A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 13,109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Probably missed the bus on this one but I still want this out there.

Lady Aurora, you mentioned Satan let loose on the "tainted" world.

A: Then maybe satan created evolving species to contradict Gods word and ditract believers into heresy.

B: How does one draw the distinction between Satan and God? In all the accounts of Satan I've ever heard of, Satan's power is never a match for God's. Since God also has the "omnipotence" thing going for him then he would be aware of any trick Satan was trying to pull and is powerful enough to stop it. This always struck me as odd since this means God has the chance to prevent Satan from working evil but has some reason to allow it. Hell, he could just destroy him if he wanted. It would seem to me that by allowing Satan to exist, God is responsible for the evils let loose on the world. If I pick up a glass and drop it on the floor to break. It is my fault the glass is boken. Gravity might have done the work for me but it was my decision to allow gravity to affect and destroy the glass.

We get thown out of paradise for one sin? It's the very first human beings up against the runner-up for lord and master of the universe. Their sin?, eating a fruit out of curiosity, disobeying a God that seemed like a pretty understanding guy at the time. Doesn't add up to me.

Why didn't he just keep the damn tree somewhere else anyway? Either he built humans with dangerous curiosity and flaws and knew they would eventually slip up (therefore never really intending to let us have paradise). Or Satan put it there with his tempting, in which case it wasn't their fault. They were corrupted by a powerful and ancient being (keep in mind that the "almighty" knew what was going on and could have stopped it).

Just a few thoughts.

Scarab Sages

Sexi Golem wrote:
...Some really good points...

I still feel that a lot of your questions boil down to the concept of free choice.

While I don't really have a good true "answer", here are a couple of things to think about --

Let's assume that God is all that you said above. That basically, He knows everything, can do anything, and knows the future with 100% accuracy to the point that he can mold it any way he wants.

Why have a "tree" at all? (It didn't have to be a tree -- it could have been anything.) Think about what the world would be like if it was impossible to sin. You make choices every day. Some of these choices have to do with doing the right thing as opposed to doing the wrong thing. Some of the choices have much less to do with right and wrong and more to do with making a "better" choice. Why not make the world where all the choices are the "best" choice?

How would God know that he was loved? How would we know that we were loved? Would concepts like caring and compassion even exist? If there isn't "bad" then how can there be "good"?

As far as getting thrown out for "one sin" -- having taught in school, I don't really have a problem with this. I would have rules and consequences written out. Yet people were still surprised when they broke the rule and suffered the consequences. "That's not fair!!" What's not fair? If you do this, this is what will happen. It was clearly written out. Both Adam and Eve knew the rule and even repeated it before they ate the fruit. It was a choice that they made. Maybe God shouldn't have had a rule in the garden. Maybe I shouldn't have had rules in the classroom. Maybe God should have given them three chances. (or five chances, or 100 chances...) Maybe I should have allowed students to break the rules three or four times before they suffered the consequences.

The tree was there to give them a choice -- (they chose poorly).

The rule was there and clearly defined -- (and they ignored it and suffered the penalty).

Hope that helps.


Yeah, everything Moff said...

No, seriously, Sexi Golem, the purpose of the tree/fruit was to allow free choice. You're not being obedient if there's no way to be disobedient. Adam & Eve were well aware of the rules and the consequences, yet chose to disobedy. Was God being unfair? I don't think so, not when He only provided ONE single rule to obey, not when Adam & Eve were surrounded by an abundance of good things they *did* have the freedom to enjoy.
You make a good point about God allowing Satan to exist/prosper. This is a difficult concept. Since Satan was originally an angel and therefore created by God, and God knew Satan would betray Him and corrupt 1/3 of the angels along with him, then why not just prevent that from happening - or not create Satan in the first place? Again, it comes back to the principle of free will. God didn't want people to be robots, only capable of worshipping and glorifying Him. People had to have a choice. In order to love virtue, one must have the chance/opportunity to embrace wickedness. That's why God allowed/s Satan to exist/prosper.
God is in control of everything (and also knows how it's all going to turn out). He doesn't compel Satan to do wicked things or deceive people - He allows it (big difference). Sometimes this seems to contradict our concept of God - how can a God that is so loving and compassionate allow us to suffer? Well, the same reason that after warning your child not to tease the cat, you allow the cat to scratch the child (allowing the child to suffer "natural consequences" for his/her actions) rather than keep the cat locked in a kennel for the rest of the child's life (or, at some point you'd have to trust the child to choose obedience regarding treatment of the cat). God *pleads* with us not to be willful and disobedient to the guidelines He has established to provide us the best of everything in life. He wants us to enjoy the wonderful things He has planned for us but that requires us to submit to His authority, when we don't, we suffer with less than the best. Simple, really.


Yuck! Yuck yuck yuck!

Okay. I have a rule. A clear rule for my little daughter. You can play with anything you want in the WHOLE house but don't touch my computer. If you touch my computer I will drive you to Boise and kick you out of the car and drive home and you're on your own kid.

She knows the rule, she repeats the rule. Then my archenemy, lets call him Bill shows up and, knowing the rule, decides to convince her to touch the computer. Can he do it? Sure. He's an adult. He knows how to manipulate a three year old. I come home and whoops! There she is on the computer. Well here we go to abandon her in the streets of a big city she doesn't know and never see her again--that's fair.

Why not? She knew the rule. She repeated it. Should I give her three chances? How about 100? How about I don't send my daughter to go become a homeless suicidally depressed weirdo because she touched my stuff?? How about having the punishment fit the crime?

*sigh*

EDIT: There's a larger issue here too. Humans--petty as we sometimes can be--tend not to test people around them to see if they really love them. That's a pretty fragile and neurotic way to be, and it seems weird to imagine an even more stable and good and loving God having to arrange everything just to prove our love. It seems to turn God into some kind of creepy stalker guy, and that's just unsettling. You add to that the idea that God plunges those who "fail" his love test get plunged into hellfire forever and you've got a pretty dysfunctional seeming cosmology. At least it makes me uncomfortable.


And if you're Adam, it's even worse. The way it was taught to me in Sunday school, Eve ate the fruit when Adam wasn't around, and then got him to do it, too. Well, God made her specifically so he'd have the companionship that he "needed," right? And no one told him he needed the garden; just that he needed Eve. So, really, he's in a Catch-22: disobey God, and eat the apple, or disobey God, and ditch Eve. Either way he's out of luck.


