all.
I do not assume that they were incapable of knowing consequences. Neither does the NT describe Adam that way since it tells us that he made the decision he made although he was not deceived. Which of course means that he knew Satan was lying and that God was telling him the truth.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.


So why then did Adam choose to disobey?
This is a behavioral issue. Being a behavioral motivational issue means that it is within the parameters of the social sciences.

- So Adam was rational, but Eve was stupid. :( I'm not sure that's what you're trying to say tho... I think you're trying to say that it wasn't Eve's fault for being tricked. If that's the case, then Eve bears no moral responsiblity for eating the fruit, and Adam bears all the responsibility for eating it.

- If he wasn't tricked, and he knew god's commandment, and he knew the serpent was lying, and he experienced god directly and knew full well the reprecussions of disobeying, then what could have possibly moved him to disobey the being he knew to be the omnipotent creator of the universe?

- A man who is standing next to a brick wall and watches his friend run headlong into it and knock himself out, and then tries it himself, is stupid. Christians in this day and age take great pleasure in noting how far humanity has fallen away from obeying god, and it's a big deal to them that we 'get back in line' with god... yet even to a far-right Christian, these commandments are taken on faith. Adam needed no faith, he saw god, spoke to god, and experienced god first hand! He MUST have been a buffoon.

- A god-created buffoon.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Uhhh.. Are we in the same thread?

FYI:

This is the only correct response to nearly *any* Iacchus post, I've learned over the last couple of days he is either incapable of understanding a word you say, or so convinced he is a good little Sophist that it doesn't matter; every word he says he believes to be the cleverest nonsense ever.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

You have a different criterion for perfection than God does.What is perfection, and how is it measured? Relative to what?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is perfection, and how is it measured? Relative to what?

I asked you for your definition of "perfect" a long time ago and never got a straight answer that I can recall. Why don't you go first?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

FYI:

This is the only correct response to nearly *any* Iacchus post, I've learned over the last couple of days he is either incapable of understanding a word you say, or so convinced he is a good little Sophist that it doesn't matter; every word he says he believes to be the cleverest nonsense ever. It's funny, but it feels like nobody's addressing me when they're talking to me either. Could it be that we might have different ideas about things? Anyway, it's not important for me that you understand what I know. It's important that I understand what I know. Otherwise, what difference would it make? And to be honest, I could care less what you think ... not with all backbiting and sh*t that goes on around here.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's funny, but it feels like nobody's addressing me when they're talking to me either. Could it be that we might have different ideas about things? Anyway, it's not important for me that you understand what I know. It's important that I understand what I know. Otherwise, what difference would it make? And to be honest, I could care less what you think ... not with all backbiting and sh*t that goes on around here.

But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong! :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I asked you for your definition of "perfect" a long time ago and never got a straight answer that I can recall. Why don't you go first? The standard by which all things are measured.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong! :D You don't really have much to say either do you?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The standard by which all things are measured.

:sigh: Okay, once more, into the breach:

That is meaningless. What is a "perfect" human?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You don't really have much to say either do you?

Er... didn't I just?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore


But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong! :D

Twice. He really doesn't have any idea what any of the words he uses mean.

Which is a shame, it's probably the only major roadblock in his path to becoming the sophist he's always wished he could be. Funny how rampant ignorance prevents so many dreams from being realized.

[Piscivore]

The really tragic aspect is that it is deliberatly self-inflicted. He's said before that he feels that one must be as ignorant as a child in order to approach god.

Unless he's just making excuses for his lack of education and trying to turn it around to mean he has some "deeper" wisdom. But since that prospect is demonstrably and plainly false, that being true would just be sad.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Couldn't we sue God under the "attractive nuisance" tort theory?

And Radrook, according to the Bible man didn't know good from evil, wasn't embarrased by his nakedness etc before eating from the tree.


1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

INV


The scripture that tells us that Adam was not deceived [assuming you were familiar with it before making the asserttion you just did] cannot and should not be ignored as you are attempting to do. Not being deceived means that he was well-informed and knew that everything Satan said was a lie.


Ignoring scriptures that way is what gives Evies, Athies and Agnies the ammo to point out supposed discrepancies when in fact the problem does not reside in the Bible itself but with those who choose and pick and ignore to their heart's content because of having a disintegrated concept of the Bible content.

BTW
Adam knew what the sex organs were for before he ate of the fruit. He had seen animals using theirs. He had been told to use his in the same way in order to populate the earth.

Genesis 9:7
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
INV




Adam, being a man, was created to feel natural manly physical attraction for his wife Eve both as a gift from God and as an incentive for procreation. So there was nothing sinful in the normal attraction between a man and his wife. Which leads to the conclusion that it was their own unnatural thoughts toward one another's bodies that was now causing them to be self conscious and so they sought to cover themselves in order to prevent the now involuntary wrong thoughts from becoming annoying.

They also knew that they were in violation of law and that their nakedness had been intended to be enjoyed without those selfish thoughts. In short, a bad conscience became operative.

God does not create mindless morons.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Perhaps the answer may be found in the words of God's servant Bill Clinton.

"Because I could."

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
The scripture that tells us that Adam was not deceived [assuming you were familiar with it before making the asserttion you just did] cannot and should not be ignored as you are attempting to do. Not being deceived means that he was well-informed and knew that everything Satan said was a lie.


Actually, in this case, it doesn't mean he knew anything about Satan. As far as I have ever heard, the story is that he never had any contact with the serpent, he blames his eating the fruit on Eve asking him to.

Gen 3:6 - And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

At this point, the serpent has already left the picture. Furthermore:

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Adam's story never includes the serpent. He is not the one decieved, because he wasn't there. Eve had to take the fruit to him, he was never the guy on the scene.

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,

There is perfect support for the idea that Satan did not decieve Adam - as you say. There is no support that I can find for the idea that this is because he was "well-informed."

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Perhaps the answer may be found in the words of God's servant Bill Clinton.

"Because I could."

Because I could:

I tortured someone to death
Ordered the My Lie Massacre
Raped fifty women
Abused my children
Destroyed private property
Was cruel to animals
Lied my way to success
Robbed a bank and murdered the teller
Slapped my invalid mother around.



All because--well, because--ummmmmm I could?



Wow!

The problem is that most people who can do these things don't not because they can't but--ummmm but simply because they won't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

:sigh: Okay, once more, into the breach:

That is meaningless. What is a "perfect" human? Into the breach? Your'e the one who asked.

And why would you imply that I'm using humans as the standard? Is that because you believe the only standards that exist are the ones humans make up?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

The really tragic aspect is that it is deliberatly self-inflicted. He's said before that he feels that one must be as ignorant as a child in order to approach god.

Unless he's just making excuses for his lack of education and trying to turn it around to mean he has some "deeper" wisdom. But since that prospect is demonstrably and plainly false, that being true would just be sad. And when I'm dead and gone what difference will it make? ... Unless of course I'm right? ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And why would you imply that I'm using humans as the standard? Is that because you believe the only standards that exist are the ones humans make up?

