|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
 Posted - 05/22/2001 : 15:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
B> I don't elevate (evolution) to the throne of FACT, merely because we haven't got it all worked out yet.
It is generally accepted as being a fact since it has withstood every conceivable challenge thrown at it for the past 160 years. But as I have said several times before it has nothing to do with religious faith.
First of all , I don't believe I disagreed with you when stating that evolution and religion can co-exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.
One point that I was trying to make, you also mention. You said "It is generally accepted as being a fact. . . " My point exactly. I generally accept it as if it were a fact. I also admit that it has yet to be proven. I use the word "Proven" here in the most strict scientific sense.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Edited by - broven on 05/22/2001 15:08:59 |
 |
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 15:13:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is that alternate theories, or supporting evidence thereof,
doesn't disprove other theories.
Actually, if you are talking about the Genesis creation of the animal kingdom exactly as it is today as a "theory", it does precisely that. You see with evolution and what we've learned from the fossil record the only possible explanation of Adam, Eve and their talking snake is that it's a myth.
No Adam=no fall from grace. No fall=no need for a savior.
Actually I wasn't talking about the Genesis account. That is clearly allegorical (I think that's the correct word. . .) I won't go into this any more as we have covered it in other posts.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 16:19:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A> There is, in fact NO imperical evidence supporting the existence of God. … let me just make two points:
1. Does lack of evidence disprove anything? To my knowledge (admittedly limited) there isn't anything that actually proves he doesn't exist. Am I wrong?
No, you are right. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." And I can no more prove god doesn't exist than I can prove leprechauns don't exist.
But you see I AM NOT THE ONE WHO IS MAKING A CLAIM, therefore there is no need for me to prove anything.
You (the rhetorical you, not you personally) are making any number of claims.
You tell me god exists. You tell me that of all the gods that people have claimed yours is the only one who exists. You tell me things he has done. You tell me his likes and dislikes. You tell me what he has commanded me to do. You can tell me who his chosen people are. You can even tell me what he looks like. You insist that I live by his rules. You make me swear to him when I go to court. You even make me carry around pledges to him on the money in my pocket. Etc., etc., etc.
In return I request one thing. Prove that he exists. That's not really very much to ask. If I were going to buy a pair of sneakers and I wanted proof of them before I plunked down my money no one would consider that to be the least bit strange.
I am asking no more of your claim of god than I would ask of a Keds salesman. Show me the merchandise.
This is my favorite part of your post. Very heartfelt, I think.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make a claim, per se. As I stated at the end of my post, I just want to know what you all think. I'm the first to admit, as I have before, that you can't prove God.
You then go into a long piece about the Rhetorical me. Speaking for myself, I would NEVER presume to insist that you live by God's rules. God doesn't even insist. As for what I find in the Bible as to what his rules are. Treat each other decently. Don't screw anybody over. Don't meddle. Of course the bible takes it's time in explaining these points, but that's what all of it comes down to. Not a very difficult code to live by really. Of course you can talk to folks of other religious persuausions, and that's where things start getting pretty cumbersome. It's one of my biggest complaints about organized religion. They spend altogether too much time on the minutia, elevating it to a level far above the basic idea that Christ taught. Love one another.
As for swearing in court, I don't think you have to do that. I believe you are allowed to make an oath or some such thing. The pledge on the money in your pocket is a good point. It makes me wonder how they really define the seperation of church and state. To me it's kind of silly anyway. The root of all evil, and we stamp God's name on it, with a few pagan symbols here and there for good measure. Who was the brain child there? I will concede your point on that, though. I suppose if they started printing "The Backstreet Boys Rule" on my money, I'd be a little ticked off too.
quote:
But there is no empirical evidence. You can't supply a jot, even though you make claims of all of this knowledge.
