Christians and Reality

[Beancounter]

I have noticed a tendency on this forum for christians to avoid debating this historical argument (as also raised elsewhere by Doctor X). Instead their arguments tend to be based on abstract, logic and philosophy. It always strikes me that these are somewhat irrelevant if the very basis for the religion is found to be flawed.

QED

 

[wittgenst3in]

That last line where you accuse the bible of encouraging incest destroys the credibility of everything you said before.

a) Abraham was married to his half sister Sarai (or Sarah). We can be reasonably sure this was 'Ok' with god because he commands him to take her as his wife.

b)
From the book of genesis:

19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

19:37
And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

19:38
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Those naughty little nymphs. They deliberatly set out to get their innocent father drunk and have their way with him. However, because there was no divine command here I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this was intended as historical record, not as a example of good behaviour.

 

[Ipecac]

Again, you are free to believe that God can square a circle or that he can do the logically impossible if you wish. But make that claim to any philosopher or even theologian worth his salt and he will disagree.


As to perfection, perfection is based on criteria.
God's criteria for perfection was ability to choose.
Your criterion for perfection is inability to choose.
Fortunately, God thought otherwise.
Otherwise we would be going around doing the zombie shuffle.


Also, the analogy of the bat is wrong.
God never guaranteed that human perfection meant inability to make wrong choices.

God knew that granting freedom of choice entailed dangers.
So your description of his not having a clue about the possibilities is YOUR idea not mine.

I see. So god created this new being and set before it a choice with terrible, horrific consequences if it chose wrong.

Why in the heck would such a choice be offered and, if Adam was fully cognizant of what the choice represented, why would he choose mortality, suffering and death over paradise?

The scenario you're describing makes absolutely no sense and the actions of the participants in your story make even less sense.

 

[Z]

I was just going to mention Adam and Eve, but Witt has made the point about incest far more eloquently than I ever could.

So - since we have quite a bit of evidence that incest was not consistantly considered evil in the Bible, that restores the validity to my points of thought. As usual, the Bible-supporter grasps for one straw to bring down a pile of arguments he dares not face.

BTW

Satan (the Adversary) is clearly and historically a creation of the Jewish mythos - and the Bible refers to any number of beings that many Fundie and Ignorant Christians lump under Satan. Many are twistings of Pagan goddesses, meant to discredit the Pagan faiths involved in an attempt to draw more people into Judaism/Christianity; others are mis-interpretation of Hebrew terms (such as the Adversary). In point of fact, Satan is a common myth attributed to Christianity and Judaism (and to Islam, of course) but is taken as fact by followers of these myths. Ironically, those who accuse Wiccans of being Satan-worshippers are way off track - since Wiccans do not recognize the existance of any Satan. And true Satan-worship? Satanism is, in fact, another branch of Christianity. It is, of course, adversarial to the Christian faith, but still dependent on the existance of belief in the Christian myths. The irony of this reality boggles the mind.

I admit to not being 'familiar' with the Bible - i.e. I cannot quote verses or books accurately. But I am familiar with the Bible in that I can pick up one of the five texts I have near me, find what I'm looking for, read passages in context, compare them with other translations, and compare them with concepts in the texts of other myths and religions, historical findings, and anthropological evidence.

BTW

Are you aware that the modern concept of God is actually a blending of two deities? Il and YHVH - two deities from two different Hebrew myths, each with its own properties and proprieties. Il, in fact (or El, if you prefer) was one of a large pantheon of Hebrew deities now largely forgotten, save by those nutty Qabbalists, who, among other things, was notoriously jealous and probably responsible for that infamous line, "You will have no other gods before me". I'm unfamiliar with the origins of the YHVH deity, but if I get up more energy this morning I might go looking it up if anyone's interested.