No, you said "perfect" is "the standard by which all things are measured" - so measure a human by this standard for me. Or a tree, or a car, or anything you like.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

No, you said "perfect" is "the standard by which all things are measured" - so measure a human by this standard for me. Or a tree, or a car, or anything you like. Humans are not perfect, neither is anything else in the physical sense.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Humans are not perfect, neither is anything else in the physical sense. An axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, does allude to perfection though.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Humans are not perfect, neither is anything else in the physical sense.

How does an imperfect human relate to the standard, though? Are there humans that are "more perfect"? In what ways?

I can say that "foofle" is the standard I measure with, and all things are not foofle. I've said nothing useful.

Originally posted by Iacchus
An axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, does allude to perfection though.

How?

[Doctor X]

He really doesn't have any idea what any of the words he uses mean.

Satan: So you'd like to be articulate?

Stanley: Yeah . . . yeah!

Satan: And be able to use words like "articulate?"

--Bedazzled: the ORIGINAL and ONLY

The serpent is not a satan character.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Except maybe what we need to ask ourselves is, given the fact that we have such large brains, does the brain merely manufacture meaning or, does it acknowledge the meaning which is already there? Or both? In other words is there something truly universal about meaning that exists outside of the realm of human experience, of which the human mind is merely the receptacle?

If so, I would suggest this is where we look for perfection, which is then perceivable through its influx into our minds.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except maybe what we need to ask ourselves is, given the fact that we have such large brains, does the brain merely manufacture meaning or, does it acknowledge the meaning which is already there? Or both? In other words is there something truly universal about meaning that exists outside of the realm of human experience, of which the human mind is merely the receptacle?

If so, I would suggest this is where we look for perfection, which is then perceivable through its influx into our minds.

Some good questions there!

The brain looks for patterns and associations it is one of the things that it is designed to do. Some of the patterns percieved may have replicable validity in the external world, some will have only personal meaning.

Meaning however is solely a human attribute with no valid point of reference to the external world.

Perfection is dull, it is stasis.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except maybe what we need to ask ourselves is (no, we don't- you are attempting to not answer my questions by answering questions that were not asked), given the fact that we have such large brains, does the brain merely manufacture meaning (yes) or, does it acknowledge the meaning which is already there? (no) Or both?(no) In other words is there something truly universal about meaning that exists outside of the realm of human experience, of which the human mind is merely the receptacle?(no)

If so,(but it is not so!) I would suggest this is where we look for perfection, which is then perceivable through its influx into our minds.

Explain how "perfection" is perceivable. All you've said is that it is a standard. A standard measuring what? If it is a standard, that is human-created- why must we "look for" it?

Explain what "it's influx into our minds" means. Is perfection just a concept, or an actual force or entity?

How does a human relate to the "standard" of "perfection"?

Are there humans that are "more perfect"?

In what ways?

How does an axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, allude to perfection?


edited to answer Iacchus' questions

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Explain how "perfection" is perceivable. All you've said is that it is a standard. A standard measuring what? If it is a standard, that is human-created- why must we "look for" it?

Explain what "it's influx into our minds" means. Is perfection just a concept, or an actual force or entity?

How does a human relate to the "standard" of "perfection"?

Are there humans that are "more perfect"?

In what ways?

How does an axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, allude to perfection?


edited to answer Iacchus' questions If you agree that humans are not perfect (I think most people are capable of doing so), by what do you acknowledge that by? There must be a standard somewhere. Just by virtue of the fact that we can acknowledge imperfection, suggests that perfection does exist. What's the difference between right and wrong if, in fact one wasn't the more correct (perfect) answer?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Meaning however is solely a human attribute with no valid point of reference to the external world.

Perfection is dull, it is stasis. However that's just not true if, in fact the mind could be looked upon as an instrument, which it is. Are you saying we don't use our minds to measure reality? What exactly are we doing with it then?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you agree that humans are not perfect (I think most people are capable of doing so), by what do you acknowledge that by? There must be a standard somewhere. Just by virtue of the fact that we can acknowledge imperfection, suggests that perfection does exist. What's the difference between right and wrong if, in fact one wasn't the more correct (perfect) answer?

Originally posted by Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perfect&r=67)
per·fect
adj.

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5. a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

When I (and "most people") "agree that humans are not perfect" the word is being used as in sense 2. Humans have flaws.

However, you have said that "Perfect is a standard" which is sense 5a. so explain your standard- or is it one of these other definitions?

See why equivocation is a problem? If you were to reference which sense you were using one of these vague words- words like "perfect", "meaning", "absolute", etc- the level of respect you would get on this forum would increase tremendously. I showed you how on your forum.

Also, because "perfect" may exist as a concept, does not mean that it exists as an entity. But you know this, I've told you that before.


Want to give it a go answering the specific questions again?

Explain how "perfection" is perceivable.

All you've said is that it is a standard. A standard measuring what?

If it is a standard, that is human-created- why must we "look for" it?

Explain what "it's influx into our minds" means. Is perfection just a concept, or an actual force or entity?

How does a human relate to the "standard" of "perfection"?

Are there humans that are "more perfect"?

In what ways?

How does an axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, allude to perfection?

edited to delete an error I spotted

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

See why equivocation is a problem? If you were to reference which sense you were using one of these vague words- words like "perfect", "meaning", "absolute", etc- the level of respect you would get on this forum would increase tremendously. I showed you how on your forum.And yet do you realize that the whole of the English language is nothing but an equivocation? So what are you doing equivocating with me? Because I can assure you, that's exactly what it feels like.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet do you realize that the whole of the English language is nothing but an equivocation? So what are you doing equivocating with me? Because I can assure you, that's exactly what it feels like.

Iacchus, you would do well to heed Psi's advice - and drop the attempts at sophistry and wordplay. You aren't any good at either.

[Ipecac]

What would a "perfect" human be, anyway?

What physical standard could be defined as perfect? Say he could jump 20 feet in the air. Would that be perfect? Wouldn't being able to jump 30 feet be more perfect? 40?

How smart would a "perfect" person have to be? Couldn't he always be smarter and thus more perfect?

Applying standards of perfection to human beings is futile because you'd probably have to go all the way to omnipotence and omniscience before you hit perfection.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Iacchus, you would do well to heed Psi's advice - and drop the attempts at sophistry and wordplay. You aren't any good at either. Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Applying standards of perfection to human beings is futile because you'd probably have to go all the way to omnipotence and omniscience before you hit perfection.

And even that level of 'perfection' can be quite problematic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Applying standards of perfection to human beings is futile because you'd probably have to go all the way to omnipotence and omniscience before you hit perfection. Bingo! ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

And even that level of 'perfection' can be quite problematic. Why? Because if there were no absolute standards to existence would we exist? What would keep the Universe from "winking out" at any time now? ;) And why hasn't it winked out before in the last 20 billion years?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

I believe you do not understand anything. I believe you are too intent on being a sophist to slow down and read the words that others have written. I believe you are too convinced you are a good sophist to realize nearly every word you say is stupid. Not terribly clever as you imagine them to be.

I believe actually answering your question - again - will serve no purpose.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I believe you do not understand anything. I believe you are too intent on being a sophist to slow down and read the words that others have written. I believe you are too convinced you are a good sophist to realize nearly every word you say is stupid. Not terribly clever as you imagine them to be.

I believe actually answering your question - again - will serve no purpose. Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

In other words what do you know, outside of that which has no meaning?