Lady Aurora wrote:

Yeah, everything Moff said...

Again, it comes back to the principle of free will. God didn't want people to be robots, only capable of worshipping and glorifying Him. People had to have a choice. In order to love virtue, one must have the chance/opportunity to embrace wickedness.

See, this has always sounded off to me. It seems like free will along the good/evil axis isn't real freedom. One is acceptable and the other is unacceptable. Fathers don't want their kids to be robots either, but they would probably prefer a robot to a serial killer. A good father gives his kids free choice over decisions that really matter, but where it's a choice between multiple goods, rather than good or evil. Do you want to be an artist? President? a police officer? a judge. Any choice is fine, and you get to choose, and I give you this choice of how to be happy because I love you. See, isn't that better?

You get freedom here too, but without the implicit threat of "here's your freedom, but choose wrong and know I'll punish you forever and you'll sicken and dissapoint me."

What kind of real freedom is that?

Scarab Sages

Grimcleaver wrote:
There's a larger issue here too. Humans--petty as we sometimes can be--tend not to test people around them to see if they really love them. That's a pretty fragile and neurotic way to be, and it seems weird to imagine an even more stable and good and loving God having to arrange everything just to prove our love. It seems to turn God into some kind of creepy stalker guy, and that's just unsettling. You add to that the idea that God plunges those who "fail" his love test get plunged into hellfire forever and you've got a pretty dysfunctional seeming cosmology. At least it makes me uncomfortable.

Wow. I am not getting this at all. I didn't say any of this. Not sure who did.

This wasn't a test. It wasn't a "pass/fail" thing. God is not "stalking" anyone. You also imply that He won't "love" a person who "fails" -- not sure where that is coming from either.

Let me try a different approach --

The sin wasn't really eating the fruit. While that is ultimately what was done, it really wasn't about the fruit -- it was much more about what the fruit represented.

It was much more along the lines of "I have created you to have free will. With that in mind, I have provided the means for you if you think that you can do it better on your own. As long as you look to me, I will take care of you. If you think that you are better off on your own, say the word and it will be done." Did he stop loving them/us? No. Does the penalty fit the crime? Yes. They wanted the knowledge to do it on their own. They got the knowledge to do it on their own.

Comparing that circumstance to children is difficult at best. Adam and Eve were not children. I have to remind my child to go to the bathroom. He has no concept of being abandoned or anything similar. While I have an understanding of abandonment, yet I have never been abandoned. God didn't create us to be children -- he created us to be adults.

So what was Satan's role. The Bible seems to imply that while the tree was in the garden, Adam and Eve never really thought about it. I get the impression that they hadn't really made the decision to eat from the tree or not. It never really crossed their minds. Now we are back to the concept of free will. If no decision is really made, do you really have free will? All that Satan did was to force them to make a decision.

So, Adam and Eve screwed up. Once they ate the fruit, they knew that they really screwed up. At which point, God gave them/us a way out -- a "second chance" so to speak.

Scarab Sages

Grimcleaver wrote:
A good father gives his kids free choice over decisions that really matter, but where it's a choice between multiple goods, rather than good or evil. Do you want to be an artist? President? a police officer? a judge. Any choice is fine, and you get to choose, and I give you this choice of how to be happy because I love you. See, isn't that better?

How is it the kid's choice if you are the one providing all the good choices? While the parent may be able to show love this way (debatable), how does the child show that he/she loves the parent if there isn't a poor choice? If you give your child 5 choices on where to go to college, does your child truly have free will? If there were only 5 choices of college, and they were all "good", and your child chose one of them (because he had to -- there aren't any others), would you be proud? How about if you had a list of 10 great colleges in your mind and your child chose not one on the entire list and instead chose to go to the school that would have been ranked dead last if you were to rank all the schools? Would you be proud? What if they chose your top choice? Would you then be proud? In either case would you stop loving your child? I don't see that it is much different with God.

Maybe you can put your child in a giant magic bubble where all they have are "good" decisions to make. Maybe you consider that to be "free will". To me, "free will" is knowing all the decisions to be made -- good and bad -- and deciding for myself.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
With that in mind, I have provided the means for you if you think that you can do it better on your own... At which point, God gave them/us a way out -- a "second chance" so to speak.

By the "second chance," I assume you mean Christ. For the sake of argument, pretend I've "inherited" this knowledge of "how to do it better on my own." I therefore don't go crying back to God to re-accept me; I live my life following the Commandments and otherwise being a good person, but I don't join the "Jesus Club." But I still go to Hell and burn forever, right? (Because I haven't accepted Christ as my savior.) So the bottom line is that there is really no decent choice, and God does NOT ever allow us to "do it on our own" without hideously punishing us for all eternity for trying it. If that's what free will is, it's a raw deal.


Grimcleaver, not sure where you're getting the idea that eating the fruit was a "good" idea and thus, I'm unsure how to respond to your all good choices theory. As an early post pointed out, it wasn't about the tree/fruit itself. Satan insinuated to Eve that the reason God forbid her to eat the fruit was because He was trying to prevent her from being His equal (in knowledge). She believed Satan's lie rather than trust that God had chosen what was best for her. She arrogantly wished to usurp God's wisdom (quite similar to Satan's problem and the reason *he* was cast out of heaven) even though God had explicitly warned her (and Adam) against it. The punishment fit the crime quite well since Adam & Eve sought the knowledge (and responsibility) of good & evil and that's exactly what they got - with all the consequences (and future temptations) a knowledge of evil brings you. For instance, we humans are often tempted to do something simply because someone tells us *not* to. Rule: Don't touch that paint. Response: I wouldn't have thought to touch the paint but now that you said not to...hmmm, looks like fun! That's what an understanding of evil got us.
Kirth, I'm not sure what Sunday School you attended but Chapter 3, verse 6 of Genesis clearly states that Eve took the fruit, ate it, and gave some to Adam "who was there with her" and he also ate it. The original language of the word "gave" in this instance (Eve "gave" the fruit to her husband) is probably more accurately translated as "offered". Satan offered it to Eve, Eve offered it to Adam. Adam was in no way compelled to accept it any more than Eve was compelled by Satan. They both made a choice with full understanding of their rebellion against God if/when they chose to take the fruit. Like your mother always told you "Well, if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump too?" Someone else's poor choice is no excuse for one's own.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
So the bottom line is that there is really no decent choice, and God does NOT ever allow us to "do it on our own" without hideously punishing us for all eternity for trying it. If that's what free will is, it's a raw deal.

