Atheism

[Ddrak]

What's so hard to get about God not breaking the rules he sets for himself? Wouldn't be much of a God if you went around breaking your own rules all the time, would you?

Dd

[Arathena]

Guys.....the answer is pretty simple. Adam and Eve were imortal at the point before they ate from the tree. Without the knowledge of good and evil God would have allowed them to eat from the tree of Life.

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And yet, god was afraid that they would eat from the tree of life and become immortal. How could that be if they were immortal before? I know! they were immortal before, then they became mortal, and if they would eat from the other tree they would be immortal again, but omnipotent god was helpless to undo the damage done from the first tree, so instead if feeling bad for them he punished them and all their descendants forever. Because he is a merciful god.

Now, there's really a much, much simpler answer. Before eating from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve were too stupid to care. When you are unaware of the aging process, unaware of the existance of death, unaware of anything except a constant, pleasurable now, what does death mean? Absolutely nothing. They didn't need eternal life. You can't suffer unless you are aware of that suffering. You can't do evil unless you know the difference, thus, the opening of the eyes to their 'nakedness'.

An when teh woman saw dat teh tree wuz gud 4 fud with flavr an everything, An dat it wuz cool 2 teh eyez, An dat teh tree wuz 2 b desird 2 make man wise, she nom nom nom its froot; An she gaev sum 2 Adam, An he eated da froot (An srsly it was teh best).7 An teh eyez ov them both were opend, An they knew dat theyz were showin teh nakedz An stuff cuz Ceiling Cat didnt gaev dem no furz liek teh aminals; An they sewd sum fig-leavez togethr, An made themselvez clofs.

When a lion drives off another, takes his mate, and kills his cubs, is this evil? No. When a man drives off another man, takes his wife, and kills his children, is this evil? Yes - the man is aware, the lion is not. (Yes, I know, but we're talking in the religious sense.)

[Klast Brell]

What's so hard to get about God not breaking the rules he sets for himself? Wouldn't be much of a God if you went around breaking your own rules all the time, would you?

Dd

Breaking the rules he set for himself? So about that new testament thing.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

So until they choose the tree then they don't have the capacity to understand the ramifications of eating from the tree, and by then it's too late. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Sounds like cruel manipulation.

[Arathena]

So until they choose the tree then they don't have the capacity to understand the ramifications of eating from the tree, and by then it's too late. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Sounds like cruel manipulation.

JHVH is an asshole.

[Ddrak]

What's so hard to get about God not breaking the rules he sets for himself? Wouldn't be much of a God if you went around breaking your own rules all the time, would you?

Dd

Breaking the rules he set for himself? So about that new testament thing.

He found a loophole. Can't let sinners get to heaven, have to have someone without sin act as a proxy, only person without sin is God...

I like Ara's interpretation of the creation story as an interpretation of gaining sentience.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Why didn't he use that sinless proxy to fix thew whole shebang and return us to innocence and Eden?
Oh and plenty of people are mentioned as getting to heaven in the old testament. So your whole "original sin, no one gets in" theory is not going to cut it here.

[Ddrak]

Why didn't he use that sinless proxy to fix thew whole shebang and return us to innocence and Eden?

Because maybe it was a metaphor? Maybe sentience really wasn't such a bad idea after all? I can hit you on the head and return you to pre-sentience if you really want, and plenty of people use all sorts of chemical means to do the same thing. /shrug.

Oh and plenty of people are mentioned as getting to heaven in the old testament. So your whole "original sin, no one gets in" theory is not going to cut it here.

Where did I mention original sin in my statement? You're as bad as a fundie debating an evolutionist.

Similarly, if you want to discuss old testament salvation then why didn't you say so? There's this whole slew of innocent sacrifices they used (also known as burnt offerings). There's also the whole Catholic theory of purgatory if you want to go down that path. I'm also skeptical of your assertion that there are "plenty of people mentioned as getting to heaven" in the OT.

Far as I can see, the theory that God doesn't allow sin in heaven cuts it just fine.

Dd

[Arathena]

What's so hard to get about God not breaking the rules he sets for himself? Wouldn't be much of a God if you went around breaking your own rules all the time, would you?

Dd

Breaking the rules he set for himself? So about that new testament thing.

