|
That is something I have always wanted to know more about. Game theory. Care to explain a bit?
The short end is ...
In something like chess, someone makes a move (decision) and the other person makes a move (decision) based on the previous decision and so on. They've expanded this to life basically to try and predict some things like economics. Probably (thanks to chaos theory) with limited degrees of success.
The problem I have is that it's pretty hard to predict when people are basically playing the same game but using different rule sets.
|
Ok ... Hatred.
There really is quite a bit and rather little on "hate" in the Bible. There are a lot of Old Testament references (doing a search on "hate") on what God "hates". There are some minor references that basically say "Bob 'hated' Pete". There are quite a bit of New Testament passages that basically warn believers that they will be hated by others. Very little is actually in reference to what (I believe) the question was about.
Be careful with the Sermon on the Mount passage that some feel talks about it. ("He who hates his brother commits murder.") That passage is speaking very directly to how the keepers of the Law didn't understand the point of the Law to begin with and is talking about one point of the Law specifically and not about "hate".
Probably the best Biblical passage is in I John 2. The passages in question are verses 9-11. Even this, I don't know that it means that it is a "sin" -- just a really bad idea. From a logical point of view, I feel that hatred ends up doing more harm than good. I think that it clouds our judgement and may sometimes cause us to act or say things that may end up causing more harm than good. (Like in Jeremy's example. And I am in no way suggesting that he wasn't justified in his feelings.)
Hatred doesn't generally get us very far and I feel that John was trying to get that across in the above passage.
At least that's what I've got on it.
Does the bible give a remedy for it? Is there a way to cleanse ones self of hate?
|
|
Does the bible give a remedy for it? Is there a way to cleanse ones self of hate?
Interesting question. "Remedy"? There are (of course) Christians who will tell you that "Jesus is the remedy".
I don't know that there are many "remedies" in the Bible. Probably deliberate since we are all individuals and I don't think that there is one "cure-all" that will work for everyone.
From a psychological point of view I think that "Jesus" can work. In many ways it's similar to what we call "venting". Basically just dump your problems on him so that you can work on "better" things. And there is at least some Biblical support for that as an answer.
Other than that, my best thought is from --
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"Hatred" comes from somewhere. Typically someone would have done (not done?) something to someone else. The problem with the above is that it takes a few assumptions under consideration -- namely that the other person has the same moral obligations that you have. Which also (by the way) is how the end of that passage should really read -- in that if he won't listen to you, you and another leader, or even the church, then he should be treated as someone who does not share the same moral obligations as you.
A bit of rambling. Not sure if I answered anything. (Not sure that there is an answer.)
1. I have given no evidence whatsoever that I have some hidden self-moral objection to homosexuals and the gay movement. As above, I have stated that as things continue to change it will be best to re-evaluate and have one set of rules. I even specifically stated that the number of children in their relationships alone may make this change important. Further, in other posts I have explicitly expressed my support for the adoption of children into homosexual couples.
Maybe not the best choice of one of your quotes as you seem to be in a flame war with Samnell and Bugley.
Still I think there is essentially a flaw with your percentages.
In short your arguing that the laws need to be different because 100% of homosexual couples are infertile whole only maybe 5% of heterosexual couples are infertile.
Now I'll start by stating that the 5% number for heterosexual couples is kind of iffy, even if roughly true in terms of an actual medical condition I suspect the law really needs to deal not so much with medical infertility but instead percentages of couples that for whatever reason don't have children during their marriage except with the assistance of a third party. I suspect that the number of couples that fit this criteria is higher then 5%, probably between 10%-20%.
OK so we have between 5% (your figure) and 20% (my high end figure) of heterosexual couples that can not or will not have children without the assistance of a third party. We both seem to agree that these heterosexual couples are still legally married and we both seem to agree that the legal concept of marriage is flexible enough to include them.
So my next question would be: is there some imperative to reclassify them out of marriage? You contend in an earlier post that the answer to this is no and that its no because they represent a small number of people overall. I believe your position on this would be that its simply not worth the trouble to reclassify them as not married but something else.
I'd say the same applies to gay and lesbian couples as well and its essentially based on similar numbers. Sure 100% of gay or lesbian couples can't conceive but what percentage is that of all couples?