So, if you choose to step out in front of an onrushing train, does the train condemn you to die? Did you not have free will before that? Did you not understand the consequences?

Why is it that God is "punishing us for all eternity"? At what point do we take responsibility for our own actions? Kids say that they were expelled from school because of the pricipal. No. They were expelled for what they did (or didn't do). It was because of a choice they made.

If you know what it takes to make twice as much money as you are making now, and it would end up taking little to no effort on your part, but you don't do it, do you blame your boss?


Lady Aurora wrote:
They both made a choice with full understanding of their rebellion against God if/when they chose to take the fruit. Like your mother always told you "Well, if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump too?" Someone else's poor choice is no excuse for one's own.

My issue is the fact that, once Eve eats the apple, Adam has to either abandon Eden or abandon Eve. Either way, he's in dutch with God. The guy got a bum deal for, essentially, sticking with his wife.


Moff Rimmer wrote:

Why is it that God is "punishing us for all eternity"? At what point do we take responsibility for our own actions? Kids say that they were expelled from school because of the pricipal. No. They were expelled for what they did (or didn't do). It was because of a choice they made.

That's the rub. In Christianity, our actions are meaningless; we're doomed from the start, and Christ is the "get out of jail free" card. In your example, the kid does all his homework and behaves beautifully, but on the playground he plays with his friends instead of playing with some other kid, and he's expelled for that reason. It's arbitrary and silly, in that context.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's the rub. In Christianity, our actions are meaningless; we're doomed from the start, and Christ is the "get out of jail free" card. In your example, the kid does all his homework and behaves beautifully, but on the playground he plays with his friends instead of playing with some other kid, and he's expelled for that reason. It's arbitrary and silly, in that context.

It is arbitrary and silly, and context is everything. I don't want to be beating a dead horse here but I think the social context is important when we're talking about religions. They aren't phenomena that exist frozen in time and space. The essential doctrines of Christianity come from about 2 thousand years ago when people in every culture had a much grimmer view of reality than we do today. The pre-Christian gods of Europe and the middle-east were temperamental, fickle and inhuman in their decisions, and people expected that.

What I'm getting at is that the Eden story is pre-Christian by many many generations, and people in the dark and dangerous time of the the Old Testament were perfectly willing to accept the idea that God is kind of mean, not to mention the fact that (dead horse again) all of those cultures including the Jews were originally polytheistic. The idea of an all-powerful God came much later, so when an ancient person read the story they probably didn't assume that Yahweh was omnipotent; they assumed that he didn't control everything that Satan and Adam and Eve did, which makes the story make much more sense.

Now that we in the modern west have long and happy lives compared to the ancient peoples and a history of characterizing our god as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and the only one who exists, its little wonder that stories like this rankle with us. "It's not fair!" we say, "God can't do that AND be good." To which someone like King David or Moses would laugh and say "Who ever said God's good? Are you simple? Look around you!"

The way I see it the point of that story, no matter how you spin it, is "don't mess with God." That may not be an acceptable and nice moral today, but it was fine to the guys who wrote the thing.


kahoolin wrote:
What I'm getting at is that the Eden story is pre-Christian by many many generations, and people in the dark and dangerous time of the the Old Testament were perfectly willing to accept the idea that God is kind of mean, not to mention the fact that (dead horse again) all of those cultures including the Jews were originally polytheistic. The idea of an all-powerful God came much later, so when an ancient person read the story they probably didn't assume that Yahweh was omnipotent; they assumed that he didn't control everything that Satan and Adam and Eve did, which makes the story make much more sense.

Right on, Kahoolin. My discussion, though, is geared towards getting the thoughts of the people on these boards who (a) believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and ALSO (b) believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You and I apparently cannot logically reconcile these; maybe they can (unless they just shrug and pull the "God is beyond our knowing!" card).


Moff: You asked how what I said relates to what you said. Here's where I'm going. You said a couple of things. You mentioned kids in a classroom (this is what introduced the children part of the analogy--also I thought it apt, given the relative youth and inexperience of Adam and Eve relative to an evil archangel, kids compared to something much older and more powerful than they--also kids work nicely because God is so often called our Father and is supposed to love us in the same way we love our children) So you mentioned class rules. Don't wear sunglasses in class or I'll take them. That sort of thing. The kids get their glasses taken--and yet they say it's not fair.

A couple of issues come up from this right away. One is legislation without representation. It could be argued, as the Founding Fathers did, that any law laid before you that you had no part in making and can have no part in changing--is fundamentally unfair. A second issue that comes to mind, the one I mentioned, was appropriateness of the punishment to the crime. The crime was disobedience. The fruit wasn't a train. It didn't run them over. It wasn't natural consequence of eating it that -made- them be thrown out. God did that. It was a punishment. Now depending on what this entails determines whether it was an excessive punishment or not. Did it simply mean living in a world where you have to work to eat and live with weeds and carnivores? That wouldn't be so bad...you could argue that was a bit harsh were either of them eaten by a lion, but nonetheless they did okay. Now if you interpret this as the Fall of Man, where all mankind are doomed to go to hell (and again depending on what hell is supposed to be) unless they find a way back. That seems really harsh. It's less like if you jump in front of the train it will run you over, and more like because you did this I will push you onto the train tracks and unless you take my hand and let me rescue you you'll be run over by a train. That's where I noted that the punishment seemed way in excess of any crime that had been committed.

As for whether it's a pass/fail kind of thing, that again is something we might need to iron out. Certainly it seems pass/fail if our eternal destiny is either heaven or hell. There doesn't seem to be much gradient there. You either pass and are in heaven, or you fail and are in hell--whatever unpleasantness that involves.