Just so you know -

I'm a Wiccan reverend who has also studied Bible, Torah, Qu'Ran, Rg Veda, the Analects of Confucious, the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, the Satanic Bible, and numerous less-important but equally-enlightening texts. I have copies of the Bible in NIV, KJV, and a couple of others - not sure what translations those are, but they're usually vastly inferior to these two. I have the Apocrypha, two copies; the Torah, two copies; and about a dozen books on the historical and anthropological origins of myth and religion. I chose to become a Wiccan because what I learned from all my research is that a grain of truth exists, but no standard 'Book' religion has all the answers; and Wicca is about as close to an open-minded AllFaith as it gets, just short of Universalist Unitarian, which I had never encountered before I finished my initial training as a Wiccan priest.

The thing I want to emphasize here is I am not out to bash Christians in general. You believe in the same Deity that every other religious person believes in, whether you like to acknowledge that or not. What I am out to do is point out how wildly useless it is to draw truth from a book filled with glaring historical failings, obvious borrowings from other cultures, and internal inconsistancy that makes a Hollywood B-grade sci-fi flick look like an accurate docudrama.

The Bible is good for what it is - a mythos text providing parables that, if taken carefully and thoughtfully, provides a loose guideline for living well. Frankly, though, you Christians would be well served to 'trim the fat' and cut the Christian book down to a good, positive, consistant Jesus myth, make the central teaching the Golden Rule, and ditch all the nonsense about 'witches' (actually 'poisoners'), gay behavior, adultery, and Satan.

Now, assuming you can get past your basic tenants of faith and actually do as asked, would you care to tackle the other points of my post, the post in which incest was mentioned, and explain these facts to us? Somehow, I doubt you will. In fact, I suspect you will cling to the idea that I never studied the Bible and am bashing because it's popular. Guess what? I'm a Deist. Hell, I'm a priest. That makes me pretty unpopular here, in the Land of Atheists. I'm a Pagan, which makes me pretty unpopular here in Bush's Fundie Christian America. And just to throw the cherry on top, I'm bisexual, which screws up my pop points with both Gays and Straights.

Now, tell me again how I'm bashing the Bible to be popular?

 

[Humphreys]

The flaws came from their choosing to misuse the bat of free will and braining themselves with it.

I don't know what you mean by 'braining', and I don't understand why a flawless being would have a personality flaw to make it disobey God.

When he created free-willed creatures as opposed to robots he knew that the possibility of the misuse of free will was there.

Is misusing free-will making a choice God didn't expect you to make? Such a gift this free-will, that you are given two options, one of which results in the damnation of all life, forever, when you have no idea of the consequences!

But the choice in misusing the faculty of free will would be the creature's not God's. Blaming God for a creature misusing free will is like blaming a merchant for selling me a bat that I just happened to missuse by murdering someone with it. Obviously the merchant sold it so that you could play baseball, Your choice of braining someone with it is your choice--not his.

But the whole idea of free-will was to allow the creations free-choice. They simply accepted this gift, and used it as only they knew how!

Did God not know what he was creating? He must have had some idea as to the probability of his creations blessed with free-will (another of his creations), based on their personalities (his creation again), making the choices they did.

Now I'm not omniscient, but I could probably guess that if I created a robot with completely free-choice and didn't tell it about the consequences of making a certain decision, that it would most likely try to serve itself, especially when I also created this machine to feel extremely strong urges, instincts, and a very powerful feeling called 'temptation'.

This poor couple didn't stand a chance!

The Bible God cruelly set them up to fail.

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

What caused this to happen? Did they again decide to use another of God's gifts?

He knew that they were flawless and had no tendencies toward evil. So there was nothing to indicate that they would misuse their freedom of choice. If they sinned it wasn't based on a weakness or a tendency to sin. If they sinned it was a calculated decision bereft of such extenuating factors. In short, a methodical Spock-like weighing of pros and cons and a deliberate reaching of a decision that they considered logical or else advantageous. In that way they permitted their own thoughts to entice them to sin.
But the thoughts were chosen thoughts. Not thoughts that intruded in the way they do upon imperfect creatures.

Different humans may have acted in different ways in this situation, no? Was it pure bad luck that God's first creations had a personality that caused them to make the bad (although understandable) decisions they did?

Did God not create these personalities too?

In short, they willingly delved on the prospects of going it on their own until such a prospect of disobedience became overwhelmingly enticing and led them to sin.