[Jon_in_london]

I have posted this here before but it is relevant to the question of "The Tree"

You can blame it on Adam
You can blame it on Eve
You can blame it on the serpant
but that I cant believe.

There'd never have been an apple
or a woman or a man,
And there'd never have been a serpant
if it wasnt in God's plan!

So its God they should be crucifying
instead of you and me,
I said to the carpenter
a-hanging in the tree.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However that's just not true if, in fact the mind could be looked upon as an instrument, which it is. Are you saying we don't use our minds to measure reality? What exactly are we doing with it then?

Iachuss, there are the things in reality, there are our perceptions of them , and then there are our thoughts about those perceptions.

You have taken an Aritotelian tack here, there is some value I percieve therefore this value must exist, which is an extension of Plato.

We perceive and label complex events under confusingly simple labels. Perfection, beauty, good, evil. But there is no real referent to the labels, there is no real perfection, no real beauty, just human values.

All is perfect and intended to be the way it is. The label of imperfection is a label assigned by humans, it has no corellate in the physical world.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

Exactly, they are labels applied by humans under a loose consensus agreement. We may all say that there is good and evil, but is the lion really evil when they kill the lamb and eat it?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

In other words what do you know, outside of that which has no meaning?

Aw, such a cute aspiring little sophist.

Keep practicing, one day perhaps you'll be able to actually fool people into thinking you have a point.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Aw, such a cute aspiring little sophist.

Keep practicing, one day perhaps you'll be able to actually fool people into thinking you have a point. Really? And what would be the point?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Exactly, they are labels applied by humans under a loose consensus agreement. We may all say that there is good and evil, but is the lion really evil when they kill the lamb and eat it? Yes, but how it is possible that we can even agree to that? Even if we said meaning was relative, that would still be an absolute wouldn't it?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Really? And what would be the point?

I don't think you understand the words I'm using.

Not that that's anything new.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I don't think you understand the words I'm using.

Not that that's anything new. It must be a different language then, huh?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It must be a different language then, huh?

I can think of at least one other possibility:

You are an ignoramus.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet do you realize that the whole of the English language is nothing but an equivocation?

Used properly, the opposite is true. It is only when one uses vague words that there is a problem. Let me illustrate with the playground rejoinder:

"I love tunafish." - "Well, why don't you marry it!"

See how that works? Now If I'd said "I really enjoy eating tunafish", the equivocation is not possible.

So what are you doing equivocating with me? Because I can assure you, that's exactly what it feels like.

Tell me how I seem to be equivocating. I am going out of my way to use clear, precise language.


Do you believe in right and wrong?
"Right" and "wrong" are not matters of belief in themselves- they are subjective value judgements. On can only "beleive" in the validity of the application of these judgements to actions.

Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

"Meaning" is unrelated to "right and wrong"; but yes- meaning is also subjective. The "meaning" of the attack on NY in 2001 is going to be signifigantly different for me, who live 2000mi away and knew no one in NYC at the time, than for someone who lived in NYC at the time and lost a friend or family member in the attack. And both of those will differ than its meaning to a member of Al-Qaeda, which may in turn differ from its meaning to bin Laden. There is no more "absolute meaning" than there is absolute space or absolute time. I'd tell you to read "that book by that wheelchair guy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380168/qid=1088711868/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-7382655-6679134?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)" to see why I say that- but you won't. There's a video, I don't know your stand on that.

In other words what do you know, outside of that which has no meaning?

Knowing that meaning is subjective, trying to claim that there is either universal, absolute meaning or none at all is naive and/or dishonest. So by repeating this over and over, you are showing yourself to be a fool or a liar.

We are giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Iacchus, and that's why scribble calls you "such a cute aspiring little sophist."

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why? Because if there were no absolute standards to existence would we exist? What would keep the Universe from "winking out" at any time now? ;) And why hasn't it winked out before in the last 20 billion years?

I was just making a joke in reference to the biblical God.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore

We are giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Iacchus, and that's why scribble calls you "such a cute aspiring little sophist."

It's true. I really want to believe that if Iacchus dropped the attempt at sophistry, act or not, he might come across as a cool guy. Maybe he'd at least make some points that are interesting.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

It's true. I really want to believe that if Iacchus dropped the attempt at sophistry, act or not, he might come across as a cool guy. Maybe he'd at least make some points that are interesting. Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay? ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So just pretend like I was never here, Okay? ;)

Trying to pull a Heraclitus on us? I thought you didn't read, man? :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Trying to pull a Heraclitus on us? I thought you didn't read, man? :D Have heard of him, but am unfamiliar with his works. Same thing with the Sophists. Neither was I too familiar with Aristotle, until someone started calling me Aristotle in another thread. But then again, maybe I just watched Kung Fu too much when I was a kid? :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how it is possible that we can even agree to that? Even if we said meaning was relative, that would still be an absolute wouldn't it?

I don't get what you are saying, if it is relative to personal perspective then it can't be absolute.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay? ;)

Truer words were never spoke.

[Piscivore]

So, by resorting to jokes, Iacchus, is that tacit admission you have no answers to those questions, then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore
So, by resorting to jokes, Iacchus, is that tacit admission you have no answers to those questions, then? Which questions were those? :D Am afraid I left the building on that one a long time ago. ;)

By the way, the only meaning which is to be had is by you. :p

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unfortunately I have a short attention span, and if I do express anything meaningful, it's not me that's expressed it. Meaning doesn't exist outside of the present moment by the way. So, just pretend like I was never here, Okay? ;)

So do I! Big deal!

My head's so stuffed full of crap, it's come full circle and amounts to nothing, and I can express something meaningful or a contribution once in a while. A blue moon. All right, a millenia.

Come on, man. Stop being the Semantics From Hell Dude. Scribble might be right. You might actually be a pretty funny guy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I don't get what you are saying, if it is relative to personal perspective then it can't be absolute. By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute. In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true. So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself, of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which questions were those? :D Am afraid I left the building on that one a long time ago. ;)

Don't worry about it. I'm used to people making jokes when they don't understand what I say. It's a defense mechanism- I see it all the time in my job, and it's one I had to deal with as a child. Even my kids are getting it now, because I've taught them an extensive vocabulary. You don't know how many times we've been in Walmart and I've watched their conversations with me (they are 10 and 8) go right over the heads of adults nearby- you can see it on the adults' faces.

Anyway. Proud dad = Me.

The questions as they now stand:

Explain how "perfection" is perceivable.

You've said is that "perfect" is a standard. A standard measuring what?

If it is a standard that is human-created- why must we "look for" it?

Explain what "it's influx into our minds" means. Is perfection just a concept, or an actual force or entity?

How does a human relate to the "standard" of "perfection"?

Are there humans that are "more perfect"?

In what ways?

How does an axiom, such as 1 + 1 = 2, allude to perfection?

[Iacchus]

Please read the above reply (before yours).

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute.

Heh, hazards of (near-)simultaneaous postings. :)

Let's get the definition up first:
Originally posted by Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute)
ab·so·lute
adj.

1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
3b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.


Yes, you actually have a point here: Relativity is absolute. But in sense Three only. One, Two and Four are just nonsensical relating to this concept, and Five is the antithesis of science.

In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true.

