Love me or else (Where is it now?)
by hyjyljyj 
, Thursday, December 13, 2012, 17:11 (4145 days ago)
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 13, 2012, 17:22
Re: Where is it now?-Religion is no help at all. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," commands Jesus (Matthew 22, 37). "Fear God," says Peter, his disciple (1st Epistle General, 2, 17). Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-And that fragment of utter brilliance constitutes virtually the most concise expression possible of the utter failure of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general. -Alan Watts also has exposited eloquently (how else would he do it) at length on the utter absurdity of being commanded, in ANY context, "Thou shalt love." Love by its nature MUST come from within, and is completely deaf to any form of external bullying, whether from a dusty book of poems and fables with pages too easily ripped or an ancient guy in a rolling plexiglas box wearing what appear to be a white bathrobe and huge pointy hat. As soon as you ORDER me to love this or that, I become fundamentally unable to do so. I can fear it, all right, which seems to be a fairly suitable substitute for love, to religionists. But for me to love someone or something that continuously dangles my own infintely torturous and perpetual blood-drenched demise over my troubled head, would demonstrate pretty low self-esteem on my part; rather, I curse it, saying "God Damocles! For the love of...You,...get OFF me already!" Otherwise, I am perfectly indistinguishable from Winston Smith being forced to love Big Brother, a horrible kind of impure, ill-gotten, mandated love conveyed in the final and most blood-chilling sentence of the entire terrifying tome. And that's supposed to make me feel all warm and fuzzy?-Moreover, the case is never adequately advanced as to why I even OUGHT to love something or someone so routinely depicted as petty, narcissistic, vindictive and rigidly domineering as Big Br--oops, I mean God. Not to mention murderous, but there is that, too. Why bother to create us and then threaten us all day, every day till we're dead? Guess we'll never know.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Friday, December 14, 2012, 00:31 (4145 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
Re: Where is it now? > > hy: Religion is no help at all. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," commands Jesus (Matthew 22, 37). "Fear God," says Peter, his disciple (1st Epistle General, 2, 17). Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-You don't have the background I have. In the OT is the quote Jesus is quoting. We don't have hell in Judaism tofrighten us. Our OT god doesn't threaten us if we don't love him. > > hy:And that fragment of utter brilliance constitutes virtually the most concise expression possible of the utter failure of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general. -I don't view Judaism as a failure. And as Talmudic scholars reinterpreted the OT as allegory, the nastiness of the OT God takes on a different hue. He is basically teaching ethics and morality and explaining the meaning of life. At least we have softened our guy, but the muslims are having trouble teaching their more militant folks to cool it.-And I don't think Jesus pronounced other than love. His followers who invented the religion about him and the fear. They drove Karen Armstrong out of her religion and her Order because of the fear.-But what we are looking at are the human mistakes in trying to create religions. Religon's stupid ideas are huam stupidity. My born-again wife doesn't go to church: "Jesus didn't ask for churches, he asked just to follow his example", to paraphrase her.