Hope the explaination helps nail things down a bit more clearly.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Grimcleaver wrote:
A couple of issues come up from this right away. One is legislation without representation. It could be argued, as the Founding Fathers did, that any law laid before you that you had no part in making and can have no part in changing--is fundamentally unfair. A second issue that comes to mind, the one I mentioned, was appropriateness of the punishment to the crime. The crime was disobedience. The fruit wasn't a train. It didn't run them over. It wasn't natural consequence of eating it that -made- them be thrown out. God did that. It was a punishment. Now depending on what this entails determines whether it was an excessive punishment or not. Did it simply mean living in a world where you have to work to eat and live with weeds and carnivores? That wouldn't be so bad...you could argue that was a bit harsh were either of them eaten by a lion, but nonetheless they did okay. Now if you interpret this as the Fall of Man, where all mankind are doomed to go to hell (and again depending on what hell is supposed to be) unless they find a way back. That seems really harsh. It's less like if you jump in front of the train it will run you over, and more like because you did this I will push you onto the train tracks and unless you take my hand and let me rescue you you'll be run over by a train. That's where I noted that the punishment seemed way in excess of any crime that had been committed.

I think the punishment does fit the crime. The fruit wasn't just an arbitrary desert God was saving for later consumption, it was a fruit from the tree of knowledge. It gave Adam/Even the ability to understand right/wrong and thereby deprived them of the option to live a life naturally free of sin (such as the life animals presumably live). I see it as similar to having sex. Engaging in sexual behavior is risky, you can catch a disease, you can become (or cause someone to become) pregnant, you can have someone put it up on the internet (once an internet porn star, always an internet porn star). When you warn your children about the dangers of sex, you are warning them about the natural consequences of that act. The warning God gave regarding the tree of knowledge was the same sort of thing. Just as you can't reclaim your virginity, so you cannot reclaim your innocence.


Lady Aurora: I guess I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I thought eating the fruit was a good thing. That certainly wasn't what I was meaning to say. Granted I guess there's worse things to want than wisdom and the attributes of God--but clearly the story paints taking the fruit as a bad thing.

My point, and what I chafe against, is that self-determinism is only expressed between matters of right and wrong. I don't like rap or country music, but I do like alternative and folk music. This defines me as a person. It's my choice, and the consequences of these decisions lead to flavoring me as a character and distinguishing me from others. One isn't good and one isn't evil, but I escape my robotness--taking whatever's in front of me--by choosing. These, I would argue, are the real building blocks of free will. You and I are more different because of a hundred other things than we would ever be because of faith--and yet we both play D&D, and that brings us together. Free will doesn't need moral duality to work. You can have loads of free will and never once talk about good or evil. I like Mars bars, you like Twix. Which of us is good or evil? Neither--but the free choice makes us distinct.

So then the rub is this. On one hand you have choices between goods. I'll adopt (but alter) Moff's example. My kid can go to five universities. Those are the only ones I condone. One is great for music and performing art. One is great for philosophy and politics. One is great for science and engineering. One is great for architecture and industrial design. One is great for journalism and law. My child will define himself by choosing one of these schools, and by that choice, yes I will be oozing with pride in them.

On the other hand if my child was given a binary choice, go to Harvard or sit in the backyard and smoke crack and shoot at the neighbors with a Desert Eagle--I would only be able to be proud of one choice. The other would be rebellion and would separate my child from me.

This is my problem with good and evil as the axis upon which we base free choice. Does that make it more clear?


Sebastian wrote:
I think the punishment does fit the crime. The fruit wasn't just an arbitrary desert God was saving for later consumption, it was a fruit from the tree of knowledge. It gave Adam/Even the ability to understand right/wrong and thereby deprived them of the option to live a life naturally free of sin (such as the life animals presumably live). I see it as similar to having sex....Just as you can't reclaim your virginity, so you cannot reclaim your innocence.

That's an interesting take. So living a sinless life was what was lost--innocence. That's cool. Presumably then Adam and Eve didn't need the ability to sin to be free? Rather the idea was for them to live in innocence by they freely chose knowledge of good and evil over immunity from it. That's interesting. So going to hell wasn't a punishment from eating the fruit so much as a consequence of being liable to sin.

It still leaves some questions. Like why put the tree there in the first place? If they are innocent and unable to sin, how can they be held responsible for their choice to eat the fruit. You have to know good and evil to choose evil--and they didn't get that until after they ate it.

But still it's an interesting way of looking at it. Thanks.


Grimcleaver wrote:
I like Mars bars, you like Twix. Which of us is good or evil? Neither--but the free choice makes us distinct.

Aha, and that's where you miss it. Modern Biblists tend to be a very black & white lot: either you believe like they do, or you're "evil" and "against God." Never mind gays; the Bible actually says you can't eat shellfish, either (Leviticus 9:9-11). Look it up. But it's OK for self-righteous preachers to abuse pills and commit adultery, because Jesus forgives them.

You don't GET a choice between Mars or Twix; you're presented with the choice of "accept Jesus," or "burn in Hell forever." That's it. That's the ONLY choice you get that means anything. And that's the part I really can't get my head around.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You don't GET a choice between Mars or Twix; you're presented with the choice of "accept Jesus," or "burn in Hell forever." That's it. That's the ONLY choice you get that means anything. And that's the part I really can't get my head around.

True enough, but not exactly where I was going with it. Here's the thing I'm trying to get at. Why does free will have to be choice between good and evil? Free will is just about us making our own choices and not living like soulless robots, right? Why can't free will be about other kinds of choices that remove hell from the picture entirely. Why couldn't free will be the freedom to choose whatever you want from those things that are good. You can't pick everything, and so the choices you make define your character. Why wouldn't that work? And if it does work, wouldn't it be a better basis for free will than one where people gain freedom but possibly at the cost of eternal damnation?

That make any sense to anyone?


