God’s attractive nuisance: the Tree of Knowledge
May 12th, 2006 by grumpypilgrimImagine for a moment that you go into your neighbor’s home one day and discover a large homemade bomb sitting in the middle of his living room. “Don’t touch that.” your neighbor tells you, “If you do, the bomb will explode and our entire block will be destroyed.” How would you react? If you have an ounce of common sense, you would probably think your neighbor was the biggest nutcase you have ever met, and you would probably say something like, “Why in the heck did you build that bomb and put it in the middle of your living room, just waiting to go off and incinerate us and the rest of our families? Then you’d probably call the police and demand that the bomb be removed and your neighbor be arrested.
Now, imagine you go to work and discover a bottle of deadly nerve gas sitting on your disk “Don’t touch that bottle of nerve gas,” your boss tells you, “because, if you break the seal on the bottle you will surely die.” Off to the police you go again, screaming in rage at the wantonly dangerous conditions. “What kind of insane world is this? Are these people all idiots?”
Now, let us consider the Tree of Knowledge that God planted “in the middle of the garden of Eden,” intermingled with other trees “that were pleasing to the eye and good for food” (see Genesis 2:8 through 3:6). God placed no fence or other barrier around the Tree of Knowledge, and filled it with appealing fruit that “was good for food and pleasing to the eye.” He then told Adam, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it or touch it you will surely die.”
Should we not ask ourselves, “What was God thinking?” Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge, plant it in the middle of the garden of Eden, fill it with attractive fruit, place no fence around it, give Adam and Eve a desire to gain wisdom, indicate that the tree was a source of wisdom, and then merely tell Adam an Eve not to eat of it or touch it? Didn’t God know that verbal warnings are the least effective type of safety precaution, after: (a) safer design, (b) physical barriers, and (3) effective warning labels? Wasn’t the Tree of Knowledge an open and obvious danger — an accident just waiting to happen?
Moreover, how sufficient was God’s verbal warning? God told Adam and Eve that they would “die” by touching or eating of the Tree of Knowledge, but how could they possibly have understood this warning, given that they had no concept of death?
If you were God, and you wanted to protect Adam and Eve from the Tree of Knowledge, would you have done such an inept job? Indeed, according to Genesis, the Fall of Man appears to have occurred on the very same day that God created Adam and Eve. Parents do more to protect their children from matches than God did to protect Adam and Eve from death. Moreover, God is supposedly omniscient — with infinite awareness, infinite knowledge and infinite insight. How is it possible for an omniscient being to have done such a stunningly incompetent job protecting His children from danger?
May 12th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Here’s a technical legal definition for “attractive nuisance” that fully supports your argument:
Liability under the doctrine of attractive nuisance is based on the negligence of the defendant landowner in failing to exercise reasonable care to warn trespassing children of an unreasonably dangerous condition or instrumentality maintained on his or her premises or in failing to render the condition or instrumentality reasonably safe.
From AMJUR, “Nuisances.”
May 12th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Amazing, isn’t it, that God did so little to safeguard His loved ones from the unreasonably dangerous condition of His property, especially given His omniscience? Why was the Tree of Knowledge there in the first place — smack in the middle of His garden — when God knew it was so dangerous? He could have planted that tree anywhere else in the Universe, but He chose to put it right under the noses of Adam and Eve. And why didn’t God warn Adam and Eve about the serpent in His garden? God must have known what the serpent would do. It’s hard to imagine a human landowner being as negligent and inept as God proved Himself to be in designing and managing the garden of Eden. Well, it was the end of His work week, so maybe God was tired.
What I would really like to know is why Christians who claim the literal truth of the Bible (especially the creation story in Genesis), and who are presumably very knowledgeable about the Bible’s contents, never mention things like this. The Bible is loaded with such problems, yet when do we hear about them from the people who should know about them?
May 13th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Any person who has ever had to deal with the issues of dysfunctional families (families in which there is an alcoholic, drug abuser, physical abuser, etc.) recognizes this behavior instantly. It is the signature of abusive parenting. The parent, powerless to affect his/her own life, takes out frustrations on the only people over whom they actually do have power — the children. But it’s not always overt. More often than not it’s as described in the Tree of Knowledge story; subtle and insidious. The parent “sets traps” for the children, putting them into situations in which they are guaranteed to fail, guaranteed to “disappoint” the parent. The parent can then demonstrate his/her “love” for the child through punishment.
So why don’t religious fundamentalists recognize this for what it is? Because staunch religious fundamentalism is yet another form of dysfunction. So many recovering alcoholics and addicts turn to religion, thereby substituting one addiction for another.
May 14th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Edgar makes excellent points. Indeed, according to the Bible, God does many things to set His children up for failure. The Ten Commandments, for example, which any Christian will tell you are impossible to live by, and that this is why we all need God’s “grace” to “forgive” us for not satisfying them. Moreover, especially in the Old Testament, God is also remarkably cruel with his punishments, yet Christians continue to assert that God has “infinite love” for all of us lowly humans (even while He is raining hellfire down upon us).
It would be interesting to know what percentage of Christians are graduates of 12-step programs, and how that number compares to the percentage in the general population. Many Chrisians certainly grew up with abusive parents, so what better substitute parent could they find than an abusive God who calls His abuse “love?”
Of course, the flip side to this is that many recovering addicts and abuse victims say that religion definitely helped them turn their lives around, so this also deserves to be mentioned.
But, who knows, maybe the reason there are *twelve* step programs today, instead of a more common number like ten, is that there were originally twelve apostles. Can this be a coincidence? What if the Last Supper was actually the world’s first AA meeting, and the importance of the number twelve just continued: “Hi, my name is Luke and I’m an alcoholic.” “Hi, Luke….” And what if Jesus was their social worker and his resurrection was merely a well-staged intervention: “Hi, I’m Jesus, back from the grave, to tell you to give up your evil habits and worship our cruel (but loving) Father….” I say this all mostly in jest, of course, but I do agree that the reason Christianity appeals to so many addicts and abuse vicitims probably does have something to do with the similarity between their parents’ behavior and God’s as described in the Bible.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:04 am
As far as I am concerned; in this matter as well as almost every other aspect of the bible, what it comes down to is that I am being intimidated into believing in a God who supposedly is loving and just, but in his infinite wisdom and ability to know what’s to come placed us in danger, threw ridiculous amounts of inconsistency and sin into the world he fathered and at the same time gave us the intellect to question his nature and actions. All with the consequence of burning in hell for all eternity if we choose not to follow the path of hypocrisy. So, in fact our own intellect could very well be considered sinful.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Nicely said, Brit. Indeed, the notion that “our own intellect could very well be considered sinful” is, I think, exactly what the story of Genesis is trying to convey with the story about the Tree of Knowledge: the dawning of our intellect coincided with (indeed, caused) the dawning of our sinfulness.
Your comment reminds me of the line in Matthew 18:8, “if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away….” I once actually heard a televangelist apply this same principle to human thinking, by declaring that “if your reasoning causes you to turn away from Jesus, then reject your reasoning.”
Fortunately for Christians, the Bible stops short of declaring, “if your mind causes you to sin, cut off your head and throw it away.”
November 29th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Grumpy you make arguments and observations which seem valid to me. When reading what you write, I find myself consistently agreeing with just about everything. One thing I noticed is that you have more knowledge about the Bible than me. You often point out the obvious discrepancies in the Bible in your posts. I wonder (and you probably have too) if by using the Bible as part of your argument you have already conceded defeat in the eyes of many Believers. To me, it seems that even mentioning the Bible tends to weaken just about any argument, because the Bible can (and is) interpreted many ways.