Here is where you go wrong: One concept being absolute does not give it any relationship at all with another concept that may or may not be absolute.

Note that this does not presuppose that no relationship exists, only that it is not based on their "absoluteness".


So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself,

Which definition of "perfection"? By "perfection itself" are you saying that "perfection is a discrete entity, rather than just an idea? If so, how do axioms (which are just intellectual constructs themselves) "entail" perfection?

of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

So, in other words, you are subscribing to Platonic realism?

[Earthborn]

Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

Yes, and why did God create the Serpent to entice Adam and Eve to disobey him?

I've thought about this, and I can come to only one conclusion: God wanted Adam and Eve to disobey Him. The Tree of Knowledge was a test: a test to see whether they were disobedient enough to His liking.

We read that people were created in God's image. Then when we disobey Him, He tells us that we are 'like one of Us to know of Good and Evil.' Apperently God's mission is accomplished: we are created in his image.

Perhaps it is easier to understand if we assume that God is not a single entity, but instead a group of beings that had a long history like ourselves. God is described as Elohim, which is plural, and describes Himself in plural.
Perhaps we can imagine Them as aliens. We can imagine how the crew of the Enterprise is worshipped as Gods if they meet a less advanced species. Certainly a highly technologically advanced species is indistinguishable from deities.

So suppose this species came to Earth and created humans and They hope that we will become like Them in the future. So They set up a test: we get a choice between obeying Them and living in Paradise for ever, or disobeying Them, showing Them our independence and our desire to shape our own lives. If we choose the latter, we will be put into the real world where hardship will neccessitate us to create our own destiny and because of that we will eventually evolve into a species just like Them.

If you look at it like that, neither of the two choices is a punishment. Adam and Eve could have chosen to obey and they would have lived happily for the rest of eternity while being cared for by Them. But instead they yearned for knowledge, and because of that we end up where we are today.

I think the story symbolizes the choice all of us are faced with in our lives: we can choose to remain ignorant and if we do life seems simple and we can be happy as long as we follow rules we believe come from God. But we can also choose to search for knowledge, but if we do we will learn that Good and Evil are very complex issues and faced with this complexity we won't necessarily be happy.

Some people choose to simply follow the rules and they are convinced they have enternal life. For them the world is simple: Good is what God tells them is good, Evil is what God tells them is evil. All they have to do to be happy is follow what God tells them to do.

Other people prefer to take the opposite route and prefer to find knowledge of the truth. They will however find that the world is complicated and they will remain confused as to what Good and Evil actually are. They also don't have any certainty that they will live forever. Faced with this uncertainty all they can do is try to make their lives as easy as they can and perhaps in doing so, they will create their own paradise or become as powerful as Gods.

In short, the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the triumph of human inquisitiveness. That despite people's enormous conformism and obedience, their Godlike need to create their own destiny will win out in the end.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Yes, you actually have a point here: Relativity is absolute. But in sense Three only. One, Two and Four are just nonsensical relating to this concept, and Five is the antithesis of science.

Here is where you go wrong: One concept being absolute does not give it any relationship at all with another concept that may or may not be absolute.

Note that this does not presuppose that no relationship exists, only that it is not based on their "absoluteness".What we are talking about are immutable laws here. And yes, immutable laws do have a relationship with other immutable laws.


Which definition of "perfection"? By "perfection itself" are you saying that "perfection is a discrete entity, rather than just an idea? If so, how do axioms (which are just intellectual constructs themselves) "entail" perfection?Perfection is like the glue which holds the Universe together. Without it, we would not be here.


So, in other words, you are subscribing to Platonic realism? What is that? Am not altogether familiar with that either? ;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Earthborn
[b]Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

Yes, and why did God create the Serpent to entice Adam and Eve to disobey him?


Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is untrue.
The serpent was merely another animal in Eden.
As I have repeatedly explained, and as it is generally agreed among biblical scholars of all Christian denominations, it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.

Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

This rebel angel had chosen to rebel and entice God's earthly children to join him in that rebellion. His choice was his and his alone. It was not forced upon him.

Accusing God of being in league with the Devil has absolutely no scriptural support and is a concept completely alien to both Judaism and Christianity.

Where did you derive that concept from--the Satanic Bible?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What we are talking about are immutable laws here. And yes, immutable laws do have a relationship with other immutable laws.
What then is that relationship?

Perfection is like the glue which holds the Universe together. Without it, we would not be here.

I thought it was Gravity, Electromagnatism, and the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.

Explain how it works under "perfection"


What is that? Am not altogether familiar with that either? ;)

That's the really frustrating part of your self-imposed ignorance, it is the fact that you do not realise all these wonderful ideas you've come up with have been done before.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
Accusing God of being in league with the Devil has absolutely no scriptural support and is a concept completely alien to both Judaism and Christianity.

Where did you derive it from--the Satanic Bible?

Job 1:12 - "12: And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand." So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
... and as it is generally agreed among biblical scholars of all Christian denominations, it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.

As an ex- devout Methodist, I can assure you that that statement is NOT true for that denomination.

How can you presume to speak for every biblical scholar?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

What then is that relationship?Jeeze, do I have to know everything?


I thought it was Gravity, Electromagnatism, and the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.

Explain how it works under "perfection"Just human definitions for that which already exists.


That's the really frustrating part of your self-imposed ignorance, it is the fact that you do not realise all these wonderful ideas you've come up with have been done before. Frustrating to whom? Maybe that's what makes it more fun? Am just learning as I go anyway, so?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Jeeze, do I have to know everything?

You are expected to be able to explain yourself when you make statements like "immutable laws do have a relationship with other immutable laws."


Just human definitions for that which already exists.

No, the Fundamental Forces are specific things, "perfection" is an abstract concept.

Explain how Perfection is like the glue which holds the Universe together. Without it, we would not be here" works.

Frustrating to whom? Maybe that's what makes it more fun?

It was funny at first- as you go on it's just sorta sad. That's why I stopped posting on your forum.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

You are expected to be able to explain yourself when you make statements like "immutable laws do have a relationship with other immutable laws."Are you saying you can't see this for yourself? I only speak of it because it's self-evident.


No, the Fundamental Forces are specific things, "perfection" is an abstract concept.

Explain how Perfection is like the glue which holds the Universe together. Without it, we would not be here" works.You will never be able to learn unless it goes beyond the ability to just repeat things.


It was funny at first- as you go on it's just sorta sad. That's why I stopped posting on your forum. The funny thing is, there really isn't a whole lot to say. ;)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Radrook
Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is untrue.
The serpent was merely another animal in Eden.
As I have repeatedly explained, and as it is generally agreed among biblical scholars of all Christian denominations, it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)Accusing God of being in league with the Devil has absolutely no scriptural support and is a concept completely alien to both Judaism and Christianity.I prefer to make sense of the story than be consistent with any organized religion.

Of course it is not entirely inconsistent with some interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan):It is evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. Satan is not an opponent of God. (snip) In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?

Again you are mistaken.
Gid created the angel Lucifer.
But Licifer was a righteius angel.
It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)I prefer to make sense of the story than be consistent with any organized religion.