Yes, the fall of man was a loss of innocence, like Sebastian said. That (along with expulsion from the perfection of Eden and alternate life in a "cursed" world was their punishment).
Grimcleaver, thank you for your patience and you're attempts to explain your viewpoint. I hate to sound like the dumb kid in the back of the class who keeps saying "I don't get it" but in answer to your "Is that clear?" question, I have to sadly say, "No". I personally don't define free will exclusively on the good versus evil axis. Did I somehow imply differently? I think there is plenty of free choice amongst positive choices, but there is also (as a result of the illicitly gained "knowledge" of evil through Adam & Eve) the responsibility of choosing God's will versus one's own corrupt desires.
Kirth, your earlier example of not being allowed the free will to find your own way to heaven as evidence of some illogical interpretation of the Bible has me stumped, quite frankly. Are you suggesting that after God establishes Himself in authority over man that it would be logical for Him to allow man His Eternal Reward by some means outside of God's own plan? Wouldn't *that* be illogical? "I made up this plan but if you defy me and willfully go your own way ... well, that's okay, you can puzzle out your own formula for gaining my rewards." Why would God send His Son to earth and allow him to suffer & die for our sins if men could figure out their own salvation? How could anyone respect & honor God if we didn't need Him in order to get to heaven? Your theory about free will to choose our own way to heaven really has me scratching my head.
Also, BTW, this is what Leviticus 9:9-11 says in my Bible, "His sons brought the blood to him, and he dipped his finger into the blood and put it on the horns of the altar; the rest of the blood he poured out on the base of the altar. On the altar he buned the fat, the kidneys and the covering of the liver from the sin offering as the Lord commanded Moses, the flesh and the hide he burned up outside the camp." Nothing in there about shellfish so I guessed I missed your point again.


Oh, Kirth, at first I didn't understand what you were trying to say about Adam's sticky situation once Eve ate the fruit but, lo, I think light finally dawned! You're feeling sorry for Adam because he was between the proverbial rock & a hard place. True, but only because he allowed himself to be. Remember, he was standing right there while Satan was tempting Eve. This was Adam's big chance to "be the man" and offer Eve some encouragement not to partake of the fruit. Instead, not only does he stand silently by while she makes the biggest mistake of her life but he readily joins right in on the disobedience.
What if he hadn't? Would God have made him a newer, bigger, better wife? Well, I can't say; we'll never know; but I'm sure the Almighty would've come up with something. Our affections for our spouses, our family, our friends are not an adequate excuses for choosing disobedience. We are responsible for our own actions, period. Faith includes trusting that God will take care of the details when we seem to "lose" someone/thing in exchange for our obedience to God.


Lady Aurora wrote:
Leviticus 9:9-11

Oops...keep readng. It's in Leviticus 11:9-11, "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."


Lady Aurora wrote:
Are you suggesting that after God establishes Himself in authority over man that it would be logical for Him to allow man His Eternal Reward by some means outside of God's own plan? Wouldn't *that* be illogical? "I made up this plan but if you defy me and willfully go your own way ... well, that's okay, you can puzzle out your own formula for gaining my rewards." Why would God send His Son to earth and allow him to suffer & die for our sins if men could figure out their own salvation? How could anyone respect & honor God if we didn't need Him in order to get to heaven?

Depends on His reason for creating Man. If it was to allow man to develop, and to grow, and to eventually reach salvation using the ability to think that God gave him, then I'd say it's perfectly logical, even inescapable. If the sole reason was to be obeyed and worshiped (in other words, if He doesn't really love us at all except as a means to that end), then your explanation certainly makes more sense.


Okay, so I found the Leviticus verse you referenced. What was the question again? Oh yeah, what's up with the no shellfish deal?
Well, here's my take on it. The Old Testament is full of rules and rituals designed with various purposes in mind. Some of them are a tool to reveal the character of God. A lot of the requirements to remain "pure" were a device to help the Isrealites understand the purity of God. Some rules & rituals existed to counter the customs of surrounding heathen civilizations. God wanted the Isrealites set apart, holy, purposely and distinctly different than those around them. Today much of the symbolism of these rules is lost because the practices of Isreal's enemies are no longer common knowledge. Some "foreign" customs and practices had direct ties to their foreign gods and God didn't want the Isrealites engaged in such behavior. He didn't want the Isrealites doing things to bring glory to some other god or even appearing to acknowledge other gods.
In your shellfish example the rule was likely for the initial purpose I pointed out rather than the latter (though there might have been some shellfish god being worshipped somewhere, who knows?). The Isrealites had a long list of behaviors that were catagorized as either "clean" or "unclean". Many of the unclean ones seem ridiculous to us, and *would* be ridiculous for us to imply some modern practicality, but at the time made perfect sense to the Isrealites. In the separation of clean and unclean was a huge list of clean animals the Isrealites were free to eat and unclean animals they were forbidden to even touch. This whole system became obsolete when Jesus came and the New Covenant was created. Some of the Jews around Jesus's time had difficulty abandoning the old system. One of these was the apostle Peter. Acts 10 chronicles how God shows him a vision of all kinds of "unclean" animal and commands Peter to kill them & eat them. Peter is disgusted. God reassures him that under the new system Christians enjoy freedom from "the Law" - that virtually everything is permissable in moderation (nothing in excess). Bottom line - shellfish are back on the menu!
Remember too that in Old Testament times they were still waiting for the Holy Spirit's indwelling and the salvation plan. There had to be a way to demonstrate their faith and obedience. The "Law", a complex collection of various rules & rituals, served this purpose. When Jesus came and fulfilled the Law (His ultimate sacrifice securing salvation), the Law no longer served the same purpose as it did for Old Testament people.


Got it. Thanks for the discussion; I remember that none of my Orthodox Jewish friends would put meat and dairy on the same plate, and of course when I was growing up Catholics didn't eat meat (except fish) on Fridays.

On the upswing--does your logic also that mean that gays don't have to burn now, either? I'm sure they'll be quite relieved -- but maybe someone should inform Rev. Falwell of the change in rules!

Scarab Sages

Lady Aurora wrote:
What was the question again? Oh yeah, what's up with the no shellfish deal?

My thoughts are a little more simple on this subject.

There were a number of things that really didn't make sense to the Israelites back then. It is also hard for us to understand in this day and age.

Shellfish -- I still hear cases of people getting sick from eating shellfish. And that is with today's current FDA requirements, sanitation, indoor plumbing, etc. I think that the restriction was simply to keep the people healthy.

Crop Rotation -- "You mean, if I only use 3/4 of my total land every year and rotate out the different portion of land every year that my crops will yield more than they would were I to use the entire land?" Does this make sense? It does to us now. They didn't have access to technology and have any kind of real understanding of things like fertalizer and so on.