That number depends on what the percentage of gay and lesbians there are in the society at large. A tough number to pin down but estimates range from between about 2% and 10%. Wikepidia has a pretty good round up of many of the studies that have been done to try and answer the question and, based on that, I figure 5% is a reasonable, maybe even slightly high, percentage to chose.
If the total percentage of gays and lesbians in the population is 5% then the total percentage of possible gay/lesbian couples is likely around 5% as well...which nicely lines up with your 5% figure of married people that are medically infertile.
In effect if its legally or socially important to classify gay/lesbian couples out of marriage due to their infertility then it is actually at least as important, and probably more important, to reclassify infertile or childless heterosexual couples out of marriage and into whatever classification gays/lesbians fall into simply because there are going to be more infertile heterosexual couples in total then there are going to be gay/lesbian couples.
On the other hand if its just not worth the effort to reclassify infertile heterosexual couples then its similarly not worth the effort for gay/lesbian couples since there are less gay/lesbian couples in total then there are infertile heterosexual couples in total. If the law is flexible enough to handle infertile heterosexual couples then its likewise flexible enough to handle the infertility of gay and lesbian couples.
Maybe not the best choice of one of your quotes as you seem to be in a flame war with Samnell and Bugley.
Really? We're going back there?
Once again I have misunderstood and/or misquoted you, Moff. I apologize. You continue to surprise me. Just when I think I understand where you are coming from, I am completely off target.
Back to the discussion (if we can) at hand. There are two different points I have here. If it is a sin, that makes all those Christians who want to 'educate' the masses about what a sin homosexuality is huge hypocrites. The other point is, it seems to me you are speaking for Jesus and that is not kosher.
The Bible says 'X' and you say 'What Jesus really meant was Y'. Now granted, your proposed meaning is the polar opposite, it still feels like it is being altered as to not offend the societal norms. I mean, if divorce is as big a sin as homosexuality...well...there would be some real problems.
Do you have anything to back up your assertion?
|
|
Does the bible give a remedy for it? Is there a way to cleanse ones self of hate?Interesting question. "Remedy"? There are (of course) Christians who will tell you that "Jesus is the remedy".
I don't know that there are many "remedies" in the Bible. Probably deliberate since we are all individuals and I don't think that there is one "cure-all" that will work for everyone.
From a psychological point of view I think that "Jesus" can work. In many ways it's similar to what we call "venting". Basically just dump your problems on him so that you can work on "better" things. And there is at least some Biblical support for that as an answer.
Other than that, my best thought is from --
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."Hatred" comes from somewhere. Typically someone would have done (not done?) something to someone else. The problem with the above is that it takes a few assumptions under consideration -- namely that the other person has the same moral obligations that you have. Which also (by the way) is how the end of that passage should really read -- in that if he won't listen to you, you and another leader, or even the church, then he should be treated as someone who does not share the same moral obligations as you.
A bit of rambling. Not sure if I answered anything. (Not sure that there is an answer.)
Eh, it's* alright. I'm merely curious at this point more than anything else.
*see I learned something from you anyway... that being to use an apostrophe if I want to avoid your ire.
|
|
Back to the discussion (if we can) at hand. There are two different points I have here. If it is a sin, that makes all those Christians who want to 'educate' the masses about what a sin homosexuality is huge hypocrites.
Yes. Yes they are.
The other point is, it seems to me you are speaking for Jesus and that is not kosher.
Hmmm. I don't think that I am. I guess that in some way we all are when we try to interpret what he meant from what he said.
The real problem that I see is that there are a lot of societal things that we have lost over the past two thousand years. That really makes it harder to put things in context.
The Bible says 'X' and you say 'What Jesus really meant was Y'. Now granted, your proposed meaning is the polar opposite, it still feels like it is being altered as to not offend the societal norms. I mean, if divorce is as big a sin as homosexuality...well...there would be some real problems.
Do you have anything to back up your assertion?
Maybe you can help me out. Where do you think that God (or Jesus) puts degrees on "sin"? We do -- I feel a kind of way to justify ourselves as "better" than the other person -- but I don't think that I remember Jesus saying that one sin was worse than another sin.
|
So you do it again and again until you realize that what you first believed might be more than you thought it was.Ignoring other possible explanations? What you are saying sounds more like manipulating the data to fit the hypothesis. You were already inclined to believe in a Christian god as you had already been exposed to it even if your parents were not devout. The seed was still planted.
I argue that if you had been raised in a FSM family, you would be seeing his Noodley Appendage everywhere you look.
