Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[The Pixie]

Sorry for jumping in but a couple of points:

A Jewish view is that they knew the difference between right and wrong -- obeying God was good, disobeying was wrong -- but they didn't actually know what it felt like to disobey until they disobeyed. That was the knowledge they got, God being omniscient knew what it felt like even though He didn't actually disobey Himself.

So they say that there was nothing special about the fruit itself? It could have been any apple tree, for example, and God just said do not eat from that one random tree? that is not the impression I get from Genesis.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

I have been trying to find web pages that would say what Jews thought at that time, the best I found was this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm

Do you have any better?

Another Jewish view is that the creatures made as helpers for Adam in Genesis 2 aren't regular animals like in Genesis 1, but cherubim, of which Satan was one. Thus the Serpent wasn't a walking talking snake cursed to be dumb with no legs, but an angelic being. Adam would return to dust, the Serpent would eat dust, and his belly would symbolize Hell, like Jonah as dust in the belly of Hell of the fish, a similar metaphor. Meaning, the Serpent was cursed to be the thing that swallowed men up into Hell.

I have never heard of that before. Do you have any references?

Did they believe Satan was cursed to crawl on his belly?

I offer this:

Genesis 3:1 presents the serpent simply as an animal. But how to explain his ability to talk? Some interpreters suggested that at first all animals were able to talk. The second century BC book of Jubilees says that when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, “the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak with one another with one speech and one language” (3:28). Philo said that, “in olden times…snake could speak with a man’s voice” (On Creation 156). The historian Josephus said, “at that time all living things spoke the same language” (Jewish Antiquities 1:41).
http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-cre...crafty-serpent

[Tassman]

As for why I think God cares about us- consciousness is one reason. Through us (and any other intelligent life that might be out there), the universe looks back on itself and to me that's an absolutely sacred and even mystical thing. If there is a supreme being, I can't see it not valuing that- especially since it would be intelligent itself.

Well we would care if we were God, wouldn't we? But we are not. What you've done is conjure up a deity who cares about the things we care about - the very definition of a God made in Man's image. Which of course all gods are!

[Tassman]

What? What does a Stalin or Mao or a Bond trader care for the long term success of the human species? Why should our species not go extinct like the millions of other species before. Why are we any different?

There is every likelihood that our species will go extinct “like the millions of other species before” and no, in this respect, we are not any different.

So what’s the problem? We are still going to nurture our offspring, love our families and defend our communities, whether or not in some distant future our species goes extinct, because this is what we have evolved to do. This is the instinctive behaviour of the human animal.

[Enjolras]

Sure, but we all believe in God the Father. We just differ on 1. The possibility of more than one person in God and 2. The identity of Jesus. True, there's a whole lot of ink that can be spilled on those categories, but just looking at it logically, I think the categories fit. We also all revere Father Abraham.

Um, those are huge differences, and not just ink but blood has been spilled over them. You might as well say the 41st and 43rd presidents of the United States are the same person because they share the same name.

It would be like if I loved Martin Luther King based on what his supporters, family, and biographers have said about his character. Whereas you took the word of a Klansman who made up the rumor that King was a child molesting Satanist. We are both technically talking about the same physical entity with the same name, birth and death dates, and physical features, but that's where the similarities abruptly stop.

But we could agree on quite a few facts that would be indisputable. In addition to what you have already mentioned, we would both agree that he was human, and not a god. We would agree that he is now dead, and that he did not rise afterward. We could even agree as to who his parents were, and who he married and what were the names of his children. Neither of us would say he was born to a virgin. We would agree as to what speeches he gave and what he wrote, and that what he wrote is not scripture. Neither of us would worship him, nor would we imagine he holds the world together with his power. I could list many more things like that we would agree on. I see no where near that kind of common ground among religious traditions when it comes to discussing the nature of God.

Yes, but if good does not exist, then neither does evil. Any supreme being that is really the supreme being reflects this by definition.