Well, I've admitted that already. But what is all this knowledge that you think I claim to know. I don't know much at all, really. Only that he exists. That's just one little old piece of knowledge.
quote:
So I have no way of know |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 18:11:14 [Permalink]
|
I would NEVER presume to insist that you live by God's rules. God doesn't even insist. As for what I find in the Bible as to what his rules are. Treat each other decently. Don't screw anybody over. Don't meddle. Of course the bible takes it's time in explaining these points, but that's what all of it comes down to. Not a very difficult code to live by really.
Well I'm glad you do. But you seem to be looking at different New & Old Testaments than I am. In my NT I find "The Prince of Peace" going on about a very un-Jewish concept, ETERNAL DAMNATION for those bastards that don't do precisely what he says.
Treat each other decently? Where's that? Hmmm there is this bit about not casting stones at the woman caught in adultery. That's nice. Mmmm but here's this bit about Skeptics "They are dogs and I will have no traffic with them." Atheists he wants Christian men to burn "as if they were bundles of twigs." Lets see what else? Here's a bit where he is angered at the Jews because they no longer follow the law that says that they must stone surly teenagers to death. Boy, talk about suffer the little children. Here's a part where he wants men to desert their wives and children and follow him. This snippet over here he says he does not bring peace but the sword. Here are some of the parts that gleefully support slavery. And don't forget that section of Mathew that condemns all Jews. Hitler was able to use it to support his insanity without misinterpreting a word.
The fact is the bible is such a mish mash that you can find bits in it to support anything, good or bad. That little throw away line "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was the death sentence of an estimated nine million women. "Don't meddle," yeah right.
They spend altogether too much time on the minutia, elevating it to a level far above the basic idea that Christ taught. Love one another.
Sorry, but I'm a member of a group that he wanted dead. Burn baby, burn!
Well, I've admitted that already. But what is all this knowledge that you think I claim to know.
You claim…. he exists…the bible is his word…Jesus is a historical figure…you know Jesus teachings.
Frankly there is no historic evidence that Jesus lived at all. His entire life story is made up out of previously existing pagan religions. Mostly Mithraism and the Dionysian "Mystery" Cult. The standard set of miracles come from Apollonius of Tyana as does the title "Christ." The teachings like "Love one another," and "you must be born again" come from the sayings of Hercules. But about 80% of the Jesus story, from shepherds keeping watch to resurrection after three days, is lifted straight from the god Mithra.
Only the 2 words "Our father" are non Mithrian in the Lords prayer
I don't know much at all, really. Only that he exists.
Actually, based on what you have written here you can't make that claim. The most that you can truthfully say is that you want him to exist.
You don't have any way of knowing whether I'm telling the truth. And to use one of your own statements, when you say he doesn't, I don't know if you're telling me the truth. That's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Either side would be forced to use circular reasoning to prove their point, so I would say that whole point is moot.
Not at all.
You cannot treat a negative statement as though it were a positive. You are the only one who is making an existential claim. You are saying that god exists. You are also admitting that you have no way to substantiate this claim.
Without proof it is not logical for a person to accept an existential claim. Therefore I remain in the purely neutral position of lacking the proposed belief. The lack of belief is not a claim in itself, and therefore does not need to have proof.
Tell ya what. Somewhere around here I have some writings by Carl Sagan that explain the "burden of proof" much more clearly than I did. They are copyrighted so I won't post them, I'll just drop them in your E mail.
----------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 18:49:49 [Permalink]
|
Have you seen the News today? It appears the Taliban Muslim leaders in Afghanistan are attempting to require that hindus wear distinctive clothing in an effort, so they say, to keep the Muslim police from harassing them because they don't wear veils and so on.
This is why I am an agnostic. I beleive there is a god, but I don't know his/its will. Too many Fuckin psychopaths are created by fundamentalist religions supposedly for the glory of god. How the fuck do they Know what god wants? It is the Height of arrogance to beleive in a supreme power, wiser and greater than you are, and to suppose to know its will. I sure hope there is a hell that all these pricks can go to. 
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 19:11:03 [Permalink]
|
I read about that and found it most disturbing. Pakistan actually said it would help to protect Hindus. yeah, I'd feal realllly safe.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 19:31:23 [Permalink]
|
Man, I didn't even get to finish responding to your first post and now I have all of this to answer to also. I'm beginning to feel tired. 