I bet not every prayer has been answered. Those are conveniently rationalized away as "god works in mysterious ways". He simply did not want to or need to answer that one.
As you don't know me then you are just spouting the same old argument I've heard so many many times I'd be a rich man were I to have a dollar for every one who has used it ;) What I am saying is that prayers are answered, but not always in the way you the expect. That's the great benefit of hindsight when you see prayers have been answered, just not the way you expected them to be sometimes. I do not control God, God controls me, so to speak. So God does what is right using prayer to work through you.
The prayers that were answered, did they require some action or even non-action from another person? If god answered that prayer, did he infringe upon that person's free will?
Most often the answer is "no". Sometimes the circumstances are placed into the framework for others to freely choose. Prayer kind of works like that. There are cases of direct divine intervention but they are very rare occurrences. In the past I have thought many times whether my prayers were answered, it's not like writing a letter to Santa Claus. You pray for justice, relief of suffering for specific people, sometimes just for yourself, and yes I've seen prayers answered or I wouldn't bother sitting here wasting my time writing this post to you, but since you were courteous enough to ask me the question, you are receiving an answer.
What you make of my answers are purely up to you. So in fact no free will is ever infringed by God, and neither is it by me. If you want to be bible thumped, visit your local southern baptist church. I haven't the energy to attack people with dogma and doctrine and heaven and hell, because unless you make up your own mind no amount of preaching does any real good. That's why Grace is so difficult for people to grasp. It's free for the taking, but nobody wants it because they can't see a dollar value on it.
Pity really, when something that ought to be simple and edifying ends up by being hijacked by the very same type of people that crucified Christ the first time.
|
|
About speaking with GodI'm still not exactly sure where you're saying the knowledge for god comes from. If it is a paradox, can knowledge for God really exist?
I know I quoted Marcus, but anyone feel free to weigh in.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too, but scientists haven't quit on either issues because both have provided evidence. Instead, they look for ways to unify the theories.
Yes knowledge of God can exist, but you have to make the step in a similar way to said scientists. Don't make the step keep on a wondering. I don't know how God does what He does. But I have seen the results. I'd be one dishonest scientist if I were to dismiss Him just because I couldn't get my second rate noodle around it. :) Scientists ain't done that with quantum physics, because the math works and the experiments prove successful, even if it defies all the logic they were originally used to. Scientists just realized that they knew less than they first thought. That's how it is with God, only more so. But if you don't do any experiments then you don't get any answers anyway. So you end up with an impasse. If the impasse is good enough for you you stick with it. For me, intellectually, it was not good enough.
|
|
Damn post monster >.<, let's try this again, shall we?
So in fact no free will is ever infringed by God
What about the garden of eden and original sin? God forbid adam and eve from eating of the tree of knowledge. Without knowledge, did they really have the free will to make the decision to eat from the tree? Did they know right from wrong? Did they know that disobeying was the wrong thing to do?
It boils down to the question: Can one have the free will to make a decision if one lacks the knowledge necessary to make the decision?
IIRC this is similar to theological satanists' view on the tree of knowledge, satan, and god. Satan gave humanity the greatest gift ever bestowed upon it--the gift of knowledge, without which all of humanity would be mindless drones serving "god." (well they also believe that satan was the creator and god the deceiver--it's all very interesting, even for a non-believer!)
IIRC this is similar to theological satanists' view on the tree of knowledge, satan, and god. Satan gave humanity the greatest gift ever bestowed upon it--the gift of knowledge, without which all of humanity would be mindless drones serving "god." (well they also believe that satan was the creator and god the deceiver--it's all very interesting, even for a non-believer!)
Which sect of Satanism are you referencing? The common LaVeyan Satanists don't necessarily subscribe to theism.
|
|
IIRC this is similar to theological satanists' view on the tree of knowledge, satan, and god. Satan gave humanity the greatest gift ever bestowed upon it--the gift of knowledge, without which all of humanity would be mindless drones serving "god." (well they also believe that satan was the creator and god the deceiver--it's all very interesting, even for a non-believer!)Which sect of Satanism are you referencing? The common LaVeyan Satanists don't necessarily subscribe to theism.
theological should have been theistic, apologies.
they did put degrees on Sin in the middle ages. I think it is one of the dumbest things they ever did. No where does it say that one commandment is worse then another.