He found a loophole. Can't let sinners get to heaven, have to have someone without sin act as a proxy, only person without sin is God...

I like Ara's interpretation of the creation story as an interpretation of gaining sentience.

Dd

It's not really an interpretation of gaining sentience. It's about the nature of good and evil, and how it is only meaningful to men and women. Knowing that good and evil exist are inextricably linked to suffering (and joy.) The story reminds of that, and attempts to provide a reason why. Some Jewish / Hebrew sources will go into about how it's an extended metaphor for premarital sex. It gets weird fast - but they probably know their own book better than the people who tried to steal it.

[Klast Brell]

Far as I can see, the theory that God doesn't allow sin in heaven cuts it just fine.

Earlier in this thread I was arguing that god could have created a world that made us happier by making us unable to hurt each other IE sin. A common response was that without the ability to sin we would not have free will. I could see that argument used to prove that there would be no free will in heaven.

I'm not buying it. An omnipotent god could make the earth in to heaven right now. An omnipotent god could find a loophole that allowed his children a life free from suffering. An omnipotent god could have found a loophole for the snake and the tree and one would have ever suffered at all in the history of the human race.

[Ddrak]

I could see that argument used to prove that there would be no free will in heaven.

Interesting statement. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but there's certainly a logical argument for it. I'd tend to believe (and after all, we're talking unprovable religion here) that there's free will but you don't really want to sin any more now the sinful part of your nature has been taken away.

Sometimes I wonder if Pratchett got the afterlife right when he says you get what you believe you'll get. If you believe there's nothing then that's what you get. If you believe you're in heaven with your God then that's what you get. If you believe you deserve to burn in hell then that's what you get. If you believe in reincarnation then you get that. It's not even that inconsistent with Christian beliefs, after all the basic description is eternal separation from God - which is certainly what you get if you don't follow his way according to Pratchett. Still, I don't actually give a lot of thought to the alternatives - I believe what I believe and enjoy the logical arguments that surround it because it refines my feelings and thoughts. As long as I go to where I believe I go then I'm fine with other people going wherever they think they will. If they don't end up in Dante's Inferno, then even better really.

I don't think suffering is avoidable. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a life with no ability to harm others would be feasible - it sounds good on the surface but the more you explore it the less I think it would be better than the life we have now. We had that debate though, and probably didn't change our positions much.

In all, while I like discussing religion, I despair of those who can't discuss it without a truckload of logical fallacies and the like. Sadly, those are vastly in the majority on the religious side than the non-religious side of the discussion.

btw - ever read or listened to Richard Dawkins? Personally I think he's a brilliant author, scientist and philosopher. I disagree with his conclusions, but that makes it even more worth reading.

Dd

[Select]

I linked Dawkins awhile back. I think it got shot down.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Hmm I'll have to check Dawkins out.

And that viewpoint fits with mine perfectly DD - that we all literally create our own reality. That and we willing participate in other "shared" or "communal" realities. So I guess my belief would be that you can go anywhere you want in the afterlife, but you'll long for the company of others, and you'll end up right back here in the trenches with your buddies.

That and Heaven sounds boring. No growth, no self-improvement. Sounds like total stagnation. I think of that Simpson's episode where Ben Franklin is playing air hockey with Jimmy Hendrix. Probably neat for a while, but again my belief is that the universe pretty much compels the soul to keep pushing forward - true evolution in the greater cosmic sense.

[Baginns Hobbiton]

Hey there,

When a lion drives off another, takes his mate, and kills his cubs, is this evil? No. When a man drives off another man, takes his wife, and kills his children, is this evil? Yes - the man is aware, the lion is not. (Yes, I know, but we're talking in the religious sense.)

I never thought about it this way... thanks.

Breaking the rules he set for himself? So about that new testament thing.

The new testament doesn't break any rules that God set forth. God makes a covenant (basically a contract) with Moses and the Israelites. God lays out for his people what they must do in order to meet his standards. If they do mess up and sin, they can make a sacrifice to God to atone for their mistake. If they sin and do not atone, then the punishment is death.