I know I don't have all the answers (You probably think I don't have ANY answers. That's OK. I'm seriously seeking the truth my self. Maybe I'm on the wrong track, maybe I'm on the same path as you, only much further back, maybe I'm on the right path. I don't know. I feel like I might be getting your dander up (it's so hard to tell when all you have is text to convey conversation) but that isn't my intention. So, anyway, don't get pissed or take it too personally. None of it is meant to be personal. I just want to know what (and why) you think about the subject.
quote:
In my NT I find "The Prince of Peace" going on about a very un-Jewish concept, ETERNAL DAMNATION for those bastards that don't do precisely what he says.
I speak here only for myself. But to start let me put forth what I base my "religion" on. Bare with me. If we assume that God exists (for the sake of argument) and that Jesus was his son (Bare with me. . . ) then it stands to reason that Jesus would be a bit of an authority on the subject. (I know I've made assumptions here that you will find immediate faults with, but, without going into it just now, let's assume. . . ) So, I base my "faith" (meaning my religious code, if you will) on what Jesus had to say. (I guess we must also, for the sake of argument, assume for the time being that the Bible has some historical basis.) I know, I know. . . just relax, and let's pretend for the moment. So what did Jesus have to say? The most important commandment - the golden rule - Love God and love others as you love yourself. He came right out and said that all the commandments boiled down to this. Now, I'll admit that I do have a problem with the first part of that. There have been (still are) numerous occasions when I wonder why God is doing this (or not doing that) to me. The second half, "Loving others", I've never had much of a problem with. (At least, once I figured out that I could love them as my myself, without actually liking them.) ANd I think that doing the second half, ultimately helps to accomplish the first half. The phrasing you used, to me, reveals a certain jadedness (is that a word?) You have apparently boiled it all down to the most negative possible essence. I understand the concept of choosing words to manipulate emotion. I don't believe Jesus called anyone a Bastard. And as the prostitute story pointed out, he even cared about the folks that didn't live the way you think he wanted them to. If you take the Bible account of Jesus, He was the kind of guy who stuck up for whoever was being oppressed. He didn't want you or anyone else to burn.
quote:
Treat each other decently? Where's that?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A fairly famous line. I guess it doesn't make sense if you are in the habbit of being undecent to yourself.. .
quote:
Mmmm but here's this bit about Skeptics "They are dogs and I will have no traffic with them." Atheists he wants Christian men to burn "as if they were bundles of twigs."
Not sure where you read that. book, chapter and verse?
quote:
Lets see what else? Here's a bit where he is angered at the Jews because they no longer follow the law that says that they must stone surly teenagers to death. Boy, talk about suffer the little children.
That is in reference to old testiment law. If you want to save yourself, here's the rules. They are too hard. They were intended to be too hard. He never intended for us to have to live by those laws. WE insisted that we didn't need any help. We could save ourselves. So fine, try. It doesn't work. quote:
Here's a part where he wants men to desert their wives and children and follow him.
I guess just trying to portay how important the idea was. A world were everyone truly loves one another is worth the sacrifice. quote:
This snippet over here he says he does not bring peace but the sword.
So does science. Thanks to science we can wipe everybody out. Even ourselves. quote:
Here are some of the parts that gleefully support slavery.
Gleefully? what part?
quote:
And don't forget that section of Mathew that condemns all Jews. Hitler was able to use it to support his insanity without misinterpreting a word.
Without misinterpreting a word? LOL. Maybe his interpretation agees with yours. . . That's just a ridiculous statement.
quote:
Sorry, but I'm a member of a group that he wanted dead. Burn baby, burn!
He didn't want anyone dead. You haven't given much thought to what Jesus had to say.
quote:
You claim…. he exists…the bible is his word…Jesus is a historical figure…you know Jesus teachings.