Keep up the good fight
Scholar
November 29th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Any story can be deconstructed to mean pretty much anything by altering the context. Add to this technique the multitude of original authors and editors that put together “The Bible”, and you have a document that only the deepest scholars can even guess at the original meaning.
Bart Ehrman (Erich’s post about Misquoting Jesus) probably has a chance.
The point of the temptation of Man and his exile can be read from any number of points of view.
Consider the prohibition of Tree of Knowledge as a test to see if the original couple was becoming autonomous enough to survive on their own. A child would obey the injunction, but a willful adolescent would taste. Attractive Nuisance versus obedience as a test of maturity.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
If you have not already read this book (The Name of the Rose), it is quite good. It takes place in a Old Monastary in the era of the Inquisition. It’s exciting, kind of like a Sherlock Holmes mystery, but also has lots of history about religion. It was written by Umberto Eco, some kind of genious (apparently). Anyway, the recent posts about the insanity of the church reminded me of parts from the book…but I don’t want to spoil it.
Scholar
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Taking into context your discussions alone would really make someone wonder why would God make the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
To understand God, we must put into context the whole (theme) of the Bible, not just Genesis or Moses’ commandments.
We also know that God created the Tree of Life. Why would He do these things in the first place? This is where confusions come into play. You see, God did not create those trees just to test our free will. What good is it to Him anyway?
(Like a computer programmer, there must be a problem, before laying out the “plans and tests.”)
I’d say that God should have something to prove with “someone” or “something” to justify why He’d make those trees. And that is where the story of Lucifer comes in. You see, before the “test”, there was already the serpent. (See Isaiah 14:12-14)
So there is reason behind all of these afterall. And the reason is that from the moment that God has made plans to test if we humans should be part of His family (throne), there already is this spiritual being that has been filled with envy and disgust with us humans that he’d rather see himself as equal to God. So who’s to blame really?
Sooner or later (even without the Tree Of Knowledge), the serpent would have crafted ways to “defile” us and make us unworthy of God’s grace and love. But then again God has a “Plan B” if I may say. When we are already sinners and still sinning, He sacrificed His own Son (the Word that was with Him during Creation, a God Himself) to absorb all our sins, to make us worthy again. Jesus suffered as a cause of our disobedience to the true God and allowing ourselves being “defiled” by the Evil One.
Also, I’m opposed to the idea that God is omniscient or all-knowing. If He is indeed omniscient, then why bother testing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? You see God tests us because He doesn’t know our “final” decision. I do know that God “knows” our tendencies. Much more like Satan or Lucifer, being spirits that have been existing aeons before we came into existence, they must have known our tendencies, our desires. What good is our free will if God already know what would happen or what our decisions will be? Can’t you see how God Himself respects our “inner” privacy? How would God know if you are in (or with) Him or not without laying out (or permitting) some plans/tests (made by the devil). Remember, if Lucifer hadn’t become what he is now then perhaps there is no need for these tests/punishments. Everything might have gone the way that God has “planned originally.” But Alas, God doesn’t control the “free will” of us humans and other spiritual beings!
It is worth quoting a verse from the Bible:
“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12, NIV)
Ultimately, it is our choice to choose whether to join this spiritual battle (by believing in God, His Son, His Spirit) or just continue your existence as a human being without any realization of God (or any spiritual beings). If you go for the latter, just make sure that every decision or “will” you make is not that which was whispered to you by the serpent.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Those pesky serpents must be working overtime at the National Academy of Sciences where stem cell research continues (against God’s will?) …
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
Those pesky serpents must be working overtime at the National Academy of Sciences where stem cell research continues (against God’s will?) …
Did somebody say they are serpents (besides you of course)?
Don’t make hasty generalizations. Not all scientists are not without a God of some sort. Same with the military or any army of the State. Indeed, we have “physical” problems as well as “spiritual.” So there shouldn’t be nothing indeed against people working to help us in our “physical” problems.
See Matthew 8:5-13 on how Jesus commended a centurion, a general of the State, for believing in Him and humbling himself before the Lord. But did Jesus tell him to leave the army? No. Give to Caesar what is to Caesar’s. The State (or any physical organization for that matter) that is supposed to help and protect us should continue to do what is “just and right.”
(For a good reading see: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main//Authors/Arlandson/pacifism1.htm)
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Thanks for the vacuous links, Man. Where can I get me a good bible?
I also wonder…
Why won’t your cruel God help scientists to reduce Global Warming?
90 percent of scientists agree that *humans* are causing it.
http://english.people.com.cn/200702/06/eng20070206_347957.html
What makes me furious is Faux’s right-wing spin on the scientific findings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250980,00.html
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Cruel god? Depends on what god you are talking to. Besides, the topic delves on why God has made tests for Adam & Eve. And as I’ve said, it was not necessary until… bear in mind… until we have the most beautiful angel with free-will dreamt of being equal with God hence became His adversary.
Says Lucifer…
“I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:14)
And who is the real god of this world (now)?
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
So up to now it there has been this spiritual warfare that has been going on since time immemorial. So what the Father hath said to us (after Lucifer and his angels declared war)?
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (De 30:19 )
In my opinion, it is not a question why God “does not help” but instead why God “has permitted” undesirable things (like global warming etc.) to happen. Because being God he can just indeed “undo” (or prevent) everything His adversary has done and has been doing to us or, more honorably, show the Evil One that not every human is as hopeless or futile as he thinks (there is a spiritual battle going on until now!)
Instead of asking “why aren’t You helping” why just say “thank You for giving me knowledge to help ease some of the problems we are now facing” against the will of Satan (evils of mankind).
I have nothing against scientists, for I am a scientist myself. I am both a geologist and a programmer. I use my knowledge for helping others and I am pretty sure it’s not against God’s will. In fact, whenever I accomplish something good I prefer not to take credit but instead thank God for it. I am just a tool, a servant. Sometimes though, I did and I do bad things and this is when I was weak and became a tool by the real “cruel” god.
As for where to get a good Bible, well just like you I am still “looking” for a perfect/most complete untainted copy (that’s impossible!). But alas (like said in 2 Corinthians 4:3) the original content (language) might be blurred and will be subjected to different interpretations indeed. But the essence is simple all throughout the sacred texts. That is why when Jesus ascended He promise to bestow the Holy Spirit to those who will believe in Him and thereby know the truth on what was written, until He comes back to “overrule” the Evil One who is (mostly) in control right now.
My suggestion is to read whatever Bible you can get hold of and if you don’t understand something (discrepancies, vaguity, etc..) then do some research. I believe if God really wants you to know Him, He will help you.
http://www.biblegateway.com
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
[What makes me furious is Faux’s right-wing spin on the scientific findings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250980,00.html
I agree with you on the above. Since this issue is still unfolding, I just hope (and pray) that whatever the outcome is for the good of all of us. Being “physical” humans, we have a lot of work to do ahead of us to do the right thing about it!
As for the spiritual part, we have a choice to join God against the “cruelty” of His adversary by praying that by exercising our “free will”, we can make the right choices about it… choices that are “moral, just, and righteous” and not conceited.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Man from the Midwest, I am still curious as to why your “sadistic” God would allow his people to write bestsellers like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_christian_nation
http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/print/
February 24th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Dr. Smug, if you are familiar with the story of Job, you would have an idea as to why God allows or permits “bad” things to happen. I pray that you don’t only get the idea but to “know” the wisdom behind it instead. In the story, there are three main “characters” — God, Job, and Satan.
As for those persons writing against the True God (or belief in Him), it’s just a matter of exercising your free will against the will of God, much like what Lucifer did. God allowed but that doesn’t mean He consented.