Did God not create everything about them, including their personalities?

Omnipotence does not mean being able to do the impossible. God cannot square a circle. God cannot a creature that cannot choose to sin without also making him robotic. So what we have is an almighty being caught in a dilemma. So he picked the alternative that he felt was best.

Why stop there?

Free-Will itself is impossible. It's impossible to create a being without also creating it's personality. It's impossible for flawless beings to make mistakes. It's impossible for an all-loving God to punish his own creation for excercising a gift he himself gave them - free-will.

Free will is the ability to choose among a variety of possibilities. Ants don't have that privilege because they were created to follow instinct. An ant must behave like an ant. Man has the choice of behaving in a multitude of ways. Take away that ability and man becomes ant-like and his worship of God becomes meaningless.

In the comedic film "Bruce Almighty" expresses the difficulties of dealing with free willed creatures in a very illuminating way.

What effect does personality have on the choices we make? People are fairly predictable, tend to make the same decisions again and again, and act in a consistent manner.

What causes this to happen?

Where does our personality come from?

Most importantly, who created it?

If God did, and I expect you think this is so, then God set Adam and Eve up to fail.

I know it's hardly a convincing argument in itself, but doesn't this whole story seem absolutely ridiculous to you? It does to me. Completely absurd, silly and illogical.

Just my opinion.

Cheers.

 

[Ipecac]

Guess what? I'm a Deist. Hell, I'm a priest. That makes me pretty unpopular here, in the Land of Atheists.

As far as this atheist goes, and I'm sure I speak for others, you make a LOT of sense and I appreciate your being here. I don't think most people here have any problem with you being a Deist and a Priest. Especially when you're making such good arguments.

 

[juryjone]

I see. So god created this new being and set before it a choice with terrible, horrific consequences if it chose wrong.

Why in the heck would such a choice be offered and, if Adam was fully cognizant of what the choice represented, why would he choose mortality, suffering and death over paradise?

The scenario you're describing makes absolutely no sense and the actions of the participants in your story make even less sense.

Yes, I'd like to get back to this point, as voiced by Ossai and Ipecac.

Let's examine the story of Adam and Eve. God puts these two free-willed people into a paradise. Their every need is fulfilled, and there are no dangers. Because there are no dangers, there is no opportunity to learn about consequences to actions. Everything is perfect.

God then puts the tree into the garden. It looks kinda like the other trees that God has been busy putting into the garden for the last couple of days. God says, "Don't touch this." No explanations why or the consequences that will befall them if they disobey. Heck, they don't even know what "disobey" means.

They eat the fruit. NOW they know they've done something wrong, where it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to know that ahead of time. God banishes them and all their descendants until the end of the earth, and introduces death and disease just to keep them on their toes - you know, so they will know he is a just and merciful God.

Do you think that I would be considered a good Dad if I had taken a pot shaped like a Muppet, filled it with water, put it on the stove, heated it to boiling, called my 18-month old daughter into the room, told her not to touch the Big Bird, then sat back to watch what happened without intervening? I think not. One wonders what the supremely logical Radrook would think.

edited to add: Gosh, I write slow. Humphreys beat me to this question.

 

[Radrook]

God says, "Don't touch this." No explanations why or the consequences that will befall them if they disobey. Heck, they don't even know what "disobey" means.


edited to add: Gosh, I write slow. Humphreys beat me to this question.

That is totally false!
They were clearly told that they would die.

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Eve wasn't ignorant of the consequences. In fact, when approached by Satan she quoted her Heavenly Father word for word demonstrating that she knew full-well what the consequences of her disobedience would be.

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


So did you read the above before and decide to contradict it?
Or is it that you never read it before?

BTW

God doesn't create morons.

For God to tell creatures unable to distinguish right from wrong not to do somtheing wrong would have been unjust and illogical.
So the very fact that they were expected to understand him and refrain from eating because it would be wrong should be more than enough prove that they were fully morally capable of apreciating what was involved.

 

[Radrook]

I see. So god created this new being and set before it a choice with terrible, horrific consequences if it chose wrong.