There are a lot of other sanitary rules and other practices that are "rules" in the Bible. The truth is that when the Israelites were following these rules, they were healthier. They were stronger. They had healthier babies and a MUCH lower infant mortality rate. Their crops were better. And every nation near them was jealous of their prosperity.

And all this really goes against the Social Darwinism mentioned earlier. If the Israelites were as primitive as was implied earlier, there should have been no way that they would have been able to come up with all this information on their own when they did. Their small brains couldn't handle it. So where did it come from if it didn't come from God? And why didn't anyone else follow it if it worked so well?


Moff Rimmer wrote:
If the Israelites were as primitive as was implied earlier, there should have been no way that they would have been able to come up with all this information on their own when they did. Their small brains couldn't handle it. So where did it come from if it didn't come from God? And why didn't anyone else follow it if it worked so well?

Their brains were the same size as ours; the Israelites (and the other people of the time) were modern Homo sapiens. Apparently, too, the builders of Stonehenge would have needed modern-equivalent knowledge of engineering to hoist those stones upright. Knowledge isn't always additive--sometimes it gets lost in all the plagues, wars, pillaging, etc. that history is so full of.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
On the upswing--does your logic also that mean that gays don't have to burn now, either? I'm sure they'll be quite relieved -- but maybe someone should inform Rev. Falwell of the change in rules!

People are always going to have their own take on the "rules". Is every gay person exactly the same. I hate being lumped together with extreme people like Falwell. Just because he has a loud voice doesn't mean that he has the right voice or that he speaks for all Christians. I certainly don't want him as my spokesperson.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that gays are going to hell. That's all I really want to say about that. It's a ridiculous statement that ends up doing much more harm than good by isolating a group like that.


Moff Rimmer wrote:

I hate being lumped together with extreme people like Falwell. Just because he has a loud voice doesn't mean that he has the right voice or that he speaks for all Christians. I certainly don't want him as my spokesperson.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that gays are going to hell. That's all I really want to say about that. It's a ridiculous statement that ends up doing much more harm than good by isolating a group like that.

Amen, brother.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Their brains were the same size as ours; the Israelites (and the other people of the time) were modern Homo sapiens.

Kahoolin threw out the thought that the Hebrews were Polytheistic. This thought comes from the social Darwinism theory (which I had to research a bit last night, so if I get this wrong, please forgive me and correct me). As near as I can figure out, the idea of a monotheistic culture is a very advanced concept for people to get and it really wasn't prevalent until the 1400s as I understand it. The idea is that it was pretty much impossible for an ancient people to grasp the idea of one god. As far as the Hebrews were concerned, they were not a nation of people until well after Abraham. I have not found any evidence or proof that they were polytheistic but at "worst case" rather Henotheistic. Regardless, it was implied that it was impossible for them to conceive of certain concepts.

My point is that if they were so primitive, why did they have access to such advanced knowledge? Or if they weren't so primitive and they were just as smart as everyone else, why didn't anyone else develop the same or similar methods as the Israelites?

Who cares about Stonehenge? What did it do? Did it feed the people? Did it keep them healthy? Did it win them battles?

You said that knowledge isn't always additive -- but it needs to come from somewhere. The old testament talks about the healthy and sanitary way to bleed an animal. This is a practice that in many cases is still used. Where did the Israelites get this information if not from God?

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Amen, brother.

Thanks. I'm going to take a break from this thread for a bit. There is so much here that I feel should be commented on, but I simply don't have the time.

Sebastian -- thank you for your valuable insight. Eloquence is not my gift. Probably won't ever be.

Grimcleaver -- Keep it coming. You challenge me more than anyone ever has and I appreciate it.

Sexi Golem -- I am still thinking about points that you have brought up and I will do my best to address them when I get a chance.


Lady Aurora wrote:
Grimcleaver, thank you for your patience and you're attempts to explain your viewpoint. I hate to sound like the dumb kid in the back of the class who keeps saying "I don't get it" but in answer to your "Is that clear?" question, I have to sadly say, "No". I personally don't define free will exclusively on the good versus evil axis. Did I somehow imply differently? I think there is plenty of free choice amongst positive choices, but there is also (as a result of the illicitly gained "knowledge" of evil through Adam & Eve) the responsibility of choosing God's will versus one's own corrupt desires.

I think you understood fine. At least it seems so. We can have "plently of free choice amongst positive choices". If you agree to this, then I'll go on to connect it back to what I was asking before.

Namely why put a deadly sin tree anywhere around Adam and Eve? Why even have one? If they could enjoy free will and become whole and complete beings without it--why have it? Why allow the devil to tempt people at all--or even keep him around?


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Grimcleaver -- Keep it coming. You challenge me more than anyone ever has and I appreciate it.

Wow. That's some pretty high praise! Thanks, man!


Moff, for once I have to respectfully disagree. If the shellfish restriction (along with those on other "unclean" animals) was strictly for sanitary reasons, sanitation hadn't improved significantly by the time Jesus walked the earth. Why release Peter (& everyone else) from the restriction? Just as likely to get sick from shellfish in the first century A.D. and for many centuries to come (and arguably, safety is still a concern). Could God impart certain technological information in the Old Testament to help the Isrealites be happier & healthier? Absolutely. Is the shellfish restriction evidence of this? I'm not convinced. And you need to be wary of saying those civilizations that advance over their ignorant neighbors must be blessed by God. That's a slippery slope. There's plenty of historical evidence of advances other (non-Isrealite) cultures acquired which advanced their cultures but aren't necessarily linked to God. The Phoenicians writing/history system; the Aztecs advanced math concepts; Roman plumbing/architecture; the list goes on and on - and yes, these advances were distinct to their civilization and helped it to prosper and thrive.
I would like to rejoin you, Moff, in your views of Rev. Falwell. I don't nominate him as a spokesman for me and mine either. I agree that he and his kind do more harm than good and are arguably instruments of Satan more than God. If he is sincere in his zeal, he certainly doesn't accomplish his tasks with a Christ-like attitude or methodology.
Kirth, your point about gays (and their abomination status as stated in the Old Testament) is actually a very good one. I base my view on homosexuality on principles of the entire Bible not just select verses. Therefore (um, take a deep breath...), I don't believe that homosexual activity is viewed kindly by God. However, I also don't believe a gay person is automatically doomed to hell anymore than I believe any person who struggles with any particular sin is irrevocably doomed. Eternal Damnation/Reward is based on one's "heart" and not necessarily their actions. We are saved by grace, not "works". Therefore even believers are not perfect and, in fact, often engage in all kinds of questionable behavior. God knows what's going on in anyone's heart & mind. I believe *that* is what we will be judged on.
The Bible, however, is quick to warn that just because grace covers a believer's sin doesn't mean a person has the freedom to just live carelessly with indifference to how one's actions offend God. God's not fooled and He is just in his judgement of our lives. The people who pretend to be "good" while harboring wicked thoughts & intentions are just as guilty as those who act "wickedly" while having good thoughts & intentions.
A lot of people seem to think that there's heaven and hell and nothing in between. I'm not suggesting there is any eternal destination other than these two places. I'm saying God has other ways of punishing & rewarding people besides their ultimate destination.