You are misunderstanding the scripture. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. Scripture has context which the reader is expected to bring to bear when he reads it. Neithyer is the word "evil" the word chosen by most modern translations. In fact, the New King James Version uses calamity and for good reason since it better conveys the meaning of what was written and is one of the options which the original Hebrew word allows accirding to the King James Version Hebrew Lexicon.

Of course it is not entirely inconsistent with some interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan): [/B][/QUOTE]

As soon as I see wikipedia I imediately back off because of oits association with the occult.

BTW
It is not your right to seek your own explanations that is in question here. It is the explantion itself which you put forth as fact.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?

Again you are mistaken.
Gid created the angel Lucifer.
But Licifer was a righteius angel.
It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)I prefer to make sense of the story than be consistent with any organized religion.

You are misunderstanding the scripture.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?

Again you are mistaken.
Gid created the angel Lucifer.
But Licifer was a righteius angel.
It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)I prefer to make sense of the story than be consistent with any organized religion.

You are misunderstanding the scripture.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?

Again you are mistaken.
Gid created the angel Lucifer.
But Licifer was a righteius angel.
It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)I prefer to make sense of the story than be consistent with any organized religion.

You are misunderstanding the scripture. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. Scripture has context which the reader is expected to bring to bear when he reads it. Neithyer is the word "evil" the word chosen by most modern translations. In fact, the New King James Version uses calamity and for good reason since it better conveys the meaning of what was written and is one of the options which the original Hebrew word allows accirding to the King James Version Hebrew Lexicon.

Of course it is not entirely inconsistent with some interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan): [/B][/QUOTE]

As soon as I see wikipedia I imediately back off because of oits association with the occult.

BTW
It is not your right to seek your own explanations that is in question here. It is the explantion itself which you put forth as fact.

[LostAngeles]

Radrook, Protip: Use the edit button, please.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Radrook, Protip: Use the edit button, please.

Why be cryptic when giving advice?
What are you referring to?
The visible HTML tags?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook





As soon as I see wikipedia I imediately back off because of oits association with the occult.



Ahhh, the scholar arrive.. :rolleyes:

Never mind that wikipedia is merely an archive of multiple sources....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook




You are misunderstanding the scripture. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. Scripture has context which the reader is expected to bring to bear when he reads it. Neithyer is the word "evil" the word chosen by most modern translations. In fact, the New King James Version uses calamity and for good reason since it better conveys the meaning of what was written and is one of the options which the original Hebrew word allows accirding to the King James Version Hebrew Lexicon.



And you are playing the

" Your interpretation of the Bible doesn't agree with mine, so you must be taking it out of context.. "

game...


We see it all the time, and in a much more learned presentation than anything you have achieved so far...


Problems with "Reconciling" Contradictions (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/others/contra.html)

Whenever a passage suggesting questionable theology surfaces, defenders of fundamentalism will reply that one cannot read the Bible verse by verse, and insist that one must read the whole Bible to "truly" understand it.

Lastly, what fundamentalists do when they suggest that certain passages should not say what they "appear" to mean is perpetuate the idea that the Bible writers often did not mean what they said. It is completely arbitrary to suggest that Bible writers did not mean what they said only in areas where there are "alleged" contradictions and errors. What, did the rules of writing suddenly get suspended in areas where there is an alleged contradiction? If the Bible writers did not mean what they said in one place, they could theoretically not mean what they said in other places.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


Job 1:12 - "12: And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand." So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

Your interpretation goes completely contrary to the Biblical context. Satan is God's archenemy. From the very beginning he was viewed as a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty. Right there in Eden an anti Satanic judicial pronouncement was uttered.

Using the serpent as a symbol of he who had used it as a puppet, God said:

Genesis 3:
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [1] and hers;
he will crush [2] your head,
and you will strike his heel."


The eating of dust and serpentine posture symbolizes Satan's debasement--his fall from a prominent angelic position to that of rebel. The seed mentioned is Jesus. The biting of the heal is the crucifixion in which Satan inflicted suffering. The smashing of the head is Satan's ultimate destruction at the hands of that seed.

The blow to the head is described in Revelation.
Here is a partial description:


Revelation 20
1. And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


So the scenario described in Job cannot describe God as being in league with a rebel son who he had previously condemned to death.
In fact, the exchange between Satan and Yahweh is totally antagonistic. His manner toward Yahweh is disrespectful.

His challenge made before the whole assembly of angels is rife with deep contempt of those who worship him.

His accusation that creatures do not really love him God but only what material things he provides, is an accusation of God's need to buy love because God cannot get love any other way.

He also accuses mankind of always obeying God out of selfishness.

Whereupon God points to Job as an example of a man who loves him unselfishly.

In short, in this brief encounter Satan calls God a liar and predicts that Job will curse God in his face if Job encounters any difficulties.

In response to this effrontery, God permits the testing of Job in order to prove Satan a liar.

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

NIV

BTW
If Satan and God were in league then why did the demons scream in terror when Jesus approached? When people are partners they don't react that way to one another.

Mark 5:
1.They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[1] 2.When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[2] spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

6. When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7.He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" 8. For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"
9.Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
10. "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

That is definitely a weird partnership if there ever was one.

IMHO

[Skeptical Greg]

Is the sermon over? Can we break for lunch now?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


As an ex- devout Methodist, I can assure you that that statement is NOT true for that denomination.

How can you presume to speak for every biblical scholar?

I should have qualified my statement with the modifier "most"
Thanks for pointing out that error.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Earthborn
A minor detail. That Lucifer was created by God, wasn't he?
Originally posted by Radrook
Again you are mistaken.
Gid created the angel Lucifer.
But Licifer was a righteius angel.
It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.

Person 1: "God created Lucifer, right?"
Person 2: "No, you are mistaken. God created Lucifer".

Oooookay.

Btw, when God created the angel he knew that this angel would turn against him. You know, being omniscient and all. So God created Satan because he wanted to create that being. He has the full resposibility.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
Your interpretation goes completely contrary to the Biblical context. Satan is God's archenemy. From the very beginning he was viewed as a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty. Right there in Eden an anti Satanic judicial pronouncement was uttered.


How can an omniscient, omnipotent being have an "arch-enemy"? How could any lesser being be a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty unless God allows it?

The whole concept of Satan makes no sense.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ipecac


How can an omniscient, omnipotent being have an "arch-enemy"? How could any lesser being be a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty unless God allows it?



See my post near the beginning of this thread on how apologetics often provide explanations that require god to not be omniscient/omnipotent.

As you correctly observe, Radrook has fallen right into it.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook


Your interpretation goes completely contrary to the Biblical context. Satan is God's archenemy. From the very beginning he was viewed as a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty. Right there in Eden an anti Satanic judicial pronouncement was uttered.


I'm not "interpreting" anything- you asked where that idea came from, and it's usually Job.

But when I read Job, I don't get "Angry, rebellious son" vs. "Angry, vindictive Dad"- I get two guys making a barroom bet (not literally, of course.)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

How can an omniscient, omnipotent being have an "arch-enemy"? How could any lesser being be a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty unless God allows it?Lucifer is the opportunist. Satan is the liar. And the Devil is outright evil. And together what do you get? LSD!!!