I don't follow you here. I agree about good and evil existing, but see no reason why God can't be evil.

As for why I think God cares about us- consciousness is one reason. Through us (and any other intelligent life that might be out there), the universe looks back on itself and to me that's an absolutely sacred and even mystical thing. If there is a supreme being, I can't see it not valuing that- especially since it would be intelligent itself.

I can easily see God not caring. I find evidence of this every time I read the news.

[Kelp(p)]

Wow. That's a pretty bold assertion. I highly doubt many would agree with you. What does it even mean to say "technically" they worship the same God? For Christians the godhead includes Jesus, whereas Jews and Muslims regard him as a mere man. How is that the same technically or in any other way?

Sure, but we all believe in God the Father. We just differ on 1. The possibility of more than one person in God and 2. The identity of Jesus. True, there's a whole lot of ink that can be spilled on those categories, but just looking at it logically, I think the categories fit. We also all revere Father Abraham.

I believe he was a deplorable person, but if you think Osama Bin Laden worshipped the same God as Mother Theresa, I'm not sure why you wouldn't think Phelps worshipped the same God as you.

Right, that's the difference between theory and practice. Phelps and Bin Laden both held pictures of God's character so heinous that they weren't worshiping the same person in any real world sense.

It would be like if I loved Martin Luther King based on what his supporters, family, and biographers have said about his character. Whereas you took the word of a Klansman who made up the rumor that King was a child molesting Satanist. We are both technically talking about the same physical entity with the same name, birth and death dates, and physical features, but that's where the similarities abruptly stop.

I don't follow your logic or reasoning here at all. If God exists, I see no necessary reason to think he's necessarily good or that he cares about humans in the least. Maybe he's fond of bacteria and parasites and only keeps us around so they'll have hosts.

Yes, but if good does not exist, then neither does evil. Any supreme being that is really the supreme being reflects this by definition.

As for why I think God cares about us- consciousness is one reason. Through us (and any other intelligent life that might be out there), the universe looks back on itself and to me that's an absolutely sacred and even mystical thing. If there is a supreme being, I can't see it not valuing that- especially since it would be intelligent itself.

[Enjolras]

Technically it's differing views of the same God. Technically, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God.

Wow. That's a pretty bold assertion. I highly doubt many would agree with you. What does it even mean to say "technically" they worship the same God? For Christians the godhead includes Jesus, whereas Jews and Muslims regard him as a mere man. How is that the same technically or in any other way?

The bigger question is if such a view is so far outside the pale as to be a different God in practice. I think we can at least agree that Fred Phelps only worshiped the same God as the rest of Christianity in theory, right?

I believe he was a deplorable person, but if you think Osama Bin Laden worshipped the same God as Mother Theresa, I'm not sure why you wouldn't think Phelps worshipped the same God as you.

Like I said to pancreasman, since I believe that good is logically prior to evil, I start with the Beatitudes and 1 John 4:8 and work my way backwards.

I don't follow your logic or reasoning here at all. If God exists, I see no necessary reason to think he's necessarily good or that he cares about humans in the least. Maybe he's fond of bacteria and parasites and only keeps us around so they'll have hosts.

[Kelp(p)]

Let me be plain: The view that some people have and advocate of God is of a being unworthy to be worshipped.

Stated that broadly, I can agree with that as well.

[pancreasman]

Let me be plain: The view that some people have and advocate of God is of a being unworthy to be worshipped.

[Kelp(p)]

I think it is an interesting question. Even today I hear Christians say things like "my Jesus would never condemn homosexuality," or the opposite: "my Jesus would never countenance homosexuality." Some people's Jesus sends non-believers to hell, others think their Jesus more understanding and compassionate. Do they have different gods, or differing views of the same god? Do Jews have the same God as Christians? Do Mormons have the same god as Catholics? Beats me. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Technically it's differing views of the same God. Technically, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. The bigger question is if such a view is so far outside the pale as to be a different God in practice. I think we can at least agree that Fred Phelps only worshiped the same God as the rest of Christianity in theory, right?