I claim that he exists. I assume that the bible is his word. I do believe that Jesus was an historical figure. I know Jesus teaching. It wasn't really all that hard to follow.
quote:
Tell ya what. Somewhere around here I have some writings by Carl Sagan that explain the "burden of proof" much more clearly than I did.
I'd love to read it. Carl was a great |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 22:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Broven: have you ever climbed a 14er? You struggle through the aches and pains in your muscles, the unpredictable weather at altitude, euphoria and countless other obstacles. What do you find at the top? Not much, it's pretty barren, your above tree line the majority of vegetation is scrub and lichen broken by a lot of rock.
That was my search for answers to god's plan. There wasn't anything there. There is NO proof outside the bible that Jesus ever existed. Look elsewhere for your proofs, using one source of data is unreliable at best.
Many writings in the bible are comprised of what should be done to those who do not follow Christ. When I first heard of these in catholic school, 'No one comes to the father, except through me', I asked a question that still to this day has been unanswered — 'If a man has never heard of Jesus or God but lives a good life does that mean he's condemned to eternal damnation?'
Please, answer this from the bible, not your perspective on it. You will find that according to Jesus' and god's word that he is condemned.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2001 : 23:45:46 [Permalink]
|
If we assume that God exists … and that Jesus was his son. . . then it stands to reason that Jesus would be a bit of an authority on the subject.(eternal damnation)
Yes, but it seems funny that god has never mentioned little matter of Hell to the Jews before this. They didn't (and they still don't) know that they had fallen from grace in the garden of Eden and needed a human sacrifice to Yahweh. You would think with all the chatting he did with the prophets that he would have mentioned it.
Seriously this business of hell is Zoroastrian (Mithra) theology and has nothing to do with Judaism.
for the sake of argument, assume for the time being that the Bible has some historical basis.) I know, I know. . . just relax, and let's pretend for the moment. So what did Jesus have to say? The most important commandment - the golden rule - Love God and love others as you love yourself.
The Golden Rule, which is actually "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," was in common use in Greece and Persia for at least 300 years before it was adopted by the followers of Jesus.
At least, once I figured out that I could love them as my myself, without actually liking them.
To do that one must redefine the word "love." That is something I've noticed Christians doing quite a bit. I must admit that I no longer know what they mean when they say the word.
I don't believe Jesus called anyone a Bastard.
True, that is my skewing the story to convey the emotions I feel about it without actually stating them. I must warn you that by birth I am Irish and tend to twist English in a charming Celtic manner.
I don't actually believe that there was a Jesus to say anything.
…Boy, talk about suffer the little children.
That is in reference to old testiment law. If you want to save yourself, here's the rules. They are too hard. They were intended to be too hard. He never intended for us to have to live by those laws.
Nope you have that backwards.
Matthew -- 15:4 Jesus reiterates the commandment to kill children for cursing their parents: "For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say,... [snip] ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Jesus, reinforcing God's commandment from Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, and particularly Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which detail the requirement that parents bring stubborn boys to the city gates to be executed by stoning. Here, Jesus criticizes the humanitarian efforts of the Pharisees, who struggled for centuries to find ways to soften the impact of this brutal commandment, and to make it virtually unenforceable.
I guess just trying to portay how important the idea was. A world were everyone truly loves one another is worth the sacrifice.
Matthew -- 10:35-6 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter
in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Matthew -- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
So does science. Thanks to science we can wipe everybody out. Even ourselves.
The will of god perhaps?
Of course, unlike our miracle working friend, science has doubled all our life spans.
Sorry, but I'm a member of a group that he wanted dead. Burn baby, burn!
He didn't want anyone dead. You haven't given much thought to what Jesus had to say.
Oh really?
The Gospel According To John
--15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (This passage, a quote from Jesus, was used for centuries to justify burning my predecessors at the stake for refusing to believe.)
The Gospel According To Luke
-- 12:51-2 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."
-- 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
-- 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
The Gospel According To Matthew
-- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
-- 10:35-6 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Enough? This hateful stuff just goes on and on. I Timothy -- 6:1-5 is where slavery is gleefully endorsed.