These three representations by the way, represent the three degrees of rebellion of man towards God. In fact when Jesus states, "There is none good but God," it seems to imply that man is nothing but evil. In fact there are two degrees of hells associated with this, the first or "upper hell," which is called Satan, and is associated falsity, and the second or "lower hell," which is called the Devil, and is associated with evil. While here, there is no formal entity associated with either Satan or the Devil, just the two degrees of hell from which influx flows into the spiritual world. As for Lucifer, I believe? he represents the opportunist who dwells in the world of spirits, which is a state comparable to the natural world (our world) that exists between heaven and hell. And here, I believe there's an association between Lucifer and the construction of the Tower of Babel.

So, ever wonder why Jesus blesses Peter on the one hand, and then turns around and calls Him Satan? Because it was the lie (in Peter) that was addressing Jesus at this time. Which is exactly what happened when Peter denies Christ three times (before the cock crows) and outright lied about their relationship. Which, is what happened to begin with, when Peter says he would never deny Christ.

Anyway, if you look at the Bible in this way, it might have more significance. For more information here, I would refer you to Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com) book, Heaven and Hell.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Radrook,
The problem I see is that you just keep pushing the question back.

Q: Why did Gods make the serpent that tempted Eve?
A: He didn’t. “it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.”

Q: Then why did God make Lucifer who possessed the snake who tempted Eve?
A: “Licifer was a righteius angel. It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.”

Q: Then why did God create a nature for Lucifer that was prone to “misuse” freedom of choice, allowing him to become evil, and possess the snake to tempt Eve?
A: ??

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect the answer is simply something like “God didn’t create Lucifer’s nature, it was free will”. The answer is pushed back to yet another level. But, as far as I can tell, that’s not an answer at all. One may as well say “it’s magic”, and leave it at that.

After all, God must of consciously decided each aspect of every angel’s personality and what would please his creations, right? No one, for example, decides to find pleasure in a tall glass of water when they feel the terrible pain of thirst; they just do; they just want the water. They come pre-programmed from nurture, nature, or God.

Worshiping God pleased some angels and seemed like a good choice to them, but not others. Why wouldn’t God program them all to find pleasure only in worshiping God?

God must also consciously decide how these pleasures will be ranked in importance in His creation’s mind. We may not want to be stuck by a needle, but we really don’t want to get tetanus. In making our choices, we know that some pains are simply felt more intensely than others. We do not choose this ordering.

God must consciously decide the process by which we make decisions. Our ability to accurately project the consequences of our actions into the future, our capacity to keep info in memory, how we process our memory and senses, and so on…. We do not choose any of that, and a tweak in the process could easily stop an angel from thinking rebellion is a good choice for him to make.

(I suppose, God could have chosen an angel’s personality randomly, but that is still no help.)

In the end I’m still wondering what a Christian thinks lead to Lucifer to bellyache "So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear, Farewell remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil, be thou my good.” Such a drama queen…

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute. In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true. So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself, of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

I don't get it Iachuss,

If I say that a thing can only be determined through it's relationship to other things then that is a statement or an observation.

How do you get from a statement, which is a symbolic exchange of ideas, to the neo platonic absolutes?

I would argue that just because a relationship exists, it is not absolute. The relationships we can talk about are the observable ones, there is nothing else to relate them to.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I don't get it Iachuss,

If I say that a thing can only be determined through it's relationship to other things then that is a statement or an observation.

How do you get from a statement, which is a symbolic exchange of ideas, to the neo platonic absolutes?

I would argue that just because a relationship exists, it is not absolute. The relationships we can talk about are the observable ones, there is nothing else to relate them to. Hey, I don't claim to know everything. However, what I do claim and, do my utmost to do, is speak from the standpoint of what I do know. So in that respect I don't claim to know much about Plato either. But just for the record, let me ask you this. How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes? If, in fact it has anything to do with his belief in God (which somebody told me it did), then yes, I would have to concur with Plato. Because this is the standpoint from which I speak.

If fact when people wonder where I come up with all these ideals, it's my attempt -- at reverse engineering so to speak -- to approach Science with the notion of God. In other words this is what underlines my approach.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, what I do claim and, do my utmost to do, is speak from the standpoint of what I do know.

ah - that explains a lot.

:p

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Radrook


Why be cryptic when giving advice?
What are you referring to?
The visible HTML tags?

Your triple post with slight differences.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

ah - that explains a lot.

:p Well, that could mean just about anything depending upon to whom you speak. So, do you claim to know any more than what you know? Or, do you actually know what you're speaking about when you speak? Knowledge is not wisdom my friend!

By the way, don't you think this would be more akin to the scientific approach, except on a more personal level?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, that could mean just about anything depending upon to whom you speak.

I intended it to mean that the reason your words are nonsense is because you speak from a position of not knowing anything.

It was humor; I'm not very good at it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I intended it to mean that the reason your words are nonsense is because you speak from a position of not knowing anything.

It was humor; I'm not very good at it. Must be for the same reason that nobody else knows anything either, right? Well, at least some of us know that much. ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But just for the record, let me ask you this. How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes? If, in fact it has anything to do with his belief in God (which somebody told me it did), then yes, I would have to concur with Plato.

Gods. Plato was a classical Greek.

From his writings, I think he was what we now call a Deist, though- his "Form of the Good" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Form_of_the_Good) seem very similar to the Deist concept of "god"- a remote and non-active participant in human affairs.

You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you... :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Gods. Plato was a classical Greek.

From his writings, I think he was what we now call a Deist, though- his "Form of the Good" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Form_of_the_Good) seem very similar to the Deist concept of "god"- a remote and non-active participant in human affairs.Which really doesn't sound altogether different from the notion of the Christian God, in my opinion. Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.


You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you... :D Why should I? If it was Aphrodite it might delight me. Oh, alright!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which really doesn't sound altogether different from the notion of the Christian God, in my opinion.
I think Radrook would disagree with you. :)

Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.

These two statements are contradictory.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.



Oh so very subtley, at that..

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you... :D He poetically compares the Form of the Good to the sun. Just as the sun eminates light, so the form of the good eminates truth. And just as we are able to see the world with our eyes using the light of the sun, so we can make sense of the world with our rational minds only through the assistance of truth, derived from the Form of the Good. Hey you're right, I like that! I would also suggest that the good of the sun (itself) is its sustaining warmth.


These two statements are contradictory. Notice my use of the word "subtle?" In fact I would almost say to the point of being imperceptible. While I do agree that God for the most part remains distant.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Oh so very subtley, at that.. However, that isn't to say you can't find it if, in fact you know what you're looking for. ;)

[Dancing David]

How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes?


Because he didn't like the relativism of some of the greek philosophers?

To say that all things are discussed in ralation to other things is not an absolute. Mathematics and logic are a good example of closed symbolic systems which are self referencing, they may be applied to things outside of thier sets but they are kind of closed and self descriptive.

Plato and Aristitle were in the search for absolutes and so they found them, but I do not feel that beauty is transcendent and therefore absolute.

I am a discrete pluralist, in that I believe everything is reducible to certain components which are discrete if interelated, and that there is an illusiory nature to the words that people use which grants a semblance of permanency to human values and concepts.
Beauty is inherently personal and influenced by culture, so it is relative, not transcendent.
There are things like happiness which are personal emotional states that we learnt to decribe through reeference to other people. So again a relative value.
Then there are things like 'mind' and 'self' which are referents which are just rugs under which we sweep a lot of different things.