Grimcleaver, have you ever made a decision in your life (major or minor, doesn't matter) where there seemed to be only one "path" to take and then you later found out there were other options (but only after irrevocably choosing the singular one you were offered). If so, didn't that tick you off with the injustice of it all?
Silly example in case you're not understanding my point follows:
Back to our child going to college example. A father believes anyone who's anyone *must* have a college degree. This is what he wants for his beloved son. He wants the son to choose to go to college so he raises the boy from infancy to believe that after high school college is mandatory. What if the "Father" tells his son you can pick this college (or maybe pick one of several colleges - doesn't really matter). The son makes his choice. The Father is pleased. After the son graduates from college he meets someone who entered the military or just got a job straight out of high school without any further training. The son says "Hey! I didn't know that everyone doesn't *have* to go to college! No fair! I wasn't even given that option! Maybe I would've chosen that instead!". When the son confronts the father, the father shrugs and says, "I knew there were other options for you but I decided college was best so I just eliminated your other choices." Question remains - Did the son really choose college and therefore pursue the career path his father wanted?
It's not free will if in their innocence/ignorance Adam & Eve could only choose things that were good and pleasing to God. Choosing within a closed set when other options are available is not free will - it's still compulsion.


Lady Aurora wrote:
It's not free will if in their innocence/ignorance Adam & Eve could only choose things that were good and pleasing to God. Choosing within a closed set when other options are available is not free will - it's still compulsion.

I think no matter how open the set of possible actions, there will still be limitations--short of everyone having godlike power themselves, some things will be off limits that people still cannot choose. Sure it's frustrating, but does that make us less free-willed? What is free will? I would argue that it is action based on choice and preference rather than action imposed by environmental requirements. Give innocent people options and the freedom to choose and they will turn out individuals. If they get frustrated that they could have gotten a job straight out of college? Just point to that same ex-soldier burning in hell for his choice and I think that will pretty much land you on the winning side of the argument. That and your kid will be all the happier for you protecting them.

EDIT: For those of you who might misunderstand, I'm not saying soldiers go to hell. The "ex-soldier" in the example was someone who got a job through "the military" rather than going to "college"--college being the symbol chosen long before in this thread as "what the dad wants for his kid" or in other words righteousness. The "military" then would represent the other path--or evil, which is open to people presumably giving them choice and thus free will. So no one out there call me a military hater. I'm not. All the respect in the world.

Contributor

You all seem to be assuming that God in Genesis sees knowledge of good and evil, wisdom like unto God, disobedience, and suffering as bad things. What if God wanted man to have knowledge and wisdom? Maybe God knows that sapience is lame if one is not willing to question authority (even if one eventually comes back to that auhtority). He sets up a situation wherein man cannot acquire wisdom without questioning the biggest authority, God's own. Lucifer - the enlightener - is not the villain of this piece but the agent provaceteur. Thus the so-called Fall is all part of God's plan to create intelligent people. The suffering that comes afterwards is inevitable - it illustrates the axiomatic paradox that ignorance is bliss, but the unexamined life is not worth living. To say suffering is always bad is to embrace hedonism; not the worst philosophy, but I don't think it is preferential.


I guess God just can't win with some people. People complain that God is unfair in that His plan has only one way to get to heaven and that this doesn't allow *real* free will (or, at least doesn't leave an option for people to figure out variant paths). Then people complain that God shouldn't have allowed the tree of knowledge to exist but should have shielded people into only being capable of choosing His will alone (and therefore have no free will of their own) and that we would then be thankful for our predetermined path.
I'm confused. If God really loved us He wouldn't allow us to do anything outside of His will? And if God really loved us He'd allow us to do anything outside of His will without consequences? Which is it?


Moff Rimmer wrote:
You said that knowledge isn't always additive -- but it needs to come from somewhere. The old testament talks about the healthy and sanitary way to bleed an animal. This is a practice that in many cases is still used. Where did the Israelites get this information if not from God?

Just wondered if they couldn't figure it out by trial and error. A lot of scientifically irrelevant ritual gets mixed in that way (Kosher foods), without rigorous control of variables, but people can learn without God necessarily implanting knowledge directly into their brains. Positing the existence of a God (which you seem to), you've got to accept the correlary: that He gave us the ability to think, reason, and learn. Otherwise life becomes a whole Matrix situation (and we might as well retire this thread...).

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Just wondered if they couldn't figure it out by trial and error. A lot of scientifically irrelevant ritual gets mixed in that way (Kosher foods), without rigorous control of variables, but people can learn without God necessarily implanting knowledge directly into their brains. Positing the existence of a God (which you seem to), you've got to accept the correlary: that He gave us the ability to think, reason, and learn. Otherwise life becomes a whole Matrix situation (and we might as well retire this thread...).

There's a great story regarding the history of the domestication of almonds that touches upon this. The pre-domesticated almond tree had a high level of arsenic and it always puzzled scientists as to how humans went about cultivating a deadly poison into a tasty treat. For the life of me, I don't remember the details of the story, but it stands as an example of how knowledge can be gained about the proper preparation of a food stuff (and in this case, even a poisonous food stuff) without divine inspiration/revelation.


Lady Aurora wrote:
Eternal Damnation/Reward is based on one's "heart"... The Bible, however, is quick to warn that just because grace covers a believer's sin doesn't mean a person has the freedom to just live carelessly with indifference to how one's actions offend God. God's not fooled and He is just in his judgement of our lives.