There's no special list of ten that take precedence over the six hundred others either. :)
Far be it for me to defend theologians, but it makes a lot of sense that not all sins are created equal. Why would all things that are wrong be equally wrong? I don't think many people would agree that something like not honoring your father and mother is on precisely the same moral plane as rape or murder. Well ok, if you're dishonoring them by raping and murdering them I suppose you could make the argument, but isn't that just a three-sin pileup?
Maybe not the best choice of one of your quotes as you seem to be in a flame war with Samnell and Bugley.Really? We're going back there?
To the flame war? Not my intention. I kind of pointed it out explicitly because the post was part of what had devolved into a flame war and I wanted to acknowledge that in the hopes that it would not then be pointed out in any response, presumably sidetracking the response. My intention was simply to address what I felt was a logical flaw in a legal argument.
As you don't know me then you are just spouting the same old argument I've heard so many many times I'd be a rich man were I to have a dollar for every one who has used it ;)
Are you implying the argument is made less valid because you have heard it so many many times?
What I am saying is that prayers are answered, but not always in the way you the expect. That's the great benefit of hindsight when you see prayers have been answered, just not the way you expected them to be sometimes. I do not control God, God controls me, so to speak. So God does what is right using prayer to work through you.
So god works in mysterious ways?
What you make of my answers are purely up to you. So in fact no free will is ever infringed by God, and neither is it by me. If you want to be bible thumped, visit your local southern baptist church. I haven't the energy to attack people with dogma and doctrine and heaven and hell, because unless you make up your own mind no amount of preaching does any real good. That's why Grace is so difficult for people to grasp. It's free for the taking, but nobody wants it because they can't see a dollar value on it.
O.k., you completely lost me here. Other than stating you did not infringe on free will, I do not see how any of this is related to what we were talking about.
I don't think many people would agree that something like not honoring your father and mother is on precisely the same moral plane as rape or murder.
I second this.
Someone was kind enough to leave a flyer on my car.
|
|
If I remember correctly, you said to read the Bible, contemplate it and decide for yourself.This doesn't sound like me. If I did say this, I'm sorry.
After thinking about this more, I think I know what you were referring to. I think I did say something like this -- but more about whether or not a story is an allegory or history or law or whatever. So in that regard, if you believe that the story of Jonah actually happened -- fine. If you believe that it was more of a fable -- fine. It really doesn't change the message much either way.
The passages in question (that we were talking about) are different. This isn't a story about Jesus turning water to wine or some other thing that might be an "allegory" -- it's very specifically talking about the Law. It's not history. It's not allegory. It's teaching.
Now, with regard to what I said about "comtemplate it and decide for yourself" -- there are some things, on a more surface level, where this is very true and fine for. Did Baalam actually talk to a donkey? It's not "Law". It's written more like history, but it certainly could be allegorical. Did Judah have sex with his daughter-in-law? Did Gideon defeat the enemy with 100 men? You're not going to find a whole lot of "proof" in any of these. And in the vast majority of cases the "point" of the stories had much less to do with divine intervention and more to do with human nature.
When we are talking about the New Testament, we start to move away from stories (more) and really start to move more toward teaching. A lot of Paul's writings deal with a problem and generally give guidelines on how to deal with it. It's not "allegory" and it's not "history". So when you talk about how you see the Sermon on the Mount as "allegory", it doesn't quite make sense to me. Jesus did use "allegory" -- typically called "parables" -- but it was pretty clear when he was doing that (even though the point he was trying to get across wasn't always clear).
All that being said, there are some things that aren't too difficult for the average layperson to figure out with the Bible. On the other hand (especially the more you learn and dig deeper), there is quite a bit that we don't get because we don't have the proper language reference, cultural reference, or time reference (or possibly other references). A quick example of this is something like Matthew 8:21-22 where someone wants to follow Jesus but he asks if he can go and bury his father and Jesus seems to tell him to let the dead bury themselves. Which seems rather harsh. If we read this with a Western viewpoint, we totally miss the point that Jesus was trying to make. (I'm not going to get into the answer to that passage here. You can pretty much Google the passage in question -- there's a similar passage in Luke -- to get some good answers from scholars smarter than me.)