And that is why we need to know God’s ultimate purpose to all mankind. And this is where you read the Bible. Not just read, but understand.
Is it not written that things like these would occur (before the Second Coming of Christ)? False prophets, calamities, plagues, sufferings… so issues like these are not new to Christians.
The greatest triumph for Satan is to lure us that God doesn’t exist.
Oh by the way, do you really know what is the best selling book of all time?
Read the Bible
February 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I cannot tell a lie. I hate God. God is a liar. I want to go to hell when I die, instead of just turning into worm food. Please. I curse my soul to hell. The bible is a book of lies. May lightning strike my hard-drive right now and zap me, if I am lying about hating God. Zap! Ow. You win.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The best selling hamburger is McDonald’s. This does not mean it is good for you.
The old testament doesn’t mention a second coming of a Messiah. Only the first coming, soon after which comes a golden age. If Jesus was the Messiah, then we are already in that paradise. If not, then he matches the definition of false prophet. Either pick one, or openly deny the validity of the Old Testament.
Some Christian denominations are based on picking the date for the return of Jesus, and resetting the clock every generation as it fails to happen. Others simply know that it will be imminently (and have known it for centuries). Still others don’t worry about it at all, but celebrate the life teachings of Jesus rather than the death cult of Jesus.
Atheism is a non-prophet faith. We have no worries about backing the wrong horse, because we’re not even expecting any horse to come in.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Just a Man writes: “Is it not written that things like these would occur (before the Second Coming of Christ)? False prophets, calamities, plagues, sufferings… so issues like these are not new to Christians.”
Is THAT the best argument you can make in support of your religion? Revering a book that predicts that things which have happened *continually throughout human history* will continue to occur? Oooh, what an amazing revelation. It is on par with predicting that all teams except one will win the Superbowl next year, or that someday the stock market will crash again, or that every one of us will someday get an illness, or have our heart broken. Come on, everyone, let’s fall on our knees and worship God for predicting that humans will continue to worship imaginary deities, and that we will suffer and die, just as we have done for tens of thousands of years.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Point well taken Mr. Dan. But as you said “some” people who call themselves Christians don’t understand the wisdom behind the scriptures that is why they are very open to criticisms and belittling. Much as to atheists either, they may not know about what they truly believe or do not believe.
Dr. Smug, let me expound a little further…
How come you hate a “God” when you don’t believe in Him in the first place? And do you also believe in hell? No God but there is hell? If you don’t believe in God, then don’t believe in your soul or spirit anymore. And yup, just affirm that you will be worm food indeed. Nothing more. Do you ever ponder what’s the point of existing when we will just fade away someday? You can say, just live a life to the fullest, no worries. I have tried to live like that, but somehow I feel empty inside. What’s the point in all these things when it’s only “worms” to look forward to?
But again, if you do believe in a God, but just hates Him because of what you think He is, then how hopeless our case really is huh? We got hell besides worms to look forward to. But being someone who believes in Him, I know He loves us, and you know what, I will definitely pray that He hears our anguish and give us comfort and contentment.
If you read the links which Dr. Smug has posted, you can see the reviews about the books and it is still not one-sided. You have a good review and criticisms as well. But being fair also, I would like to have a copy of them as well. There’s nothing bad to study and read it anyway. (Another author earning big bucks by just the mere mention of “god” in it, thank “god”.)
As for the Bible, Jesus says it’s good for your soul, it is good for your very being. McDonald’s doesn’t say anything about their burgers that it’s good for your health or something like that. But yeah, I still eat them once in a while
The Old Testament have prophets telling the coming of a Messiah (says Isaiah etc…)
The New Testament is all about Jesus and He taught about the second coming. Being “The Word of God” he has the authority to say it so. He ‘was’ a God Himself before He humbled Himself as a human.
John 14:6-7 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.
See also Matthew 11:1-4
February 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Just a man wrote: “Do you ever ponder what’s the point of existing when we will just fade away someday?”
Why do you think you need to have a POINT to your existence?? What’s so special about YOU that your essence needs to live on and on forever?! What conceit! Just exist for a while and be nice to everybody! Then later when you die, DON’T exist and have them remember you fondly…is that so terrible?
The pomposity of religion is that it attempts to convince us that we are not insignificant in the universe when, in fact, we are. Sorry, Man, if that bums you out. Who we ARE significant to is our friends and family and others we meet. Treat them well.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
So does it mean that anyone who comes to the “realization” the he has some “essence” or “soul” or “spirit” means he is conceited and isn’t nice to anyone? What a hasty generalization. Don’t you worry, I still love you
I’m just sharing my thoughts (like Dr. Smug says so boldly about what he thinks otherwise) that I don’t believe I will just be worm food when I die. Now, is that so terrible?
You are correct though… may I add that you treat well not just your friends and family, but even strangers (be a good samaritan) and even in some cases… your enemies (a Christian teaching).
And looking at the way you replied rather “repugnant” to my posts, it seems like you were the first one to be “bummed out” as you said. Sorry?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:03 am
To Just a Man:
That post was written rather hastily, so I apologize if it came off as “repugnant”.
I neither did I mean to imply that you don’t treat your friends and family well. In fact, I suspect that you do. I was just making the point that how we live here and now is important for the here and now, not for some fanciful otherworld that we are promised to retire to, and the knowledge that we can make the lives of others better should be enough reward.
I am not bummed out by any of this. I have long ago accepted that my existence may be finite. Rather, I am continually astounded at the clinging to an infantile longing for the reassurance of our specialness that religion seems to provide. You can’t deny that you NEED to have a point to your existence. You NEED to think that you will not die. So therefore you have a “realization”, and you back it up by pointing to a thick book that is clearly (to me, at least) a pastiche of fabrications.
I still contend that the bible fuels the innate conceit that we all share. I too would love to believe that I am special and being watched over by a benevolent father. But that book does little to convince me of that.
I love you too and hope we can continue to explore this fascinating subject.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Dr. Smug responds to questions from a Christian Child:
Question: How come you hate a “God” when you don’t believe in Him in the first place?
I did believe in Him in the first place, I used to be a Christian Child too, now my belief is that mother nature is the one in control. The hate part was a stretch, I was just trying to make my point that God does not exist, so obviously He won’t care about me cursing Him. Further, I am convinced that no harm will come to me as a result of cursing God. Of course, I started small, first by trying to pray, then by just calling God a big fat liar, then eventually I felt comfortable knowing (believing) that God is just like all other fairy tales. Therefore, I can say with ease… I hate God, God is a Turdmuncher.
Question: And do you also believe in hell? No God but there is hell?
I am pondering the concept of Hell. I would be willing to trade my casket of *worm food* for an eternity of suffering. Yes, I think that would be preferable to just turning into dust. If you can arrange any sort of after-life for me, whether its 56 virgins (70 would be overkill :)) or Heaven, or Vishnu, I will be willing to accept your offer. Even if it were to be an offer from SATAN for an after-life, I would prefer that over my lonely coffin when I die. This example is merely to explain to you (Just a Man) how I truly feel about God and religion, and the truth is… anybody who believes in Heaven OR Hell is *barking* insane.
Question: What’s the point in all these things when it’s only “worms” to look forward to?
Wow, you are actually using your brain now, consider that a compliment
You ask a deep, wonderful, philosophical question. Think how hard it is for me, a person who knows to their innermost core that God does not exist, to do what is *right*. Sometimes I fail. I try to be nice, and honest. I keep in touch with my parents. I try and do the best that I can. I (occasionally) feel guilty about my life of relative affluence, I intend to make a difference, someday.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Dr. Smug (and others), I may not know what happened to you, such that you don’t believe in Him anymore. I do hope you have done enough studying and research, or for any matter heard the Scriptures and ponder on them deeply. The answers are all in there, if you just know where to find them, but finding is one thing, understanding (listening) is another.