Like I said to pancreasman, since I believe that good is logically prior to evil, I start with the Beatitudes and 1 John 4:8 and work my way backwards. The Jesus who "came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many," is far more likely to be the true God of the universe than the one who fried Uzzah for accidentally touching the Ark of the Covenant, and so on. But because there's so many subtle factors that go into hermeneutics, I never categorically rule out a passage of Scripture, always holding out a hope that they can in fact be harmonized with the love and justice of God.

The other side of the coin is science. I gave up on a literal Adam and Eve quite some time ago, but if there is a way to harmonize them with science, then I'm all for it. I highly doubt it, of course.

I don't hate God any more than I hate Zeus since I don't think he exists, but I suppose if He exists and began torturing me, I could learn to.

Obviously given your previous comments, you would hate Him if He existed regardless. To use your Zeus analogy, we can both at least agree that Zeus is a fictional rapist.

[Enjolras]

I disagree in that I think it is possible to find a unified enough God throughout the different authors, despite some of their discrepancies. But that's likely for another thread.

I think it is an interesting question. Even today I hear Christians say things like "my Jesus would never condemn homosexuality," or the opposite: "my Jesus would never countenance homosexuality." Some people's Jesus sends non-believers to hell, others think their Jesus more understanding and compassionate. Do they have different gods, or differing views of the same god? Do Jews have the same God as Christians? Do Mormons have the same god as Catholics? Beats me. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Anyway, you've made my point in asking the question. If you hate God, then you're locking your own Hell from the inside.

I don't hate God any more than I hate Zeus since I don't think he exists, but I suppose if He exists and began torturing me, I could learn to.

[Kelp(p)]

Sorry for jumping in but a couple of points:

A Jewish view is that they knew the difference between right and wrong -- obeying God was good, disobeying was wrong -- but they didn't actually know what it felt like to disobey until they disobeyed. That was the knowledge they got, God being omniscient knew what it felt like even though He didn't actually disobey Himself.



Another Jewish view is that the creatures made as helpers for Adam in Genesis 2 aren't regular animals like in Genesis 1, but cherubim, of which Satan was one. Thus the Serpent wasn't a walking talking snake cursed to be dumb with no legs, but an angelic being. Adam would return to dust, the Serpent would eat dust, and his belly would symbolize Hell, like Jonah as dust in the belly of Hell of the fish, a similar metaphor. Meaning, the Serpent was cursed to be the thing that swallowed men up into Hell.

Thanks for providing some insight.

[Kelp(p)]

That is a complicated question to answer, because I don't think there is a single 'God' of Christianity. I believe there are numerous portrayals of the Divine given throughout the bible, and these portrayals are not compatible with one another. It seems to us like there is one God because all these portrayals are collected and bound together in a single book we call the bible, but of course we know that there were many authors and editors over the course of centuries. That's how I see it, anyway.

I see what you are saying now. No, I could not worship a god I regarded as evil, no more than I could worship Hitler. I'd rather suffer in hell. Pragmatically, I'd pretend to worship so as to avoid torment , but I'm sure he'd catch me out.

I disagree in that I think it is possible to find a unified enough God throughout the different authors, despite some of their discrepancies. But that's likely for another thread.

Anyway, you've made my point in asking the question. If you hate God, then you're locking your own Hell from the inside.

[Kelp(p)]

We are talking about culpability for the Fall. Let us concentrate on that for the moment. Do you think people in the world are morally culperable for the Fall? I am guessing not.

The Fall is in whatever the first sin was? No. Everyone is responsible for their own individual acts. But we perpetuate it every minute of the day.

Do you think Adam and Eve were moral agents before they ate the fruit? A moral agent is someone capable of telling right from wrong, and according to Genesis, Adam and Eve were not able to do that at that point. In fact the only moral agent involved at all was God.