My point with this (rather long and obfuscated) post is that there are some things in the Bible that aren't too hard to figure out for yourself. There is still quite a bit that our Western minds have a great deal of difficulty understanding without additional assistance.
|
|
The Bible says 'X' and you say 'What Jesus really meant was Y'. Now granted, your proposed meaning is the polar opposite, it still feels like it is being altered as to not offend the societal norms. I mean, if divorce is as big a sin as homosexuality...well...there would be some real problems.
I've been thinking about what you said here. I can see where you feel I'm reading more into what is written. However, I don't see your interpretation of the passages -- at least not exactly. A lot of passages around start off "You have heard it said..." and then continue with "But I say..." So what was written? First understand that Jesus just finished(?) talking about adultery. Then he starts off with "You have heard it said..." Well what was said? Your footnote shows where to find it. The people at the time knew it better than us. It's in Deut. 24: 1-4. Jesus then says the "But I say..." and goes on to suggest that people who were doing this were committing adultery. I don't know what this "certificate" is. I have a feeling that there's more to it there than we know. But from first glance, it looks like the focus might be on "divorce" but after reading the Deut. passage and the Matthew passage again, it looks more to me like the focus Jesus is trying to get across is "adultery" which makes it then look to me like the people had found a "legal" way to sleep with whoever they wanted. Which was not the point of the law to begin with.
Far be it for me to defend theologians, but it makes a lot of sense that not all sins are created equal. Why would all things that are wrong be equally wrong? I don't think many people would agree that something like not honoring your father and mother is on precisely the same moral plane as rape or murder. Well ok, if you're dishonoring them by raping and murdering them I suppose you could make the argument, but isn't that just a three-sin pileup?
There are degrees to "sin" -- well really the Law. I have mixed feelings about it though. On one hand, certain things are worse and should be dealt with more severely. Generally because they end up causing more harm or damage to others. On the other hand, most people are generally pretty good -- and a strict heirarchy of "sin" I see getting people to try and be better than the next person or something similar. And this shouldn't be a contest.
Regardless, the Law was already established. Jesus wasn't here to try and give a list of what "sin" was worse than some other "sin". In fact, he really didn't point out "sin" all that much. He talked about reinterpreting the Law. So while there are natural "degrees" to sin, Jesus didn't talk about that.
|
|
Damn post monster >.<, let's try this again, shall we?
So in fact no free will is ever infringed by GodWhat about the garden of eden and original sin? God forbid adam and eve from eating of the tree of knowledge. Without knowledge, did they really have the free will to make the decision to eat from the tree? Did they know right from wrong? Did they know that disobeying was the wrong thing to do?
It boils down to the question: Can one have the free will to make a decision if one lacks the knowledge necessary to make the decision?
IIRC this is similar to theological satanists' view on the tree of knowledge, satan, and god. Satan gave humanity the greatest gift ever bestowed upon it--the gift of knowledge, without which all of humanity would be mindless drones serving "god." (well they also believe that satan was the creator and god the deceiver--it's all very interesting, even for a non-believer!)
People make free will decisions every day without adequate knowledge behind them. That's just the way we are made. So Adam and Eve made a freewill choice to eat the fruit regardless of its prohibition. There were consequences for doing what they did, just as there are today. Ignorance is no defense against the law.
I'm sure God was well aware that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree because He can see the beginning and the end of all things. Perhaps a greater good that we don't understand was served by it. Who knows. There are some questions that cannot be simply answered and this is one of them. Remember God clothed the errant pair before expelling them from Eden. He didn't lose compassion for man and woman, but they now had to deal with the consequences.
It's difficult to rationalize God from our perspective because we are not Him and we don't think like Him. All we know is what he gives us to know. All I know is that He is as gentle as a child, but he is also aware of everyone's faults and potential. He has power of life and death over us and he has the power over our eternal souls. I try not to judge his motives because I think only as a human thinks and that is narrow. But we are creative and are capable of great compassion. We know the difference between what is right and wrong; atheists and religious people both do.
From what the Lord has deigned to show me in my walk with him is that kindness and compassion is the most important jewel a man or woman can possess and if we use it to help others in need we are already walking with Christ.
|
|
People make free will decisions every day without adequate knowledge behind them. That's just the way we are made. So Adam and Eve made a freewill choice to eat the fruit regardless of its prohibition. There were consequences for doing what they did, just as there are today. Ignorance is no defense against the law.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, but ignorance of the basic concepts of right and worng is. People without the capacity for knowing right from wrong are generally not held culpable for their actions (mentally ill, children, etc.). If Adam and Eve had yet to eat from the tree, would the have the knowledge of right vs. wrong?