We know that there are people who uses the Bible (or any holy book) for their bad (intentions), but for me it isn’t God’s plan or will or intention. Having an “adversary” (satan) makes it all the worse.
The Bible is the food for the soul and spirit. It is spiritual in essence, so to understand it we should have the grace of God (seek and you shall find). I believe that we have spirits and that when we die, it is either to live eternally or be condemned. But then God said:
‘For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!’ (Ezekiel 18:32 )
I have tried my best to be polite, thereby I apologize for the author (of this blog) if this discussion has come way out of the topic. I have given my opinions on it though, “Why make the Tree of Life?” In summary I said it is because there was Satan and God needs to know if humans are worthy to be part of His family. For God does not rejoice in Satan’s (and man’s) fall. All heavens mourned. I don’t pretend to know God’s plans, but I trust in Him. He has written enough (by grace) in the Bible to keep my faith.
For this reason (being out of topic), I humbly suggest that for a more in-depth discussion on God, we can try other forums that deal with every questions we can hurl at the Bible (e.g. http://www.worthyboards.com)
I don’t mean to barge in here and “curse” you all for what you believe, for all I know I have been very fair and very critical on what to say. If by any means that this blog doesn’t welcome a thought or comment from non-atheists, then I must apologize for sharing.
But in any case, it has come to pass that I must be going because, yeah, being a scientist (geoologist), I work on an oil rig (here in Israel) and it is time for us to go off. Yay! Go home at last! So I may not be able to respond to you here in the near future. I wish that leaving this blog… we did not become enemies, but friends in some way. Sharing thoughts is good, if you approach them positively. I do know that some of you have Christian friends and that they are not “conceited” (same to say with my ‘godless’ friends). Sinners are we all but being “evil”, for me, is something we “civilized” people abhor unanimously (like terrorists, rapists, criminals… etc).
My only say is… of all the “wrong” interpretations of the Bible, there must be one that really speaks the “truth.” Much like in science (physics), up to now we have different theories on matter and energy but we know there must be one “unifying theory.” I hope I have made myself clear, at least in giving you a hint in my point-of-view. Finally, let me part with you a verse from the Bible and many, many thanks to you all!
‘And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.’ (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
February 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Sir Man, you take criticism very well, I will study your bible verses. I use the term study a bit loosely here, but indeed, I will try and listen to the messages with faith.
May I suggest that you spend (a larger) part of your bible study time engaging in discourse related to the natural world? Please enjoy the following links in good faith, I don’t think God will not be angry if we just take a quick peak into *PANDORA’S BOX*
http://www.worldbestwebsites.com/science.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
http://www.discovery.com/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://www.badastronomy.com/
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/
February 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
(Still here!) Thanks Dr. Smug. Though it’s not that I don’t delight in science my friend. My fave channel is indeed Discovery and National Geographic. I just don’t find a problem in having faith and loving science. It just suits me if I may say.
You have made me smile when you said you would “study” some verses. How much more I can say about how my God feels about it? Well, you might stumble indeed upon verses that seem to be problematic but do not hinder them on the “better” things that are written in the Bible. There are many good things in it. Stories of Love, Hope, and Faith. Use these as inspirations. Approach them positively and you will indeed be delighted. Approach them conceitedly and you may end up just like the false prophets, conceited liars, hypocrites, egoistical-maniac, extremist fanatics in this world. Oh we hate them don’t we?
But anyway, thank you for sharing some of the links above. I am recommending those to all of my friends either. We do have a responsibility to our planet and to the whole human race as a whole. Peace! ^_^
February 27th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I am glad that you like science. I imagine life on the rigs takes a certain toughness, mental and physical. Having studied the verses you provided, it is my assertion that the Bible is just a book, like any other. I am sorry if I disappoint you here…
Is it possible that you are confusing the miracles of nature with drunken ramblings on decrepit ancient scrolls?
Today’s books of knowledge ALSO contain the valuable messages of love and joy and peace (that YOU were able to find in the Bible) which persons of good upbringing so desperately seek. I have found my savior in the pursuit of knowledge. I was the kid in the back of the class who kept raising his hand, asking questions. I am the one who studies the science and history and philosophy until my questions are answered. Each day, I have one less question about nature and one more question about the integrity of the minds of those who BLINDLY believe.
I congratulate you on your ability to find happiness in Scripture. However, you are sorely mistaken if you believe that Christianity/God is at the root of your happiness. The key element here is that you had a “good” upbringing. People of ALL faiths, whether it be Islam, Muslim, Shinto, Atheist, Lutheran, Six Day Adventist, Polytheistic, Buddist or Jewish will turn out just DANDY with a well-nurtured infancy and childhood.
The one control variable here (which is the SAME in all these cases) is the laws of nature, which NEVER lie. Thus, I “worship” modern Encyclopedias, not Scriptures. And, I think that it would serve EVERYONE better if we spread the ideas of enlightenment in the form of SCIENCE not religion.
Enjoy your hiatus, but try your utmost not to spread diseases like religion.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Just a Man writes: “Do you ever ponder what’s the point of existing when we will just fade away someday? You can say, just live a life to the fullest, no worries. I have tried to live like that, but somehow I feel empty inside. What’s the point in all these things when it’s only “worms” to look forward to?…I don’t believe I will just be worm food when I die. Now, is that so terrible?”
If Christians were merely a group of delusional people who happily anticipated living an imaginary afterlife, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, a disturbingly large number of these same nice people organize themselves into congregations that try to stone to death (or otherwise ruin the lives of) disbelievers, while the ones who don’t actively participate in this reign of terror nevertheless assent to it by sitting quietly on the sidelines, doing nothing to stop it. Perhaps even you, Just a Man, fall into this category yourself?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
This article explains Dawkins’ (and possibly my own) hostility toward religion…
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html
Also, please explore the most recent discoveries in science…
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/
February 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Dr. Smug references a beliefnet article that describes how Dawkins distinguishes his atheistic beliefs from those of a fundamentalist religious “wingnut.” Dawkins’ main point is that his athestic beliefs are subject to revision, and even wholesale dismissal, if contradictory new evidence disproves some aspect of his science; whereas fundamentalist religious wingnuts are arrogantly, even conceitedly, self-assured in their rejection of science in favor of what their holy book tells them.
What Dawkins doesn’t mention, but which seems self-evident, is that there is a good reason why fundamentalists can be arrogant and certain: they know, with absolute certainty, that their core beliefs cannot possibly be disproven. Just as we can never disprove the existence of Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we also cannot disprove most of the stories contained in the Bible. Thus, a fundie can stand on his particular mountain of faith and loudly declare it to be the One Truth Faith, because there is virtually zero probability that anyone can ever prove him wrong. Not because he is, in fact, correct, but because he has availed himself of the huge asymmetry in logic between proving a fact (science) and disproving a non-fact (religion). Moreover, whenever contrary evidence is presented, such as the fossil record to dispel the notion of creationism, the fundie can always unilaterally reject the evidence, in its entirety, on the basis of it being “merely a theory.” This, too, is a safe path, because, at some level, all beliefs — even those about our Universe and our own existence in it — can be characterized as “merely a theory.”
Thus, as I see things, the main difference between a fundie and an athiest like Dawkins is that a fundie will adopt beliefs he knows can never be disproven, and then will confidently declare absolute certainty in them — a behavior that is, among other things, cowardly — while an athiest will adopt beliefs he knows are speculative, but which at least have provable facts to support them, and then will remain speculative pending contrary evidence — a behavior that is, among other things, honest.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope [expectation] that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.”