Why in the heck would such a choice be offered and, if Adam was fully cognizant of what the choice represented, why would he choose mortality, suffering and death over paradise?

The scenario you're describing makes absolutely no sense and the actions of the participants in your story make even less sense.

Actually Adam wasn't deceived by Satan.
Eve was the one deceived.

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

In short, Eve chose to believe the accusations against God and because she believed them she ate.
Adam knew full-well that Satan was lying.
Now, snce Eve had done exactly what God had told her not to, adam feared that Eve would die. Adam faced the prospect of living a life without Eve.

So from Adam's standpoint, it could have been either choosing to live without Eve and remaining faithful to God. Or being unfaithful and dying with Eve.

Adam chose the latter.

The Bible also indicates that it was EVe's voice or feminine persuasive insistence that convinced Adam that it was best to die thjan live without her. Genesis 3: 17

BTW
As the recognized elder representative and head of the human family, Adam could have tried to petition God for forgiveness in behalf of Eve. That would have been a far more admirable and responsible choice.

 

[scribble]

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

It's sure nice to see a Christian who's read the Bible, Radrook! You get props from me.

However, in Genesis 3 it tells us:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Makes you wonder how they were to decide *before* they knew good and evil...

(incidentally, here's support for my claim that Man is in danger of achieving near-Godhood -- it even uses the same word for God when it says "as Gods" - Elohim.)

 

[Radrook]

BTW


There was a scripture cited to prove that God creates evil.
The scripture was cited from the KJV and was translated by
the same translators who rendered "wild bull" as unicorn and "goat" as satyrs. But to its credit, the NKJV has been revised and the new rendering of the text is far more accurate.



Isaiah 45
7I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.'
NKJV

Most other translations favor that rendering:


Isaiah 45
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD , do all these things.
NIV



Isaiah 45[b/]
7
The One (1) forming light and (2) creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (3) creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
NASB




The calamities and disasters that are being referred to here have nothing at all to do with evil. The disasters are those like the ten plagues brought upon Egypt that culminated in the parting of the Red sea and the drowning of Egyptian forces. Or the smiting of Assyrian forces encamped before the walls of Jerusalem which God's angel smoke during the night. Or the destruction of Sodom. In short, such calamities do not qualify as evil because they are fully justified.

 

[Radrook]

It's sure nice to see a Christian who's read the Bible, Radrook! You get props from me.

However, in Genesis 3 it tells us:

Makes you wonder how they were to decide *before* they knew good and evil...

(incidentally, here's support for my claim that Man is in danger of achieving near-Godhood -- it even uses the same word for God when it says "as Gods" - Elohim.)

Thank you for your encouraging words my friend.
About the scripture you cite, are you aware that the one speaking those words is Satan as part of his effort to deceive?Since it is Satan, and since he is considered to be the Father of the lie--then this was part of that first lie and should not be given the credence that Eve gave it.



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


Also, please keep in mind that to assume Adam and Eve incapable of moral judgement forces us to place God in the position of being unjust. If we believe that God cannot be unjust, then it is necessary to assume that he did not give a test to tose who were unqualified to pass it.

 

[scribble]

Isaiah 45
7I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.'
NKJV

The calamities and disasters that are being referred to here have nothing at all to do with evil.[/B]

I like your interpretation, Radrook. You've even gone so far as to consult multiple translations. You're head and shoulders above the debate we usually see here.

Unfortunately, my concordance gives that word as "ra".


Ra is definately "wicked" and not "righteous justice."

Ra is used in many slightly different contexts, but *NONE* of them support your translation of "righteous justice." At least as far as I can see. I'd be thrilled to be shown wrong.


If you have a Strong's, you'll find it under 07451.

 

[scribble]

Thank you for your encouraging words my friend.

A pleasure. I sincerely mean it when I say someone who's actually read the Bible is a welcome treat here. I hope you don't take my debate style as offensive.

About the scripture you cite, are you aware that the one speaking those words is Satan as part of his effort to deceive?