I'm sure God was well aware that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree because He can see the beginning and the end of all things. Perhaps a greater good that we don't understand was served by it. Who knows. There are some questions that cannot be simply answered and this is one of them. Remember God clothed the errant pair before expelling them from Eden. He didn't lose compassion for man and woman, but they now had to deal with the consequences.
So if god knew, did he know while he was creating them or after the creation took place? If it was the former, then he put humans in a position to be subservient from the get-go, ergo removing from them free will. If it was the latter, then does that not show that god is fallible?
It's difficult to rationalize God from our perspective because we are not Him and we don't think like Him. All we know is what he gives us to know. All I know is that He is as gentle as a child, but he is also aware of everyone's faults and potential. He has power of life and and death over us and he has the power over our eternal souls. I try not to judge his motives because I think only as a human thinks and that is narrow. But we are creative and are capable of great compassion. We know the difference between what is right and wrong; atheists and religious people both do.
WE know the difference between right and wrong due to the knowledge imparted by the "original sin." My question is what capacity for knowing right from wrong did Adam and Eve had if they did not have the knowledge gained from the tree?
From what the Lord has deigned to show me in my walk with him is that kindness and compassion is the most important jewel a man or woman can possess and if we use it to help others in need we are already walking with Christ.
Does this mean you are more an "acts vs. belief" type of guy? If atheists do what is "right," help their fellow man, and are compassionate, are they still going to be denied entrance? In this hypothetical, they would have lived up to the values of JC far more than the many hypocrites who believe, yet according to the bible they are still damned due to lack of belief/acceptance of jc as savior, are they not?
|
|
Are you implying the argument is made less valid because you have heard it so many many times?
Not at all, it was just a humorous comment, and I did use a smiley. I believe that no prayer made in honest faith is ignored by God. He might not answer you as you might expect but that doesn't mean he didn't or won't. Now if you were to pray to win the lottery I guess you would probably not get your wish, unless it served a greater purpose from God's perspective that you did win the lottery. Prayer should come from your innate wish for justice, healing or important issues regarding such. Prayer comes from the attitude of the heart toward what God moves you to pray about. But this is a spiritual thing and something that goes beyond measured principle. I cannot give you proof, faith and prayer require perseverance and, first and foremost, belief.
So god works in mysterious ways?
Yes, if you want me to use an overused cliche. Mysterious because we do not understand the mind of God which doesn't necessarily follow that they are mysterious in the greater scheme. The ancient Romans would probably find cell phones mysterious because they had no understanding about how they work, but to us they are not.
O.k., you completely lost me here. Other than stating you did not infringe on free will, I do not see how any of this is related to what we were talking about.
Simply stated, we are all used to buying and selling. We do not expect to get things for free. There should be a cost, no? What I was saying is that God's Grace is free and there is no cost. Even the established churches bicker about that one because it goes against fundamental human nature, but not against God's. Grace is free to anyone who asks for it. I didn't mean to confuse you here. I guess I let my irritation with the established churches get the better of me. For that I apologize.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...
what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.
|
|
Ignorance of the law is no defense, but ignorance of the basic concepts of right and worng is. People without the capacity for knowing right from wrong are generally not held culpable for their actions (mentally ill, children, etc.). If Adam and Eve had yet to eat from the tree, would the have the knowledge of right vs. wrong?
Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil until they ate the fruit. Man did not have the capacity to deal with this knowledge, even though God did, without it harming him and hence God's prohibition. But man was still able to be tempted, hence the serpent (BTW The Adam and Eve story I believe is meant to be allegorical).
So if god knew, did he know while he was creating them or after the creation took place? If it was the former, then he put humans in a position to be subservient from the get-go, ergo removing from them free will. If it was the latter, then does that not show that god is fallible?
I do not believe God is fallible in any sense as we understand it. However you are asking me a question that I cannot answer adequately, I'm after all just a regular guy. So instead I'll give you my opinion only. God knew what would happen in Eden, but it didn't stop him. He knew man would eat of the tree. Maybe this was the only way to truly endow men with free will. But God refused to let man perish despite it. Beyond this I cannot speculate. All I'm now giving you is opinion.