While there appear to be constants in the universe, absolutes are harder to find.

[Iacchus]

There's only one Universe isn't there? So in that sense isn't everything related to the absoluteness of the whole? Of which absolute meaning is derived therefrom?

[scribble]

You're the only absolute one here.

I mean that in the <a href=http://www.marionette.com/html/hamlet%20text.html>Shakespearian</a> sense.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

You're the only absolute one here.

I mean that in the <a href=http://www.marionette.com/html/hamlet%20text.html>Shakespearian</a> sense. As sure as the night follows day? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As sure as the night follows day? ;)

Parroting without understanding will never make you wise.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Parroting without understanding will never make you wise. And, while they may look curious indeed, testicles do have an express purpose (http://www.dionysus.org/x1401.html#22), and I advise you to keep your hands off!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, while they may look curious indeed, testicles do have an express purpose (http://www.dionysus.org/x1401.html#22), and I advise you to keep your hands off!

No one said anything about your testicles. Are you sure you're not gay? You seem to be quite fixated on male genitalia.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, while they may look curious indeed, testicles do have an express purpose (http://www.dionysus.org/x1401.html#22), and I advise you to keep your hands off!


we're inclined to mock what we don't understand, which can and will bring about this kind of reaction: i.e., why I don't expect people to understand me, and it helps explain many of the reactions which are evoked.


There's a reason we do not understand you, young budding Sophist.

And it's not because you are too wise or clever.

(Edit to add: I hope you didn't need that page to introduce you to the idea that people will respond to nonsense with mockery. That should have been totally clear to you. But if it wasn't - you may already be learning the benefits of literacy. Maybe the Bible will be next!)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by scribble




There's a reason we do not understand you, young budding Sophist.

And it's not because you are too wise or clever.

(Edit to add: I hope you didn't need that page to introduce you to the idea that people will respond to nonsense with mockery. That should have been totally clear to you. But if it wasn't - you may already be learning the benefits of literacy. Maybe the Bible will be next!)

That's his website, Scrib... He wrote that.

I wouln't recommend reading it, it's pretty tragic and pathetic (in the classical, not the modern sense, Iacchus).

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore
That's his website, Scrib... He wrote that.


Christ on a Pogo stick, you mean he CAN put words together with some degree of coherence? He CAN follow a topic for more than a single sentence?!

It's going to take me a while to come to grips with that. Why's he got to be such a (complete imbecile) here if he can do that?

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the site or even that whole page; only the couple of paragraphs he linked to.)

(Edit, because I don't know if I can say that word on the JREF)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

No one said anything about your testicles. Are you sure you're not gay? You seem to be quite fixated on male genitalia. People tend to insuate that Dionysus was gay too, but he was not.

19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. ~ Revelation 16:19 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+16) 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. ~ Revelation 19:14-15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+19)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by scribble


Christ on a Pogo stick, you mean he CAN put words together with some degree of coherence? He CAN follow a topic for more than a single sentence?!

It's going to take me a while to come to grips with that. Why's he got to be such a (complete imbecile) here if he can do that?

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the site or even that whole page; only the couple of paragraphs he linked to.)

(Edit, because I don't know if I can say that word on the JREF)

Well, it's about as coherent as he get here on his best days, but yeah, he can be coherent for about a paragraph or so. It is very self-referential and assumes the reader already shares his particularly skewed world view, but once you decipher what that is, it's not too difficult. Kind of like reading "Clockwork Orange", only without as much internal structure.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
People tend to insuate that Dionysus was gay too, but he was not.

Er, he's fictional... that's like debating the great "Frodo & Sam" controversy. You'd have to ask the original authors, and they are both of them dead.

And what those bible verses have to do escapes me.

[Iacchus]

Do you want to know what I think? That the people on this board remind me very much of The Titans (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html). Of course you'll have to scroll down to the bottom of the page, but it might make more sense if you start from the beginning (if you have a few minutes).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Well, it's about as coherent as he get here on his best days, but yeah, he can be coherent for about a paragraph or so. It is very self-referential and assumes the reader already shares his particularly skewed world view, but once you decipher what that is, it's not too difficult. Kind of like reading "Clockwork Orange", only without as much internal structure. That's funny, somebody just got through complimenting me on how much it reads like a Stephen King novel. Isn't that something, and I've never even cracked open a book on Stephen King. I am familiar with the movie, The Shining, though.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you want to know what I think? That the people on this board remind me very much of The Titans (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html). Of course you'll have to scroll down to the bottom of the page, but it might make more sense if you start from the beginning (if you have a few minutes).

I don't have to- I get the referrence.

If you didn't hyper-mythologise your world, you might see that, rather than trying to destroy you, we (at least Scrib and I) are trying to just correct you. We'd like to be at least friendly, and in our world, it is not a virtue to let a friend continue to be a dumba$$. It's considered proper to get in his face and tell him he is, and to stop.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you want to know what I think?

I read a few pages of your site. So I can say with certainty: Not anymore.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore
If you didn't hyper-mythologise your world, you might see that, rather than trying to destroy you, we (at least Scrib and I) are trying to just correct you.

Now that I've seen the full product of his broken mind, I don't think correction is possible. All the King's horses and all the King's men...

(I misquoted a nursery rhyme.... sheesh, I'm getting stupider ever day)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's funny, somebody just got through complimenting me on how much it reads like a Stephen King novel. Isn't that something, and I've never even cracked open a book on Stephen King. I am familiar with the movie, The Shining, though.

Whoever told you that was on drugs. I've read King, I've heard King read, and you sir, are no Steve King. :D

...Well, if they meant the fscked up abusive childhood and the extreme woo factor, I guess I could see that. The styles are way off though.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There's only one Universe isn't there? So in that sense isn't everything related to the absoluteness of the whole? Of which absolute meaning is derived therefrom?

Uh, that is unknowable, so I can speculate and this is the philosophy forum, so I would say there is an infinite recurssion of universes.

Just because something exists(potentialy) doesn't mean it is absolute.

And again I will applaud you for following in the path of Plato, I just prefer the buddha, 'Life is a burning house'. I have always been a nihilist and a pagan, so absolution is not my thing man.(I don't want to be white washed!)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As sure as the night follows day? ;)

day destroys the night,
night devides the day,
try to run, try to hide,
break on through to the other side!
The Doors

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
People tend to insuate that Dionysus was gay too, but he was not.



Oh oh, I love a pagan who follows the Protestant ethics of Homophobia, if Dionysus wasn't gay then why are there all the pictures of fauns and satyrs having gays sex.

The Greek gods not gay ,what a hoot!

They are most definitly gay, no matter what the Victorian apologists have to say!

:dl:

[Doctor X]

I expect Zeus to have a "Mr. Garrettson" voice and scream from the mountain: "I'M NOT GAY!!!"

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Oh oh, I love a pagan who follows the Protestant ethics of Homophobia, if Dionysus wasn't gay then why are there all the pictures of fauns and satyrs having gays sex.

The Greek gods not gay ,what a hoot!

They are most definitly gay, no matter what the Victorian apologists have to say!