Paul makes it clear that the creation had no choice in being subjected to “futility” and to “slavery to corruption.” It was done by the sovereign will of God alone. Futility, vanity, or emptiness describe a path that appears to go nowhere and has no purpose {irrational!!}. When Adam sinned, his sin was imputed to all mankind. We all became liable for Adam’s sin, and thus we are all mortal, paying for a sin which we did not commit. And not only mankind, but ALL OF CREATION was subjected to this “corruption.”
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Yet this is precisely what God did with us. The fact that all of Adam’s children are born mortal proves that we are paying for a sin committed by our father. Adam’s children were put to death for the sin of their father Adam. Did God not know that this was unjust? Of course He did! After all, He had prohibited such injustice by His own law, revealed to Moses and confirmed by Ezekiel.
This raises the most basic question about the justice of God. Death was imposed upon us outside our will, and this is the root cause of all personal sins committed after Adam’s original sin. We are being held liable for a sin of our father, Adam. We must not hide this issue and hope it goes unnoticed by God’s critics. Nor should we theologize it away {develop another religion} after God clearly takes the credit for holding us liable.
Attempting to alter His plan to fit what we think He should have done, or simply declaring that He does not exist doesn’t seem rational either.
In considering the way God imputed Adam’s sin to his descendants, and the divine law which prohibits such behavior, I do not hesitate to call God’s action a “temporary injustice,” which is the direct cause of the tension in history. Tension is the result of injustice or disharmony while it is yet unresolved. To swear off any belief in God before one understands how He has promised to resolve things, or assuming that He is incapable {nonexistent} of resolving them, seems rather arrogant and presumptuous.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 am
—Yet this is precisely what God did with us. The fact that all of Adam’s children are born mortal proves that we are paying for a sin committed by our father.—-
Flawed logic at best. It assumes that we ever were anything but mortal. Everything dies that we know about, going back millions, even billions of years. The lamentation of some lost immortality is unsupported by anything real. No sin need have been committed for us to be heir to simple biological necessity.
Thus the entire scripture begins with a fanciful metaphor that has been taken literally—and perhaps that gullibility is the real sin which mankind is still paying for. Not the gullibility of Adam and Eve in regards to the serpent’s lies, but the gullibility of humankind that allows so many to swallow whole any balderdash that promises something we can’t have but imagine we want.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I wish Larry J. had addressed his comment to the subject matter of my post, instead of merely regurgitating dogma that conspicuously fails to explain anything. Sorry, Larry, but, at this blog, the “believe it because I say so” argument just isn’t going to fly, nor is the “believe it because my imaginary god says so” argument. Please try again. Explain, *in your own words*, why the god you worship blames all of humanity for his (?) own negligence. According to your holy book, we have a god who could see the future, who created our planet and populated it with humans, who then created a tree that bore fruit which was lethal to humans (and, apparently, to all other living things) — a tree that served no beneficial purpose and needn’t have been created in the first place (and certainly needn’t have been situated smack in the center of Eden), and then this ‘infinitely benevolent’ deity, WHO COULD SEE THE FUTURE AND STILL DID NOT REMOVE THE TREE FROM EDEN, condemned all of humanity for eating the tree’s fruit. In your own words, Larry, please explain why an infinitely benevolent deity would do something so insane. And, please, do not suggest that your god was “testing Adam’s faith,” because no decent human parent would ever deliberately create a lethal situation for their child merely as a test. Come on, Larry, set aside your dogma and give us *your* thoughts.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Everything dies that we know about” There is hope because you can say “that we know about”. We are more than meat.
There was a neat story by Stanilaw Lem several years ago in Omni. Two machine intelligences blundered into this solar system and were looking for signs of life. They were scanning the third planet and one of them was giving the readings from civilization, and found only primitive machines doing very mundane things which could not account for all the activity they saw. There was a debate for months about what was happening.
The speptic was saying that intelligence could not develop from meat. It never had and it never would. The other kept insisting on the evidence and pointing out that the planet was infested with bipedal thinking meat things that used machines as slaves.
If you can find it, the story is hilarious. They ended up leaving the system, no longer on speaking terms, but agreeing to wipe the memory banks of the last twelve orbits.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:30 am
LOL, Larry! I remember that story. The idea has served as teh basis for a couple of decent Star Trek episodes as well. It’s a reverse, of sorts, on the Turing Test.
Key word there is “evidence”—and I grant you, when something is right in front of you and you ignore it because it doesn’t fit doctrine, that is a real problem.
Grumpy—to answer your question philosophically, you have to remember Augustine’s description of the Fall. He called it “Oh, happy sin!” It can bve argued (philosophically, mind you) that Adam and Eve existed in a non-time. No want, no need, no pain…and nothing else. No growth. The Fall produced everything of value we know of. It even produced the foundations of religion, for those who value it. Without the Fall, no change. No enlightenment. Nothing. Presumably no joy, either. So to ask why this all-seeing god would have done that, you can give two answers—one that he was a malignant thug with the ethics of a spoiled child, or that he knew life was pointless without awareness of struggle, and that humankind would never be anything more than grounds keepers if it didn’t get nudged on the road to…well, whatever.
Point being, the story hangs together both ways. But it is still a story.
Also, as a philosophical argument, this would change the nature of Original Sin. It would make it that part of us that will poke our nose into anything, even at the cost of getting it lopped off, just to find out what’s there. All of pain and suffering as well as all the beauty and joy spring from this attribute humans have of being unable to leave well enough alone.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“They’re Made Out Of Meat”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE
April 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Mark: Your comment intrigues me, because so many Believers crave a chance to go to heaven, which would also seem to be a place in which you exist “in a non-time. No want, no need, no pain…and nothing else. No growth.”
April 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“It would make it that part of us that will poke our nose into anything, even at the cost of getting it lopped off, just to find out what’s there. All of pain and suffering as well as all the beauty and joy spring from this attribute humans have of being unable to leave well enough alone.”
Humans are not the only mammals who are curious. ‘Curiosity killed the cat’ is one expression that comes to mind. Also, porpoises, otters, canines, weasels…the list goes on…have all displayed curiosity. Even the lowly octopus shows an affinity for investigating its surroundings. Thus, humans are not unique in this attribute; we’re just another version of the thinking meat that inhabits this planet.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Grumpy—come on, I’m not talking about mere curiosity! To put it as broadly and bluntly as possible, humans are the only critters on the planet that build civilizations. We take our curiosity the extra mile, one step further, to higher heights and lower depths. In short, humans remake. And no, I don’t count beaver damns, termite mounds, ant hills, or bird’s nests. Difference in degree has resulted in difference in kind, for good or ill. Humans make Art. We formalize the creative process. I could on and on, but humans do what no other creature does on this earth, even while we use the same raw bioneural material to do it. That is what I’m talking about when I use the scientific and technical term “poking our nose in.”
April 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Mark, the essential difference between us and most other animals is our ability to abstract ideas on multiple levels. This string of dark marks on a light background is a virtual representation of potentially enduring symbols representing the ephemeral string of sounds that are each grouped to interpret as a semantic entity (like “foot”) that itself is an abstraction of a somewhat related class of ideas (foot of the line, foot of verse, foot of a chair, left foot, 12″, foot the bill, etc) that can then be manipulated.
Some apes have been taught to do this somewhat, and to pass what they learn on to other apes. But they don’t yet seem to be able to expand the language that they can learn. Our advantage is that our ancestors invented means of transmitting indirect knowledge over long distances and times.