Does this mean you are more an "acts vs. belief" type of guy? If atheists do what is "right," help their fellow man, and are compassionate, are they still going to be denied entrance? In this hypothetical, they would have lived up to the values of JC far more than the many hypocrites who believe, yet according to the bible they are still damned due to lack of belief/acceptance of jc as savior, are they not?
I believe God is just and I believe that anyone who strives in their heart to do what is good and right will not be denied God's Grace, be they atheists, buddhists, muslims, jews etc. God knows the hearts of all people from all walks of life. It says in the bible that "those who are not against us are for us" and "The Holy Spirit blows where He will and no-one knows where He comes from or where He goes"
People who thirst for fairness and justice and love their neighbor as themselves are already walking the right path, and don't even get me on to the Hypocrites and false Christians in our churches. I am with you 100% about those who drag God's name through the mud. But also don't forget that there are many good hearted people in these churches too. If there weren't, such churches would have been destroyed like Sodom.
I believe Christ is the Messiah of God, the promised one. But actions speak louder than words and faith is a journey.
Finally I am sharing my insights of Faith with you here, I do not know many answers to the big questions.
Explain why you say this? Then I might respond. I haven't a clue what you're asking me here and the subject is too big to write a treatise for you.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.
Let me explain it. I happen to work with QM and I am not aware of any paradoxes involving quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics predicts Newtonian Mechanics for classical bodies. I was wondering if I was forgetting something. I would like you to name the paradox so I could look it up.
...but isn't that just a three-sin pileup?
{adds Three-Sin Pileup to list of great names for imaginary bands}
|
|
Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil until they ate the fruit. Man did not have the capacity to deal with this knowledge, even though God did, without it harming him and hence God's prohibition. But man was still able to be tempted, hence the serpent (BTW The Adam and Eve story I believe is meant to be allegorical).
I guess what I'm asking (and it may be a moot point to do so given your view of the story as being allegorical) is that if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, were they really tempted? They wouldn't have known it was wrong to follow the snake any more than they would have known it was right to follow god.
I do not believe God is fallible in any sense as we understand it. However you are asking me a question that I cannot answer adequately, I'm after all just a regular guy. So instead I'll give you my opinion only. God knew what would happen in Eden, but it didn't stop him. He knew man would eat of the tree. Maybe this was the only way to truly endow men with free will. But God refused to let man perish despite it. Beyond this I cannot speculate. All I'm now giving you is opinion.
I guess that view of the situation would make me question the motives of god. If he knew before creation, then he knew that he would be placing his creations in a position that would require them to be holden to him from the start. It seems that he was more whipping up followers than filling a planet. (i know it's your opinion, I guess I'm just musing as well)
I believe God is just and I believe that anyone who strives in their heart to do what is good and right will not be denied God's Grace, be they atheists, buddhists, muslims, jews etc. God knows the hearts of all people from all walks of life. It says in the bible that "those who are not against us are for us" and "The Holy Spirit blows where He will and no-one knows where He comes from or where He goes"
People who thirst for fairness and justice and love their neighbor as themselves are already walking the right path, and don't even get me on to the Hypocrites and false Christians in our churches. I am with you 100% about those who drag God's name through the mud. But also don't forget that there are many good hearted people in these churches too. If there weren't, such churches would have been destroyed like Sodom.
I'm glad to see you take that position--it's a rare one within the organized religion community. How do you view atheists who "evangelize" and try to convince believers of the lack of existence of god? Do they fall in the "against us" category, regardless of their works?
I cannot give you proof, faith and prayer require perseverance and, first and foremost, belief.
Once again, that sounds like you are asking for blind faith. "Faith first, then the proof will come!" That sounds dangerously like True-believer syndrome.
Yes, if you want me to use an overused cliche.
To me, it sounds like your argument is exactly that overused cliché. I do not mind that it is overused or a cliché. What I do mind is that it is simply not a good argument. It is the equivalent of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." It is a misdirection. Something a con-man would use. The ultimate moving target.
I cannot give you proof, faith and prayer require perseverance and, first and foremost, belief.Once again, that sounds like you are asking for blind faith...
No offense intended but isn't faith always blind?
I've been thinking and to be honest if I were to chose a religion I would go with a god that was more human (relatively) like the roman or greek gods.
I could accept flawed gods but not flawless gods. I just can not look around and think a perfect omniscient & omnipotent god would create the things and people I see.
Also, would a creator god be male, female, genderless or transgendered?