Christians believe that the standard set forth by God is impossible for humans to meet. Enter the new testiment. God comes down to earth in the form of Jesus and lives a perfect life. He then sacrifices himself to pay the wages of the old testiment law. When he dies, the first convenant that God made with man is fulfilled and satisfied. When he comes back 3 days later, both God and man are now able to enter into a new convenant, which is the basis of Christianity.

I beleive that this was the plan from the start and not a loophole. If God is omniopetant, then he didn't give man free will and then go... "Oh crap, this isn't going to work, I'll have to find something to fix this". He knew from the start what would happen with Adam and Eve and already had a plan to take care of it.

I could see that argument used to prove that there would be no free will in heaven.

This is another interesting concept. I'll have to bring this up in my bible study.

[Klast Brell]

The new testament doesn't break any rules that God set forth. God makes a covenant (basically a contract) with Moses and the Israelites. God lays out for his people what they must do in order to meet his standards. If they do mess up and sin, they can make a sacrifice to God to atone for their mistake. If they sin and do not atone, then the punishment is death.

that seems to suggest that the relationship between god and man went through 4 phases each with it's own set of rules/covenant.

Phase 1 Eden before the snake. One rule, Stay away from the tree.
Phase 2 After the garden, Cain and Able, Noah, etc up to the burning bush. Not sure what the rules were
Phase 3 Foundation of Israel up to crucifixion of Jesus. God gives the stone tablets and rules to man which presumably replace whatever the Phase 2 rules were
Phase 4 Christian Era. Jesus changed the rules set forth by god in Phase 3.

What exactly were the rules for phase 2? What happened when a phase 2 person lived a life pleasing to god died? What happened to them if they lived a life displeasing to god?

[Baginns Hobbiton]

Hey there,

What exactly were the rules for phase 2? What happened when a phase 2 person lived a life pleasing to god died? What happened to them if they lived a life displeasing to god?

In your representation, I would say that Phase 2 would be similar to Phase 4, where it was more based on faith than a set of rules or works. God gives commands to Abram (Abraham) and then rewards him when he is obedient. When Abraham messes up (having a child with his servant because his wife was barren) God still shows him and his child mercy.

13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age.

I'm no biblical scholar but I would say that those like Abraham, Noah, etc who had a relationship with God went to heaven and those who did not were separated from God for eternity.

[Arathena]

The new testament doesn't break any rules that God set forth. God makes a covenant (basically a contract) with Moses and the Israelites. God lays out for his people what they must do in order to meet his standards. If they do mess up and sin, they can make a sacrifice to God to atone for their mistake. If they sin and do not atone, then the punishment is death.

that seems to suggest that the relationship between god and man went through 4 phases each with it's own set of rules/covenant.

Phase 1 Eden before the snake. One rule, Stay away from the tree.
Phase 2 After the garden, Cain and Able, Noah, etc up to the burning bush. Not sure what the rules were
Phase 3 Foundation of Israel up to crucifixion of Jesus. God gives the stone tablets and rules to man which presumably replace whatever the Phase 2 rules were
Phase 4 Christian Era. Jesus changed the rules set forth by god in Phase 3.

What exactly were the rules for phase 2? What happened when a phase 2 person lived a life pleasing to god died? What happened to them if they lived a life displeasing to god?

One must recall that the written Bible is less than half the book - remember, the Torah is only part of a full and complex religious tradition. In establishing the covenant of the rainbow, there is a set of laws also established. There is a rough outline in the Tanakh - Genesis 9 - There's a little bit more than "Haf lawt sexytime n b frootful n fill up teh urthz", and that bit is further entrenched in the traditions as the laws of Noah. There is also the interpretation that these laws were given to Adam and Eve, as well, during their exile from Eden.

One should also recall that this 'eternal reward' stuff is relatively unique to Christianity. The early Hebrew tribes that set down what would become the Tanakh expected their God to punish them in THIS world for their sins, not the next. If they led a life pleasing to God, he would make them prosperous in this life. If they led one displeasing to them, they expected to suffer, and be sent to 'Sheol' - the grave - a little bit faster. But everyone goes to 'Sheol', sinners and the righteous alike.

[Klast Brell]

So was there any afterlife at all in the pre-Moses period?
Would souls die with the body?

[Embar Angylwrath]

So was there any afterlife at all in the pre-Moses period?
Would souls die with the body?

In the Christian tradition, no. Every person had a soul.