Love me or else
Dhw: Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-Hyjyljyj: And that fragment of brilliance constitutes virtually the most concise expression possible of the utter failure of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general.-Thank you once more for your close reading of the "brief guide" and your enthusiastic response to some of my comments. I really appreciate the support, as most of the time we agnostics come under fire from both sides of the fence!-DAVID: I don't view Judaism as a failure. And as Talmudic scholars reinterpreted the OT as allegory, the nastiness of the OT God takes on a different hue. He is basically teaching ethics and morality and explaining the meaning of life.-I was brought up as a Liberal Jew, and hated every minute of the attempted indoctrination. In those days, we were not taught that the OT was an allegory, but frankly I can't see any allegorical ethics, morality or philosophy, let alone love, in a flood that indiscriminately destroys virtually every man, woman, child and beast; or a God who hardens Pharaoh's heart and then punishes the Egyptians because the Pharaoh said no; or in God's torture of his best mates Abraham and Job.-DAVID: Our OT god doesn't threaten us if we don't love him. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods...(For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth" (Deut. 6, 13-15 ... and elsewhere in this non-allegorical masterpiece of terror.) It's good to hear that the Talmudic scholars are trying to change God's image, but I'm with hyjyljyj every inch of the way. Love has to be earned, not commanded. I loved my parents because they were good people, not because I was ordered to love them. And if my father had told me to prove how much I loved him by murdering one of my sons, I'd have told him to go to hell.-DAVID: "But what we are looking at are the human mistakes in trying to create religions."-I agree, but we can't do anything else. You have created your own religion, but you are still reading God's intentions into his works, just as other believers do, and when your wife says that "Jesus didn't ask for churches, he asked just to follow his example", where does she get such information from, if not from the man-made accounts she has read? If, as you repeatedly say, it is God's choice to stay hidden, what are we supposed to love? Only the subjective image which we create for ourselves, or which has been created by our equally subjective and equally fallible fellow humans. Maybe God never made man at all, but man made God.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Sunday, December 16, 2012, 00:09 (4143 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't view Judaism as a failure. And as Talmudic scholars reinterpreted the OT as allegory, the nastiness of the OT God takes on a different hue. He is basically teaching ethics and morality and explaining the meaning of life. > > dhw: I was brought up as a Liberal Jew, and hated every minute of the attempted indoctrination. In those days, we were not taught that the OT was an allegory, but frankly I can't see any allegorical ethics, morality or philosophy,-I believe I put the debate betweeen Rabbi Lord Sacks and Dawkins on here. Sacks explains my point.-- > DAVID: Our OT god doesn't threaten us if we don't love him. > > dhw:"Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods...(For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth" (Deut. 6, 13-15 ... and elsewhere in this non-allegorical masterpiece of terror.) It's good to hear that the Talmudic scholars are trying to change God's image,-Your quote is correct, I admit. But I had never seen it. But I did know Deut. 6, 4-9 where only love is mnetioned, and I do have them on the door posts of the house, barn and pool house, two of the three are cowboy mezuzahs.-> > DAVID: "But what we are looking at are the human mistakes in trying to create religions." > > dhw: I agree, but we can't do anything else. You have created your own religion, but you are still reading God's intentions into his works, just as other believers do, and when your wife says that "Jesus didn't ask for churches, he asked just to follow his example", where does she get such information from, if not from the man-made accounts she has read?-She follows man-made interpretations. She follows Jesus, but no religion made about him. I have my own relationship with God, but I don't consider it love, perhaps respect is the proper term. As for His intentions, they seem fairly apparent to me. But then I come from a position of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Love me or else
DAVID: I did know Deut. 6, 4-9 where only love is mentioned, and I do have them on the door posts of the house, barn and pool house, two of the three are cowboy mezuzahs.-So how about Deut. 5, 9-10: " [...] for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. / And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." No "love me or else" there, eh? -Your wife "follows man-made interpretations. She follows Jesus, but no religion made about him." Then she has invented her own (woman-made) religion about him.-DAVID: As for His intentions, they seem fairly apparent to me. But then I come from a position of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. -Fairly apparent = beyond a reasonable doubt, and dhw's doubts are, according to your position, unreasonable. But you are my cowboy buddy, my science mentor, and the recipient of my boundless respect, admiration and affection, and so I forgive you, for you know not what you say.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Sunday, December 16, 2012, 14:56 (4142 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Fairly apparent = beyond a reasonable doubt, and dhw's doubts are, according to your position, unreasonable. But you are my cowboy buddy, my science mentor, and the recipient of my boundless respect, admiration and affection, and so I forgive you, for you know not what you say.-Our battle over the Bible is a matter of looking at the history of God. The OT guy comes across as nasty. The NT has a guy who professes love, but his followers make a religion out of him instead of the big guy (my wife's point). The Quran describes a benevolent God but suggests nasty ways of spreading His word. These works are all in an infant way of thinking as civilizing minds are back then in early moral development. We have to admit to ourselves that these books need re-interpreting in light of our ethical development as civilized humans. These are mistakes made by error-prone humans who insist on making religions. It is easy to look past all that and apply reason to the presence of God, as shown by his acts, the muslim approach.-Agnosticism should not be a reaction to religious stupidity, but an open-minded approach to reality, which you are trying to do, and I will keep teaching, for I shall not give up. Your mind is too good to be wasted by disbelief! Remember, I've been there.