Edit: My vote is transgendered.
...but isn't that just a three-sin pileup?{adds Three-Sin Pileup to list of great names for imaginary bands}
No offense intended but isn't faith always blind?
I think so, at least for the definition of faith common to religious discussions.
|
|
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too, but scientists haven't quit on either issues because both have provided evidence. Instead, they look for ways to unify the theories.About speaking with GodI'm still not exactly sure where you're saying the knowledge for god comes from. If it is a paradox, can knowledge for God really exist?
I know I quoted Marcus, but anyone feel free to weigh in.
Why do you say that they are paradoxes?
Yes knowledge of God can exist, but you have to make the step in a similar way to said scientists. Don't make the step keep on a wondering. I don't know how God does what He does. But I have seen the results. I'd be one dishonest scientist if I were to dismiss Him just because I couldn't get my second rate noodle around it. :)
I'm not asking you to dismiss him, just wondering where your information comes from. This still really hasn't answered my question, but brings up new ones. What do you mean by dishonest scientist and why are you implying that they have second rate noodles? Why would a scientist disregard results unless they weren't valid? What makes your results valid?
|
Let me explain it. I happen to work with QM and I am not aware of any paradoxes involving quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics predicts Newtonian Mechanics for classical bodies. I was wondering if I was forgetting something. I would like you to name the paradox so I could look it up.Explain why you say this? Then I might respond. I haven't a clue what you're asking me here and the subject is too big to write a treatise for you.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.
Quantum mechanics, though as hard of a subject as theology, fills in some holes of Classical Newtonian physics quite well. NP is quite easily tested and has been for some time. QM is harder to test but thats why we build machines such as the Large Hadron Collider. There is little, if any, paradox.... Much however to explore.
No it is not. This then I feel is where we have butted heads the most.
However, CJ, you have implied that I should accept the answers I get (..stop looking for the car keys when you find them…) which, to me, very much suggests faith must forgo logic.
|
|
No it is not. This then I feel is where we have butted heads the most.However, CJ, you have implied that I should accept the answers I get (..stop looking for the car keys when you find them…) which, to me, very much suggests faith must forgo logic.
I realized from your responses that this is how you perceived it. It was however not how I meant it to come out. I blame my lack of writing talent, and I so wanted to be a writer too, for this misunderstanding. What was the old saying about trees and forests?
** spoiler omitted **...but isn't that just a three-sin pileup?{adds Three-Sin Pileup to list of great names for imaginary bands}
Glad to be of service.
I blame my lack of writing talent, and I so wanted to be a writer too, for this misunderstanding.
I can not always explain the wanderings of my mind, so I can certainly forgive you that. There have been other comments you made that gave me a similar impression. So I would appreciate if you could elaborate how you define 'faith' when you have the time.
|
|
Let me explain it. I happen to work with QM and I am not aware of any paradoxes involving quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics predicts Newtonian Mechanics for classical bodies. I was wondering if I was forgetting something. I would like you to name the paradox so I could look it up.Explain why you say this? Then I might respond. I haven't a clue what you're asking me here and the subject is too big to write a treatise for you.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
|
|
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.Let me explain it. I happen to work with QM and I am not aware of any paradoxes involving quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics predicts Newtonian Mechanics for classical bodies. I was wondering if I was forgetting something. I would like you to name the paradox so I could look it up.Explain why you say this? Then I might respond. I haven't a clue what you're asking me here and the subject is too big to write a treatise for you.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " - Inigo Montoya
|
|
I guess what I'm asking (and it may be a moot point to do so given your view of the story as being allegorical) is that if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, were they really tempted? They wouldn't have known it was wrong to follow the snake any more than they would have known it was right to follow god.
That they were forbidden to eat it by God ought to have been enough for them, but maybe a being created in the image of God is going to exhibit the same attributes as the Creator. Curiosity not least amongst these. Caveat: More speculation here.
I'm glad to see you take that position--it's a rare one within the organized religion community. How do you view atheists who "evangelize" and try to convince believers of the lack of existence of god? Do they fall in the "against us" category, regardless of their works?
To me they fall into the same category as fundamentalist Christians who have decided they have the monopoly on truth. Atheism can sometimes also become a religion by being an anti-religion.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
There is no paradox. The fact that this does not happen with big things emerges directly from the theory and is not bizarre at all.