I would assume they knew not to disobey God. They might not have understood why they should not disobey God and they certainly didn't know the consequences, but they knew not to eat to the fruit.

Great. So it is possible for God to create a place where everyone is happy and they have free will. Previously you seemed to be claiming that was not possible ("And what would you have God do? Make us all robots? Is that really what you want? No free will for no suffering? Where's the love in that? ").

The reason that it's a place of both bliss and free will, is that we've been sanctified and learned to love God and hate sin. That could not have meaningfully happened a day after the Fall or whatever you were asking for because the first humans had no practical knowledge of the suffering sin causes yet, Christ had not come to redeem our lives, etc. Like I said, God's purpose in this is not minimizing suffering, it's creating people who really understand love and holiness. That takes time.

I am just going by what the Bible says, not how Christians have subsequently twisted it. Do Jews think it is Satan speaking through the snake? If not, it is doubtful Jesus did.

The Wisdom of Solomon does. The Apocalypse of Moses (both from the 100s BC) has Satan recruiting a talking snake to be his agent. Philo said the snake was a metaphor for sex. We don't have many rabbinical writings from Jesus' time, but I don't think there's ever been a Jewish source that says it was just some random talking snake with its own agenda.

They were naive and ill-equipped to deal with subtle issues like this.

It takes little subtlety to go ask God why this snake is telling you to go something against God.

Do you think the novel is the inspired word of God?

Why expect atheists to accept what is in the Bible, if you compare it to a secular novel yourself.

I should have mentioned that I'm not an inerrantist. My bad. I believe that the Bible contains truths from God, but I don't believe the entire Bible is inspired, my bad.

How do you know he has no ego?

Ego is a human failing. It's a false impression that the world revolves around you or that you have no limitations. God knows for a fact that the world revolves around Him. In fact, were He to try and be "humble" about how great He is, He would essentially be lying.

He freed the Hebrews from Egypt so they could honour him. he demands that we worship him, and condemns any who decide not to.

He demands our worship not just for Himself but for our own good. It is the only way to truly live.

Okay, hyperbole on my part. Jesus said most would not get to heavem and if about 2 billion people around today are Christians, around 5 billion are collateral damage. But I guess you have to break eggs to make an omelette.

I would say few would find it before they die, but anyway. I don't think even an eternal punishment view rules out a second chance after death for those who sincerely missed out on Jesus in life. As for the rest, they probably don't want to be with God anyway, so they're getting what they wanted.

Sounds like you will have two great, well-rounded kids. Shame about the five who died in childhood, but you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?

That makes no sense given what I said. I'm talking about raising the kids that are have survived infancy. Surely you can appreciate that letting them face the consequences of their actions sometimes builds character?

You seem to be conflating physical death and spiritual death (or I am misunderstanding you). When you said "The wages of sin is death", did you mean spiritual death? I took it to mean physical death. When Jesus conquered death, was that spiritual death?

I see the two as connected. God is the ultimate upholder of the universe. Nothing that exists even exists unless He is actively grounding its being. So, when we distance ourselves from God, we are not only undergo spiritual death but we court physical death as well. It is only God's forbearance because He wants us to repent that prevents us from ceasing to exist.

What exactly is spiritual death; is it necessarily a bad thing?

Spiritual death is alienation from God.

Why is it beyond God to forgive without something dying? And why should I believe that that is true? Does it even say that in the Bible?

Hebrews 9:22- Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. If God is the source of our very existence, then how can not sticking as close to Him as possible bring anything but death? I don't know how to be more clear than that. As St. Athanasius put it, "What is not assumed by the Word [Christ] is not healed."

You seem to be implying God has no free will.

No. What makes you say that? God can do anything that is logically meaningful. A universe where we both never sinned and had mature knowledge of and love for God is a contradiction. It's like the, "Can He make a rock so big he can't lift it," saw.

He had no choice but to demand the Sabbath a day of rest. Is that what you mean?