They say that most people who become Atheists do so because of the bible.
I claim that he exists. I assume that the bible is his word. I do believe that Jesus was an historical figure.
What historic records are you privy to that the rest of us don't know about?
I know Jesus teaching. It wasn't really all that hard to follow.
Your nice warm loving Jesus is in only a few parts of the bible, and you've already covered most of them. He has only been popular in the Christian church since the late seventeen hundreds.
In the fifteen hundred years between Constantine and then the tough nasty Jesus was the one all Christendom prayed to.
No, I have paid attention to what the Jesus character is supposed to have said. I've also paid attention to how his followers interpreted what he said.
And I can't help but think what a better world this would be if we had never heard of him.
-------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2001 : 14:38:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, I base my "faith" (meaning my religious code, if you will) on what Jesus had to say. (I guess we must also, for the sake of argument, assume for the time being that the Bible has some historical basis.)
If we assume that Jesus did Exist and he was the son of god, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the bible is his word. You have to throw out the old testament, and rely solely on the writings of the apostles. But then you have to deal with the fact that fallable humans are attempting to convey the message of the son of god. Sorry but heresay does not hold up for me.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2001 : 15:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But then you have to deal with the fact that fallable humans are attempting to convey the message of the son of god. Sorry but heresay does not hold up for me.
If it were only hearsay that would be one thing... but it isn't. It is the stories of other (pagan) religions lifted and the characters names changed. And I'm not talking about some little pagan fables incorporated into the body of the work as most Christians will admit to. I'm talking about the entire thing. There is almost no original material in the NT.
-------
Some more thoughts on the "Golden Rule"
When I said earlier that the golden rule did not originate with Jesus but was in use long before his time I was referring to the phraseology and not the concept. The concept is not deep philosophy at all but rather the stating of an animal behavior. It is an evolved social behavior, which is common to most predators who hunt in packs.
Example:
My dog is a Bernese Mountain dog. They are huge dogs closely related to Saint Bernards. He hates getting shots, deathly afraid of them.
When the Vet Tech is about to give him one he could easily stop her by force. He is much bigger than she is and much more powerful. Also he is armed (with huge teeth) and she is not. What happens instead is that he will put his paws on her shoulders and lick her face. He will then roll over on his back in a posture of submission (and tummy rubs). That is one of the reasons that it is safe for humans to keep dogs with them. The pack social behavior dictates that they do unto others in their pack what they would have their pack fellows do unto them. It eases stressful situations and deters aggression within the pack.
This is exactly the same social behavior exhibited by all of the great apes (including us) except for orangutans, who do not hunt in groups.
-----------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2001 : 22:02:57 [Permalink]
|
This has been an interesting discussion! I am eagerly awaiting broven's response to Trish's challenge on eternal damnation, as quoted below:
quote:
Many writings in the bible are comprised of what should be done to those who do not follow Christ. When I first heard of these in catholic school, 'No one comes to the father, except through me', I asked a question that still to this day has been unanswered — 'If a man has never heard of Jesus or God but lives a good life does that mean he's condemned to eternal damnation?'
Please, answer this from the bible, not your perspective on it. You will find that according to Jesus' and god's word that he is condemned.
First, my own opinions on religion: I consider myself an agnostic, which means I really don't know the answer on whether or not there is a god. Since this being, if he/she/it exists, is currently undetectable and unprovable with our scientific methods, we are left to the "leaps of faith" to accept or not accept god's existence. (I believe these leaps of faith have measurable psychological, physiological and sociological elements that were "hard-wired" by our evolution - a lot of scientists also agree with the organic theory of "faith" as an explanation for why humans are so overwhelmingly addicted to religious belief).
My upbringing in a mainstream Lutheran church was fairly benign and low-key, with no blatant attempts at "biblical inerrancy" or fire and brimstone from the pulpit. However, the more I read about science and the cosmos and the more I delved into "the meaning of life", the more I realized what an empty and primitive belief system Christianity is (particularly fundamentalist Christianity).