Well, you have me on one count: it was Satan speaking. However, at the end of the chapter, God confirms what Satan said as Truth:

Gen 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil(*)

Since it is Satan, and since he is considered to be the Father of the lie--then this was part of that first lie and should not be given the credence that Eve gave it.

Tell that to God!


(* "ra'" again!)

 

[scribble]

Incidentally, I just read back through the rest of this thread - having come in late, and there's just too much I wanted to respond to.

I'm kind of curious, though - what's your view on the question you asked initially about Hume's philosophy, Radrook? What's *your* take?

 

[juryjone]

That is totally false!
They were clearly told that they would die.

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

[snip]

BTW

God doesn't create morons.

For God to tell creatures unable to distinguish right from wrong not to do somtheing wrong would have been unjust and illogical.
So the very fact that they were expected to understand him and refrain from eating because it would be wrong should be more than enough prove that they were fully morally capable of apreciating what was involved.

I stand corrected - they were told they would die. Tell me - were they aware of what dead means? Seems to me they had no experience of death - there was no death in Paradise. To get back to my analogy (imperfect as it may be): If I told my daughter that she would get third-degree burns if she pulled over the boiling pot, should I be able to sit back and watch without intervening?

 

[Ossai]

Radrook

That is totally false!
They were clearly told that they would die.

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The question then becomes, were they aware of what death was?

If, as you maintain, in the garden Adam and Eve were perfect and the garden was perfect and (as you have not denied when others have stated it – that all animals were vegetarians) then where would Adam and Eve have seen death?

Scenario 1 (Adam and Eve are innocents and naive)
God: Don’t eat or you’ll die.
A&E: Cool, what’s die?
Later Eve is ‘tempted’
Eve: But I’ll die.
Snake: You’ll be like god.
Eve: That would be neat (after all she looks up to god)
A&E eventually both eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and gain ‘knowledge of good and evil’ – ie. It was wrong to eat of the fruit and disobey god.

Scenario 2 (Adam and Eve are perfect, can reason, already know the difference between good and evil – as you propose)
God: Don’t eat or you’ll die.
A&E: OK, no problem we know and fully understand the consequences.
Snake: temptation etc…
A&E: Nope we know and understand the consequences.

Scenario 3 (Adam and Eve – doesn’t matter – god from a NT perspective)
God: I control everything and have already decided who’s going saved / damned. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, you’ll do what I want anyway.

Ossai

 

[Ipecac]

That is totally false!
They were clearly told that they would die.

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

You are aware, of course, that when they ate of the tree they didn't die?

Genesis 2:17

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

So was god lying?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Also, please keep in mind that to assume Adam and Eve incapable of moral judgement forces us to place God in the position of being unjust. If we believe that God cannot be unjust, then it is necessary to assume that he did not give a test to tose who were unqualified to pass it.

The Bible clearly says they had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate the fruit..

You can't have it both ways..

Do you understand what a paradox is ?

And why would you believe that God is just ? It's certainly not taught in the Bible..

 

[Ipecac]

Actually Adam wasn't deceived by Satan.
Eve was the one deceived.

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

In short, Eve chose to believe the accusations against God and because she believed them she ate.
Adam knew full-well that Satan was lying.
Now, snce Eve had done exactly what God had told her not to, adam feared that Eve would die. Adam faced the prospect of living a life without Eve.

So from Adam's standpoint, it could have been either choosing to live without Eve and remaining faithful to God. Or being unfaithful and dying with Eve.

Adam chose the latter.

The Bible also indicates that it was EVe's voice or feminine persuasive insistence that convinced Adam that it was best to die thjan live without her. Genesis 3: 17

BTW
As the recognized elder representative and head of the human family, Adam could have tried to petition God for forgiveness in behalf of Eve. That would have been a far more admirable and responsible choice.

Ah, that's much better. God creates his new, inexperienced, innocent beings and then allows SATAN to wander around unsupervised and trick them into disobeying god. God then punishes his new beings rather than SATAN. Didn't god know that SATAN would trick them?

I don't believe most Biblical scholars interpret the serpent as being SATAN. Isn't that more of a fundamentalist interpretation?