Civilization rises and falls. It is an inherently unstable system. When a civilization grows big enough to support an idle class, that is entire groups whose purpose is unrelated to producing necessities of survival, that is when we can start poking our noses into abstract issues, like “What was God thinking?” or “Who would design a universe in which the precise ratio between diameter and circumference is irrational?” When civilization grows large enough for most people to forget what civilization gives them, it begins to unravel.
Would that God had planted the tree of Knowledge of Systems Theory rather than of Good and Evil! But if they had stumbled on that, God might have promptly vanished in a cloud of superfluousness.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Sin is the transgression of the Law {1John3:4}, nothing more. The Law was given to Israel to be given to the whole world, by example. The problem arose when they tried to impose it on others rather than live it themselves and teach it by example. God promomised that if they would obey the Law He would bless them beyong what they were able to comprehend; think about that for a while! {The Law is a blessing or a curse - your choice Duet. 28}.
The Law is simply a way to avoid mistakes, unneeded waste of resouces, time and pain. The trick is being able to trust someone who, though not meat, is still well able to teach by demonstaration, and bring good out of evil, if you are simply willing to pay attention {the opposite of curiousity} long enough to have your eyes pried open.
I wonder if any remember the child’s story of the caterpillar pillar. The caterpillers had a habit of climbing up on a rock, and when the reached the top they would begin climbing on each other. They more caterpillars that joined the pillar they higher it got, and the rock was lost from view. After several hundred caterpillars were involved the caterpillar pillar reached almost out of sight. But those paying attention, would notice a caterpillar passing by in the opposite direction every once in a while, and wonder why. Even more rarely a caterpillar would be climbing down the pillar instead of up. He would be telling anyone who would listen “there’s nothing up there” and “I’m going back down and spin a cocoon, and rest up, I’m tired of this diversion from reality.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Would that God had planted the tree of Knowledge of Systems Theory rather than of Good and Evil!”
LOL — good one, Dan! Indeed, would that it were so!
Speaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I keep wondering why the serpent gets accused of misleading Eve. God said Adam and Eve would “die” by touching the fruit, whereas the serpent said they would not “die,” but rather that their eyes would be opened and they would know good and evil. Plainly, the latter is what happened, thus making the serpent the truthful one and god the one who, apparently, lied.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Adam was created immortal. He died {became mortal - subject to physical death} the day he disobeyed. His body continued to function for almost another nine hundred years, which was still within the “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day” as the Creator sees time.
“Wherefore, as by one man {Adam} sin entered into the world, and death {mortality} by sin; and so death {mortality} passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” [verses 13 -17 follow in parentheses] “Therefore as by the offense of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Romans 5:12,18
He could not become mortal if he were not first immortal. This is part of “the image of God”. His descendents inherited their mortality; we were born subject to death, which is the consequence of Adam’s sin. Jesus is the “kinsman redeemer” who came to buy back the debt of the Adamites {sin is reckoned as a debt} and restore us to our former estate.
“Knowing good and evil” is a another way of saying deciding good and evil. Because we are not qualified to do this when we follow another god {rulemaker} that is also unqualified to decide good and evil we suffer the consequences. “You {israelites} are to have no other gods {rulemakers} before me.”
Jesus brought redemption for His people and salvation for everyone else. You can take it or leave it. The Kingdom of God {a form of government} is coming to a planet near you…
April 26th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Immortality is one of the least likely aspects of religious dogma. Without time, mortality is a null concept (along with motion, light, etc). With time, everything ends. Unless the universe is cyclic (”big crunch” and its cousins) in which everything is destroyed, it will fade to uselessness; not enough energy concentration to support anything.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Dan K. “With time, everything ends.” I think you mean to say that without time everything ends; we have time now and everything exists. Therefore when time ends only things that are timeless, like creatures and creators that have become or had always been immortal. Immortal simply means not subject to death. Time is the fence around our pasture. If you can leap the fence, a pass through a gate {door}, you can move from death bound {time bound} to life bound {time unbound}. Time is that which keeps evrything from happening at once, not that which keeps everything from happening. If you could move to any second of time and spend an eternity there, you could answer any question, solve any problem, implement any remedy, change any course of action, cause any bullett to misfire, etc. you would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. We may become immortal and still not have control of time. Only control of our own lives.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
LJC: Time is not a boundary; it is a measure, an axis of observation. Time is the measure of transitions. If there is a beginning, it is at a time. If there is an ending, it is at a time. If there is a change, it takes place over an interval. Without time, there is no change. Without time, neither photons nor molecules could move.
Review your first couple of years of calculus and physics and you’ll recall that matter and energy are meaningless (non-existent) without time.
So I stand by my claim that time is necessary for both life and mortality, and that mortality is meaningless without time. One cannot live, and therefore cannot die without time. If time exists, then everything does have an ending. Even protons spontaneously decay.
Let’s look at the odd idea of “everything happening at once”. Consider a “AA” alkaline battery. With normal time, it takes about an hour to drain through a short circuit (i.e: warming a paper clip). If you adjust the time continuum to let its chemistry drain it in a millisecond, it is equivalent to a comparable amount of TNT, a blasting cap. If you reduce it to a nanosecond, the burst of energy would take out a city block (and blow out every radio and TV in line-of-sight. Keep going until you let it release all its energy at once, and you see what a silly idea that is.
Simultaneity eviscerates causality.
That is, there is no before or after if there is no time. When we cooled/slowed down atoms so that they have no relative motion, they lost their separate identities. They effectively cease to be individual particles, and actually can cause time itself to stop within their boundaries. Look up Bose-Einstein condensate.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Dan K. “time is necessary for both life and mortality, and that mortality is meaningless without time”. I have no doubt that this is true. So you would have to say that death is meaningless without time? And here I speak of death of the physical body.
Measuring things is not the only basis of existence. Things that we have not yet become aware of or even thought of, exisit without our knowing about them. When we become aware of something it does not come into existence at that nanosecond.
We have been promised a body that is not subject to death, immortal, and I draw the conslusion that is is not to be done enmasse. Everyone will not become free of physical constraints at the same time. The physical universe will not be changed into something unmeasureable in an instant.
Spiritual creatures move among us now and are undetected by science and therefore not included in the awareness of most folks. I don’t expect much to change by a few people being able to move in and out of physical reality as Jesus did after His resurrection. His new body was “flesh and bones” rather than “flesh and blood”. The bible says the {physical} life is in the blood. Something changed.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
LJC: I don’t believe that to imagine something is to create it. Nor do I assert that to be ignorant of something is to prove it does not exist. Yes, I’ve read the books of Richard Bach, and know about affirmations and many related schools of thought that make either or both of these claims.
If something cannot be detected or measured in itself or by its effects, the simplest solution is to assume that it doesn’t exist. The Bible, written by and about men in a single culture who were inspired (heard voices), is not a reliable witness about general reality. Believing (however earnestly) in life beyond the physical does not make it real. Reports of promises by inspired individuals don’t sway me. Belief is a powerful sociological force; but it doesn’t change the natural universe beyond its effects on the infected culture.
Each time that a civilization has decided to base its decisions on the premise that only the measurable is real, it has advanced. Each time the decision was made that immaterial, spiritual things were the important aspect, civilizations stagnated or collapsed.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Dan K. : Excellent points. Let’s measure the effect of the Law. When a society adopts, for example, “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”. When this policy is implemented with consistancy, very soon murders diminish. It is measurable, and it is a spiritual law, based upon man’s likeness to the Creator.
When this Law is set aside, and man’s law, such as - if you murder someone, and you are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, you will have to spend the rest of your natural life locked away in a maximum security prison, where you will be fed, entertained, and monitored, and have limited contact with your family {kidnapped}, replaces it. This is not justice and is worse than death, for freedom loving persons.