He commanded it because people need a day of rest. Working seven days a week is a good way to an early grave. Honoring God is not supposed to be burdensome of complex, so we set aside the day for Him. Iy has had in immediate purpose in marking the Israelites as a redeemed and consecrated nation. There are legitimate reasons to break the Sabbath, of course. And before you bring up the guy who was killed for gathering sticks, this was deliberately flouting the Law of God, not an innocent mistake. http://christianthinktank.com/sticksnstones.html

Not at the expense of five billion people, no. I find that view abhorrent, actually.

Under my view, those five billion are going to be just fine. In most other views, if they were ever going to believe at all, a way will be given either in this life or the next.

Sure. And then I see the corpses of the people who died to make him look good, and I turn away.

Not sure I follow you here. I do not really care who loves God or why. I think I am missing something.

Corpses that are either innocent victims of the sins of others or who have been part of the cause of their own deaths. And what if they get an eternity of bliss out of the process?

So, to keep tally: In order to accept that God is just, you want a grey, boring world full of people who are either automatons or mental and spiritual dwarves. So much for that scientific love of nature

It is inconsistent because you claim God is all loving, and yet, when he had a chance to create two paradise, he instead chose to create one and one earth.

He never had that chance. See above.

Then let us talk hypothetically about a serial killer in India, raised in a Hindu culture and so with no opinion of the Christian God. He arrives in heaven, and suddenly sees God in all his glory. Suddenly he is a believer, and suddenly he regrets all the bad he has done. Does he get into heaven?

If he's sincere, yes. Though "regret" is far from strong enough for it.

Here again inconsistency. God wants us to think for ourselves, and as soon as we do, the whole race is damned.

They weren't thinking for themselves. In the Eden story, they were letting Satan think for them. In a more realistic scenario, they were likely acting out of hubris. That's not thinking for yourself, it's being a tool.

Speak for yourself. I do have kids, and I think I raise them pretty well. Not perfectly, I will admit, but pretty well.

I must admit, perhaps I have overstated my case. I should not have said we ruin everything we touch so as to imply we can do no good. We aren't perfect though and we all are guilty of flouting God's at one point or another.

But scientists are humans, therefore they must ruin everything they touch with their sinfulness, right? That is what you said, about a dozen words ago. Add that to "I believe that this is also part of God's redemptive work, through guiding and blessing the minds of the scientists" and I have to wonder what scientists actually achieve.

Scientists are credited with responding to God's help, being diligent and resourceful, using the minds He gave them and the prompts and guidance He provides.

[Enjolras]

Sorry, I mean the God of Christianity.

That's my point. If you don't consider Him worthy of respect, then the gates of Hell really are locked from the inside.

That is a complicated question to answer, because I don't think there is a single 'God' of Christianity. I believe there are numerous portrayals of the Divine given throughout the bible, and these portrayals are not compatible with one another. It seems to us like there is one God because all these portrayals are collected and bound together in a single book we call the bible, but of course we know that there were many authors and editors over the course of centuries. That's how I see it, anyway.

I see what you are saying now. No, I could not worship a god I regarded as evil, no more than I could worship Hitler. I'd rather suffer in hell. Pragmatically, I'd pretend to worship so as to avoid torment , but I'm sure he'd catch me out.

[JohnnyP]

I was thinking of the words "burning" and "fire," used in the NT. I'm sure thosre are meant to be a metaphors, but the metaphors imply horrendous, cruel pain inflicted by God. I don't buy the euphemisic explanation that hell is "locked from the inside," in case that is your position.

That would be more like a purgatory before annihilation in the Lake of Fire. As I just posted Jonah was in such a purgatory, he repented, and the Word of God set him free. In that sense the Gates of Hell are locked from the inside, repentance is the key to get out. The NT talks about Jesus preaching to spirits in prison, those released being an example of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against his church.

Of course after Judgment into the Lake of Fire then it's too late.