Christianity is a religion that contains these basic illogical and irrational ramifications:
1) Two mythological beings (or real humans, if you are a true fundie and believe Adam and Eve actually existed) disobey an omniscient, omnipresent "benevolent" god by hiding from him(!) after eating from the banned tree of knowledge of good and evil (there's a clue there). He punishes them by banishing them from Eden and making them mortal(thus was born "original sin"). As an interesting sidenote, he lays the blame for the disobedience squarely on the shoulders of the female, setting up the foundations for centuries of discrimination.
2) After this temper tantrum of heroic proportions, God has second thoughts and decides to sacrifice himself (by being born as his son) to salvage these silly little humans, but they must first declare him to be the one and only God and Jesus their savior, now and forever more, or suffer the eternal consequences.
3) This omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being who allegedly created the universe and everything in it is also locked in a battle royale with some fallen angel who told him to pound sand a long time ago and is now considered the epitome of evil due to this rebellion. This fallen angel gets the blame for many of the foibles and bad acts that humans perpetrate (a great way of avoiding personal responsibility - "the devil made me do it").
This is just the tip of the nonsensical iceberg; if these ideas were part of a fictional book plot, they would be considered ludicrous, yet millions and millions of people believe them without question.
Now let's talk about eternal damnation and why this is such an utterly evil and anti-humanistic concept (following up on Trish's question) with this example:
A mass murderer is scheduled for execution (picture a Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler, if you will). As the moment of death approaches, this foul creature falls on bended knee with his spiritual advisor and asks God for forgiveness. He then confesses his believe in Jesus as his savior. In the Christian worldview, after this evil subhuman is executed, he quickly ascends to heaven for his eternal reward because of his last-minute "conversion". Let's say that one of the victims of this bastard is a small child who was never baptized or "introduced" to Jesus by his Hindu parents. This child died a cruel and horrible death at the hands of this murderer but did not confess his belief, therefore, he is now consigned to eternal damnation in a terrible hell.
Now tell me why this is a religion worth following.
rubysue
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2001 : 23:40:53 [Permalink]
|
Thanks rubysue, excellent example.
broven, we eagerly await your reply.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 00:52:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1) Two mythological beings (or real humans, if you are a true fundie and believe Adam and Eve actually existed) disobey an omniscient, omnipresent "benevolent" god by hiding from him(!) after eating from the banned tree of knowledge of good and evil (there's a clue there). He punishes them by banishing them from Eden and making them mortal(thus was born "original sin").
The Fundies tend to change this story. The expulsion from Eden does not make them mortal (ask any Jew) they were already mortal. God places a cherub (now shown as a little cupid but when this was written they were monsters with bulls bodies, mens front half and eagles wings) with a flaming sword to keep them from getting back in because there was a second tree--the tree of life --eternal life.
Interesting bit. God tells them that if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they will die. When the snake suggests to Eve that it was time for lunch she reminds him that god said this. The snake tells her that she won't die if she eats the fruit.
And she didn't.
God was lying and the snake was telling the truth.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 02:36:37 [Permalink]
|
I will address these two statements in purely biblical terms:
quote:
1) Two mythological beings (or real humans, if you are a true fundie and believe Adam and Eve actually existed) disobey an omniscient, omnipresent "benevolent" god by hiding from him(!) after eating from the banned tree of knowledge of good and evil.
If you check the first few chapters of the bible, I don't believe there is any reference to God's omniescience, or even omnipotence, for that matter. In those chapters, the bible merely sets God as the Creator. Due to your earlier posts, I feel it is safe to assume you believe the bible is a collection of allegories, often by different authors. This allows us to take this story independently, even if the bible later states these godly characteristics.
quote:
God tells them that if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they will die. ... The snake tells [Eve] that she won't die if she eats the fruit.
And she didn't.
But, whether this was a consequence of the Forbidden Fruit or not, Adam died, so (since the bible has a habit of not fully discussing even the most influentual women) we can assume that Eve died as well.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