:dl: However, I don't see anything in the least that supports what you're saying. Dionysus, the divine androgeny who, was happily and ecstatically married to his beloved Ariadne, was no more gay than Jesus was. I think what you might be referring to here is Orphism, with its original ties to the cult of Apollo, which later adopted the rites of Dionysus after Orpheus had his head torn off by the Maenads, the attendant (female) followers of the god. While here I believe Orpheus was gay, which may have been where any notion of this started.


Excerpt from Walter F. Otto's, Dionysus, Myth and Cult ...


The feminine aspect of his nature is also revealed in his manner of loving. His whole existence is illuminated and crowned by the love of women. Anacreaon's song to him already makes it clear how close Eros and Aphrodite are to him. In it the prayer for love's fulfillment begins with the words "O Lord, whose playfellows are the mighty Eros, and the dark-eyed nymphs and violet Aphrodite!" The goddess of love is called his consort, and she supposedly became the mother of the Charites in Orchomenus by him. Thus many of the nymphs with whom he revels become his mistresses and surprise him one day with a new-born infant boy.

However, he is far from being a wanton profligate, and even if he occasionally receives an epithet which sounds obscene to us, the high nobility of his spirit is revealed that much more in all representations of him, and the impression they give is emphasized even more by the way in which his actions are contrasted with those of the satyrs, of whose naked lust the god seems to take no notice. Indeed, the one thing which sets him off from all of the truly masculine gods, whose passions are cooled by transient moments of possession, is the fact that his love is ecstatic and binds him to the loved one forever. We see this at its best in the vase paintings. There is good reason for our calling Ariadne the chosen one, for it is quite remarkable how little the myth speaks of any other true love affair.

This should now prepare us for a proper understanding of the spirit of the love which dwells in the hearts of the women of Dionysus. There is nothing so foreign to the orgiastic dancers of the god as unrestrained erotic sensuality. If an occasional off-color scene shows up among the countless representations of the actions of Dionysus, the remaining scenes demonstrate in a most convincing manner that the maenads are characterized by a stateliness and a haughty aloofness, and their wildness has nothing to do with the lustful excitement found in the half-animal, half-human companions who whirl around them.

In the famous messenger speech of the Bacchae of Euripides, the modesty of the women in ecstasy is explicitly emphasized in the face of the malicious stories told about them. On vase paintings they brusquely wave off their forward lovers with torches and snakes. According to Nonnus, each has wound a snake around her body beneath her clothes to protect herself from the lustful desires of men even when she is asleep or defenseless. Their love is of a higher type. "The Bacchant pays no attention to the silenus who grabs at her in his lust; for the glances of the Bacchant sweep up high into the aether and yet are filled with the spirit of love." Anyhoo, this seems to paint an entirely different contrast than what you seem to be suggesting.

[Dancing David]

Quote who you like, the Greek gods are gay, unfortunately all we have are scraps of the culture, but there are plenty of reasons to say the greek gods were very gay.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Quote who you like, the Greek gods are gay, unfortunately all we have are scraps of the culture, but there are plenty of reasons to say the greek gods were very gay. I don't deny that there were many parts of the Greek culture which was gay, but hey look at the American culture. Is that to suggest the Christian God is gay? I don't know, I haven't circumnavigated the globe to look up every possible scrap of evidence, but thus far I haven't come across any good books, out of at least ten that I've read -- except for one, whose author was an outright drag queen, and it was totally out of character with the others -- to even imply that the Greek gods were gay (not that they were without an occasional moment mind you but, everybody has those). Goes to show that people will go to great lengths to justify anything in the name of religion. And thus far you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

[Doctor X]

Some are just in denial. . . .

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Doctor X

Some are just in denial. . . .

--J.D. Hey, we all have our tendencies, but that doesn't mean we should let our tendencies dictate our whole personality should it? In fact I think this is where a lot of people make the mistake. Just because we may have certain feelings at times, does not justify changing our entire outlook (all joking and kidding aside, as it only tends to facilitate our need to do so), when it may be just a matter of understanding what these feelings entail, and letting it pass. I think the problem here is that people tend to go to extremes, because they don't know how to establish the middle ground.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I saw Zeus down at “Thor’s Hammer” the other night… All gussied up in a scant little dress.

Girl, you think changing into waterfowl and having illicit sex is nasty? Try a trolling god in drag… in white stilettos no less… Hera would be mortified.

to even imply that the Greek gods were gay (not that they were without an occasional moment mind you but, everybody has those). Goes to show that people will go to great lengths to justify anything in the name of religion.

How does a Greek god’s gayness justify anything?

I certainly wouldn’t categorize the Greek pantheon, as a whole, as gay…. maybe straight-but-curious, or maybe bi.

Still, you think everybody has Ganymede-esk gay love affairs in their lives?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

I saw Zeus down at “Thor’s Hammer” the other night… All gussied up in a scant little dress.

Girl, you think changing into waterfowl and having illicit sex is nasty? Try a trolling god in drag… in white stilettos no less… Hera would be mortified.That's funny! :D


How does a Greek god’s gayness justify anything?Besides being a drag queen and outright militant about it?


I certainly wouldn’t categorize the Greek pantheon, as a whole, as gay…. maybe straight-but-curious, or maybe bi.

Still, you think everybody has Ganymede-esk gay love affairs in their lives? This only goes to show that the Greeks recognized these tendencies, but like I say, everybody has their moments. ;)

[Scot C. Trypal]

Besides being a drag queen and outright militant about it?

Nah, I was just curious how you thought the actions of long ineffectual pagan gods have been used to justify anything today, let alone an angry drag queen. How did the drage queen in question do it?

Seems to me no one today would care. I’d even think that the current Christian culture would see a pagan god’s limp wrist as more evidence of the depravity of homosexuality, not a justification.

This only goes to show that the Greeks recognized these tendencies, but like I say, everybody has their moments. ;)

Don’t you say that and wink at me. I’m taken. :D

Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing where the original topic would go. Is it dead now? Where’s Radrook?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

Nah, I was just curious how you thought the actions of long ineffectual pagan gods have been used to justify anything today, let alone an angry drag queen. How did the drage queen in question do it? Have you heard of the book, The God of Ecstasy, by Arthur Evans? Well, in the first half he goes to great lengths to explain history of the Dionysian cult (with a moderate dowsing of homosexual references here and there), and the second half is all about the play he produced -- all, if not most of the actors were homosexual -- where they portrayed Dionysus as a raging queer! Which, is entirely out of character than anything else I've read.


Seems to me no one today would care. I’d even think that the current Christian culture would see a pagan god’s limp wrist as more evidence of the depravity of homosexuality, not a justification.Well, actually we've been living in an Apollonian age, what has been called the Age of Reason (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65), until Dionysus (http://www.dionysus.org) has re-emerged just recently, and we are now just beginning to reap the fruits of what that entails.


Don’t you say that and wink at me. I’m taken. :DYeah, well, maybe it was just something in my eye? ;)


Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing where the original topic would go. Is it dead now? Where’s Radrook? He posted earlier this morning, in the Assumed Expertise in Unread Literature (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42689) thread, but maybe this one has gone too far off topic? Obviously.

[Radrook]

Once a thread goes off topic too much it is better to let it go than to struggle to bring it back on course.