“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the hearts of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” In our society there is little deterent for murder because the consequence of man’s law is considered temporary. A permanent solution is avoided. And this, because much of the so-called justice system are protecting their paycheck. If the perpetrators of crime enjoy a revolving door incarceration system, the system has customers, and the citizens pay the frieght.
The reason for this is that people have quit believing in the resurrections. If you don’t believe in something afterwards, it seems very overboard to end a person’s life. The realistic view is that he will live again, we all will. He is being taken out of circulation until it is time for an accounting, and to restore the lawful order here among the {physically} living.
Measure the differences between nations {if you can find one} who follow scriptural laws on murder and those that follow man’s laws on murder. This may be impossible. Then we are left to history or conjecture, if we can even agree on what really happened.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Larry has some truly medieval ideas about justice. What’s next? Public executions (by stoning) for women who are “unchaste before marriage”? Burning at the stake for children who disobey their parents? Such punishments come from the same holy book that Larry points to for the bizarre ideas mentioned in his comment.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
LJC: The blood for blood passage you quote (Genesis 9:6) is based on earlier, pre-monotheism laws literally written in stone in Mesopotamian civilization. Moses certainly knew of those earlier texts, if he was indeed raised as a prince.
Also, quick, direct and proportional vengeance is observed in most mammalian species, some of which presumably don’t knowingly follow God’s laws. Most “Christian” laws are based on primal sociology and their evolutionary bases are well traced.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan come pretty close to exactly following God’s laws. I’d rather live here.
But we have wandered from the point of this post: Why did omniscient God put an irresistible temptation close to a gullible creation, and then claim that the creation was not supposed to act on the inevitable temptation as God already knew the creation would? Whose crime is it, anyway?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:40 am
To allege that those countries are following God’s Law shows me you do not understand God’s Law. Cutting off a person’s hand is not part of the Law. For theft the value of an object had to be restored double. Makes theft pretty unprofitable. I’ll bet the ingredients of Vioxx are not listed in the bible as things you can put in your body. Merck is responsible for manslaughter if not murder.
God wished to obligate Himself for our training by making Himself responsible for our situation. We cannot save ourselves. We can convince ourselves that we don’t need help, but this wears thin after a while. If our measure is other men, we can certainly find someone to compare ourselves to who may not be as smart, beautiful, moral, focused, eloquent, educated, wealthy, whatever the world system curently holds forth as a real man.
God is in the business of destroying pride. After Adam and Eve showed they could not follow simple instructions, for whatever reason, they showed us ourselves since we would not have done anything different.
It is no crime for God to train His children. It is, now, we have become very bright teenagers and think we know more than we know. Sometimes with teenagers you have to just let them run into the brick wall before they are willing to listen. That is what is happening now.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“The blood for blood passage you quote (Genesis 9:6) is based on earlier, pre-monotheism laws literally written in stone in Mesopotamian civilization.”
God’s law had been in existence since the creation and was thus much older than the Code of Hammurabi. Adam had been given dominion over the earth at the time of creation (Genesis 1:26-28), and this right to rule the earth under God was one of the foremost features of the Birthright that was passed to succeeding generations. Just as Adam was the lawful King of the earth while he lived, so also were Methuselah and Noah.
However, during the days of Noah, Nimrod (Hammurabi) usurped the throne with the support of his army. For this reason the Bible calls him Nimrod, “rebel.”Long before Hammurabi (Nimrod) the people and judges had altered God’s law to suit their own understanding of right and wrong. Hammurabi himself seems only to have codified it to set the legal standard for Babylonia. Once again, Prof. Sayce writes on page 68 of his book,
The individual laws [of the Hammurabi Code] had been in existence before. They embody for the most part the decisions of the judges in the special cases brought before them, Babylonian law being, like English law, “judge-made” and based upon precedent.
The divine law insofar as it had been revealed to Adam and his descendants was centered around Shem, the priest-king in Jerusalem.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Thanks to Dan for at least trying to steer this thread back on course: “But we have wandered from the point of this post: Why did omniscient God put an irresistible temptation close to a gullible creation, and then claim that the creation was not supposed to act on the inevitable temptation as God already knew the creation would? Whose crime is it, anyway?”
Larry can’t seem to address this point, as evidenced by his(?) many tangential comments. Maybe Larry could try this simple thought experiment: leave a loaded shotgun, some sharp kitchen knives and some cleaning chemicals (the kind that comes packaged in bright, colorful bottles) in your living room, then invite someone with small children to come and visit you. When they arrive, tell the children not to touch the items in the living room, then let them play freely around the dangerous items. If the children go near the items, say nothing to remind them of your warning. Ask what the children’s parent thinks of you for your behavior. Now, compare the above behavior to that of god in the book of Genesis and explain why we should not condemn god as unfit to raise children.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:11 am
grumpy,; Your bitterness is showing. It is causing you to compare little children to grown adults. We were not maimed by the Tree. Why don’t you ask God what He thinks of your comparisons? These were not other people’s children, they are His own. The ” beef” illustrated in this thread is with our own “parent” not someone else’s. Are you really the worse off because of your mortality? If you don’t believe in it, how could it even effect you?
Why does not God have the right to do with His creation as He chooses? Are you qualified as a pot to argue with the Potter, “Why have you made me thus?” or “Why have you subjected us to death?” I believe He did it for a good reason. Since you do not believe in Him at all, you must attribute this to someone else. Some mattoid with delusions of glory.
God will have no one stand before Him and brag. There’s your bottom line. The fact that we are all sinners {1John3:4} beginning in the garden is the proof. Now, can you accept the proof? Can you forgive God for putting you in your place, ie; “Because I’m the momma!” Do you have any idea how much God believes in you?
I’m not avoiding your question, I’m just having trouble being plain enough while trying to disguise spiritual concepts in intellectual language.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am
If spiritual concepts have to be “disguised” in the language of reason, that may be a sign that such ideas don’t have the substance necessary to stand up to reason. Reason strips away the guise and leaves behind … emperor clothes. Okay, I’ll grant you that it’s “Man’s reason”: The systematic process of observation, recording, and consistent and rigorous mathematical modeling with never ceasing attempts to disprove earlier conclusions.
The only way to “prove” God is to a priori accept as an axiom that the Bible was written by the idea that it is used to prove. Because that axiom has failed for millenia to lead to any subsequent provable theorems, it is often disregarded as irrelevant by intellectuals.
If we assume that the Bible was written by men who decided to lead, in the language of men who were to be followers, at the level of understanding of men in the various eras in which it was written, and look at those passages in the historical context of their times, we can give it an “A” for effort. But it is not a reliable guidebook to the universe that we now know so much richer, wider, and more complex than this book ever indicates.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Back to original sin: The father creates an ideal playpen (Garden of Eden) to raise his unsophisticated and trusting youth. In this pen he places a tempting, shiny, aromatic, object. He tells the youth that it is also delicious, and would bring the youth great understanding. And he says, “hands off”.
Then he puts a carnival barker in the pen (serpent) to further tempt this adolescent to step right up and play, disobey.
Add to that, a comely wench designed specifically to please the youth, and also created even more susceptible to the barker’s pleas than our boy. So now she also conspires to entice the lad.
Now explain to me how it was ever God’s intent for Adam not to eat that fruit.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Dan: You’ve just written Count I of the indictment: The People vs. God. It’s a child abuse criminal case and the evidence is clear that God set up His own children to get badly hurt.
The allegations of Count II are that He (being omniscient) planned every aspect of his children’s failure and that He also planned to throw huge numbers of his children into a place where they’d be eternally tortured by burning them or freezing them or whatever (check out Dante’s Inferno for some of the options).