Thanks, Aurora. THAT'S the piece I've been missing all this time. I always had huge issues with these people that tell me I'm going to Hell and they're not, although I follow the Commandments and they obviously don't, because they're "in tight" with Jesus. That made the whole thing sound like a club to me: "join our club and you can knowingly wreak untold evil and still go straight to Heaven!" seemed like a non-religion, from my standpoint.

I'd like to think (again, starting from your assumption that there is a God), that God gave the ability to think and reason to people so that they could discover His plan for themselves and act accordingly. Others refuse to think, and need to be told what to do, and the whole total obedience to God according to the Bible would be for those folks. In either case, they'd eventually come to act in accordance with the ways in which a fundamentally Good creation is set up, and thus God would be happy in the long run. I don't think He'd be jealous or petty, though, if a person acted in accordance with the spirit behind the Commandments, and with the Sermon on the Mount, but just failed to pay lip service to Christ by name. I think He'd be just as happy.

Scarab Sages

Lady Aurora wrote:
...that she disagreed with me on the question of shellfish...

You are probably more right about the true reason behind this than I am. I still think that the truth incorporates some of both. I don't know what the sanitation was like around Jesus time as compared to the time that the Israelites left Egypt, so I really don't have anything to base my thoughts on. If my understanding of history is correct, ironically the least sanitary time period was the dark ages which came much after Jesus time.

I just simply find it rather interesting that we can now put real reasons why so much of the law was in place even though it may not have made much sense at the time. While it may not have been the full reason for the law, it is still fascinating to me. How to kill a cow, circumcision, crop rotation, "first fruits", refraining from shellfish, etc -- none of this really made sense for the time. However, it was the best thing for them to do at the time and now we have real reasons for these laws. I don't think that was the only reason for the law and I think that you pointed that out well -- I just think that it is fascinating that science today tells us that the practices that were in place by the Bible were the best practices followed for many thousands of years afterwards.

As far as advanced cultures -- I don't really feel that the Israelites were more advanced. I just felt that they had access to more advanced concepts that were far beyond their understanding. All the other cultures mentioned understood the reasons and methods for their advancements. They developed it on their own and deserve the credit for it. I don't see how the Israelites "developed" their law.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Just wondered if they couldn't figure it out by trial and error. A lot of scientifically irrelevant ritual gets mixed in that way (Kosher foods), without rigorous control of variables, but people can learn without God necessarily implanting knowledge directly into their brains.

Our group jokes about that fish (the name escapes me) that has only one safe way of cooking it -- any other way will kill anyone that eats it. So who came up with the right way? How many people did he kill trying to get the recipe right?

Not saying that they couldn't come to the same conclusion by trial and error, but it didn't seem to happen that way and they seemed to be a bit ahead of their time at the time.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Positing the existence of a God (which you seem to), you've got to accept the correlary: that He gave us the ability to think, reason, and learn. Otherwise life becomes a whole Matrix situation (and we might as well retire this thread...).

I don't think that I understand what you are saying here. I think that I would probably agree, but I'm not sure.


Fugu is the poisonous Japanese pufferfish. I hear it's quite a delicacy, but I don't think there's any Shinto scripture that explains how the Kami (spirits) taught the Japanese how to prepare the fish. I think they had to learn it on their own. Were they smarter than the Israelites? Probably not; they just had different raw materials (no pun intended, in that we're discussing sushi!) to deal with.

Contributor

Moff Rimmer wrote:
You said that knowledge isn't always additive -- but it needs to come from somewhere. The old testament talks about the healthy and sanitary way to bleed an animal. This is a practice that in many cases is still used. Where did the Israelites get this information if not from God?

The great thing about being a secularist is that everyone shares your religion they just don't know it. Humanity has a long history of describing human ingenuity as divine intervention, because it serves as a stamp of approval from an unquestionable authority. Also, as in evolution, there is no such thing as "new information": technology isn't invented, it's discovered. (Does it come from God? As much as anything does.)


Sebastian wrote:
There's a great story regarding the history of the domestication of almonds that touches upon this. The pre-domesticated almond tree had a high level of arsenic and it always puzzled scientists as to how humans went about cultivating a deadly poison into a tasty treat. For the life of me, I don't remember the details of the story, but it stands as an example of how knowledge can be gained about the proper preparation of a food stuff (and in this case, even a poisonous food stuff) without divine inspiration/revelation.

I think there's a compound in the wild ones that breaks down to form cyanide (HCN, not As), that's also extremely bitter in flavor (a by-product of the same chemical). My guess is that people figured out that a few bitter ones would make you sick, and too many bitter ones would kill you, but the non-bitter ones were OK (also, you could probably leach the HCN out of the toxic ones by boiling or roasting them, but never mind that... although aren't the almonds we eat roasted?). Anyway, obviously if you were growing them you'd chop down the trees with the bitterst almonds (the ones the birds weren't eating?) and leave the rest. No need for God to tell you to do it that way, I would hope.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I think there's a compound in the wild ones that breaks down to form cyanide (HCN, not As), that's also extremely bitter in flavor (a by-product of the same chemical). My guess is that people figured out that a few bitter ones would make you sick, and too many bitter ones would kill you, but the non-bitter ones were OK (also, you could probably leach the HCN out of the toxic ones by boiling or roasting them, but never mind that... although aren't the almonds we eat roasted?). Anyway, obviously if you were growing them you'd chop down the trees with the bitterst almonds (the ones the birds weren't eating?) and leave the rest. No need for God to tell you to do it that way, I would hope.

Could be. I think it was in Guns, Germs, and Steel. That book is a terrific description of how environmental forces (rather than divine will) shaped human civilization. It was either that or the Botony of Desire (which, IIRC, explores the symbosis between the need for plants to propogate their species and the assistance of humans in that propogation for crops). Good books.


Sebastian wrote:
I think it was in Guns, Germs, and Steel. That book is a terrific description of how environmental forces (rather than divine will) shaped human civilization. Good books.

I came VERY close to buying that one last time I was at B&N and saw it on the shelf--guess I should have. Thanks for the recommendations!

251 to 300 of 13,109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.