Count III is that He desired, more than anything else, that his children never grow up emotionally. Rather, he wanted them to sit around, for eternity no less, and constantly worship Him. More child abuse. Emotional abuse this time.
Grumpy nailed these issues with his earlier comment that God loves us like an abusive parent.
If (contrary to all of my instincts) He actually exists and He actually did these things, Shame on Him! Time to elect a new Creator of the Universe. Pull this Guy off of His throne and replace Him with someone with better judgment. It shouldn’t be difficult.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
No, Larry, I’m not bitter. I’m simply pointing out the absurdity of your religion. All of Christianity depends upon the creation story in Genesis being true, but look how easy it is to show that it is nonsense.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Sorry but the Creator of the Universe is not elected. You do not have enough insight to be making condemnastions. Questions and accusations are okay, “Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow”. It was God’s intent for them to become mortal. How can you appreciate immortality if, 1. you don’t believe in it and 2. you don’t have anything to compare it with?
Count I: we became mortal - this is more like being on probation, not maimed, not hurt, not even neglected when you consider the big picture.
Count II: anticipated selfishness, willfulness and lack of wisdom. Part two, unsubstantiated - eternal punishment is against the Law. Therefore it is a doctrine of men. http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=21276
Count III: it is alleged “that He desired, more than anything else, that his children never grow up emotionally. Rather, he wanted them to sit around, for eternity no less, and constantly worship Him. More child abuse. Emotional abuse this time.”
Substitute your own definition for “worship” with respect, appreaciate and obedience, and you have the same elements you desire from you own children. God desires for each of us to grow up into the fulness of the character of Christ. He is the example we are to learn to emulate and aspire to. “But grow in grace , and in knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Again, you are confusing what God is doing with what religions teach that God is doing. Do some Discovery. The Judge is very lenient.
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/CreationsJub/CJch13.html
May 1st, 2008 at 5:47 am
—Sorry but the Creator of the Universe is not elected. You do not have enough insight to be making condemnastions.—
This is a blanket dismissal of all other points of view than the one in which you have chosen to invest. It is not definitive. It’s not so much that it isn’t true, but that it cannot be rationally answered.
In a way, the creator was elected. The name, the attributes, the idea that such a thing exists, all these things were decided upon and written down by a long-running parliament of theologicians, refined over time, altered where needed, and voted on by popular acclamation.
We cannot know down to the last neuron what the minds of others contain—often we can’t know what it is in our own minds—so to declare that someone doesn’t have enough insight to make a judgment is hubristic. What you seem to be really saying is that his viewpoint doesn’t persuade you, and therefore it must be wrong. There’s a false syllogism embedded in that.
In another forum, long ago, an earnest Believer and I exchanged points, and I stated that at one time I was a true believer, but I got over it. He declared that I could not have been, because had I been I would still be.
All these sorts of arguments end in the same place. It’s an argument between those who point at what may really Be There and those who have already made up their minds what Is There. Evidence plays no real part in this debate, since only one side is ever interested in changing their minds based on evidence. The starting positions are mutually incompatible and the debate derails at some point when it is clear that Belief is more important to one side than Fact/Truth.
You shouldn’t judge the capacity for insight others possess. After all, regardless of the source of inspiration, human beings described what it was they believed and erected the arguments of explanation and defense—if they had the insight to do this accurately in your estimation, others logically possess the insight to see the work for what it is and comprehend the flaws.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
Mark T.; Well said. “Evidence plays no real part in this debate, since only one side is ever interested in changing their minds based on evidence.”
How can you know that “one side” has never changed “their minds”? Is not the definition of repentance a changed mind? We were once of another mind, now we are being given the mind of Christ. How can you call that evil?
Next, how can you know the quaility of the evidence based on belief is automatically greater or higher quaility than evidence based on a yardstick? “If any man will do my teachings he shall know whether I speak of myself or these are my Father’s words.” Measure the blessings given to the faithful compared to those who follow some other rulemaker {god}. That is how belief turns into knowledge; by putting it into practice and counting the results. There is some evidence for you. I’m convinced not because, “I desire it to be so”, but because it is becoming so, right before my eyes. The prophecies are being fulfilled, as you read.
Am I supposed to deny what I see, and believe what you tell me? When did you become a true witness? What are you qualifications? Do you keep the Law of God? Or the law of men? There’s some evidence that indicates wisdom, or perhaps gullibility. The practices of men are obviously getting us in worse and worse shape. Men’s hearts failing them for fear of what is coming upon the earth. “Absurdity” to some.
What is it going to take for us to admit that we don’t know what we are doing? Perhaps burning a third of the corn grown on the planet so we can drive our automoblies while millions of the earth’s people die of starvation every year?
Insinuate that believers never ask questions? Don’t try it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 am
Larry,
Prophecy? Please. We do not live in a Cartesian universe, and that is what I mean by my criticism of a certain kind of believer. It is those who assert that they have the authority to dictate cause and effect to the rest of us based on a misperception (misinterpretation?) of a set of parables who I question. You should not (assuming you did) presume that I included you among such as they, unless you choose to align your thinking with them.
But when you call you call up prophecy to bolster your arguments, I am afraid I must conclude we are talking about two different things. There is no historical evidence of any kind to support the veractiy of prophecy. None. Allegorical evidence, anecdotal evidence, claims by those who “knew someone who knew someone who saw something”…
Just as there is no evidence that religiously based efforts have proven any more effective at alleviating the ills of our world than others. I’d have to say that probably, just to be fair, it’s about even.
But I will say this: of the two, teaching a poor person how to feed his or her family by teaching them how to farm, manufacture, create, or otherwise effect their situation does far more than teaching that same poor person how to pray. If you teach them both, great. But if you leave out the first, the second has shown a dismal record of improving their condition in this life. As far as I’m concerned, that’s what matters.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“We were not maimed by the Tree.”
Hang on a moment here, Larry….
“…but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely DIE.” Genesis 2:17
“Adam was created immortal. He died {became mortal - subject to physical death} the day he disobeyed.”
Not maimed…??
“Wherefore, as by one man {Adam} sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…”
Not maimed, huh?
“When Adam sinned, his sin was imputed to all mankind. We all became liable for Adam’s sin, and thus we are all mortal, paying for a sin which
we did not commit….”
Not maimed!?
(crucifixion scene from from Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’)
Do I really need to repeat myself one final time…!!??
Yeah, really.
Not maimed one single solitary bit.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Unless one might be tempted by rationalism to treat the tree as allegorical.
Nah. Still an example of bad parenting.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ebonmuse’s excellent website, Daylight Atheism, led me to this one, wherein I found http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/gen-27-36-god-should-have-known-that.html/” rel=”nofollow”>an essay that relates directly to my post above.
The item of interest in the essay is that Eve and Adam (by definition) did not possess knowledge of Good and Evil at the time they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So, if they had no knowledge of Good and Evil prior to eating the fruit, they would have had no way of understanding that disobeying God was Evil, nor would they have had any way of understanding that the Serpent was Evil. Furthermore, why didn’t God, who knew that Adam and Eve were ignorant of Good and Evil, warn them about the Serpent? They had no life experience nor any prior experience with liars, so why didn’t God prepare them for their first encounter with deceit? Don’t human parents normally warn their children about not taking candy from strangers? And where was God when all that deceit was going on? Was his omniscience on vacation at the exact moment when Eve was chatting with the Serpent and when Adam took his bite? Seems pretty ridiculous for God to blame Adam and Eve for the Fall when God was apparently off DAYDREAMING instead of looking after the children that he supposedly loved so much.