Love me or else
by hyjyljyj , Monday, December 17, 2012, 18:51 (4141 days ago) @ David Turell
In my goy opinion the attempt of Talmudic scholars to go back and "humanize" the image of the jealous, angry, violent, murderous Jewish God of the OT is honorable and sensible, since the bizarre description of him invented by the original writers, whoever they may have been, is as blasphemous as anything ever written: How a supposedly omnibenevolent, merciful God could play the horrible mind-torment games that he does, e.g., with his loving children Abraham and Job (not to mention having his "own son" brutally tortured to death for three days) completely defies the sense of reason God himself gave us, if he exists and bestows qualities on people. The mere fact that, after murdering the whole world in Genesis, for an encore he allegedly perpetrates his sick, maniacal assault on Job and Abraham under the pretext of verifying that they really LOVE him could vie for the title of most perverted and twisted idea ever conceived, never mind written down. This is the CREATOR OF LOVE--who is even called love itself--being depicted as methodically using love as a deadly weapon of terror, daring people even to murder their own innocent children in the name of love. It's enough to nauseate almost anyone not brainwashed to accept it as absolutely true, or else.-Really, no demented psychopath of a human parent, bent on warping their children for life through the deliberate infliction of ritual pain and suffocating dread, could ever come close to the magnitude of horror and ill will that gushes from the pen of the men describing the (obviously fictional) mind of their Bible God, which they must have invented in their own insane image. According to the imaginations of these men, God couldn't be more obnoxious if he were a spoiled rotten brat of an enraged, hysterical little girl off her meds for paranoid schizophrenia, but on PCP and gripping an AK-47, who's just been told she's stupid for wearing such an ugly dress.-Similarly Koranic scholars, if they have any interest in improving their religion's atrocious global PR nightmare, would do very well to go back and revisit THEIR little book of horrors as the Christian and Jewish ones have done in an attempt to repair some of the damage, wouldn't they? Currently--and this is unbeknownst to many within islam--the portions sprinkled throughout their glorious tome in no particular chronological order, yet which were written by Mohammed LATER in his life, after he moved from Mecca to Medina and became more of a lunatic freak serial killer and began marauding around the Arabian peninsula slaughtering everything that didn't jump up and worship him and his new spy novel, are portions said by scholars to abrogate any parts he wrote earlier that advocate love, tolerance, treating Jews and Christians (and even muslims) with respect and never killing anyone (even other muslims). In a bizarre bit of twisted irony, this concept roughly approximates in reverse the Christian tradition, wherein the peaceful, conciliatory words of Jesus in the New Testament are said to replace, offset, repudiate or update the mindless, vindictive violence of the Old--one of the main reasons he "came to earth". -This principle of abrogation in islam is generally absent from the awareness of the group called "modern-day peaceful muslims", who believe they can simply ignore the hateful, scary passages and focus on the banal, soothing parts. Their scholars, clerics, imams, etc. would have to officially and relentlessly repudiate Mohammed's later exhortations and the concept of abrogation in order for their so-called religion to have a chance to improve its putrid public image. (Figure the odds of that ever happening--we had some practice last week when we were figuring the odds of spontaneous generation of a living cell from inorganic mush.) The only reason any muslim is peaceful is that they don't truly understand Mohammed's command that they're violating: to get busy murdering all of us infidels as fast as possible, leaving the entire world one giant, acutely paranoid muslim country, languishing under sharia law. -IMHO it legitimately is in abject disgust at this sort of invented poppycock in the name of "revealed words of the living God" that many reasonable minds do indeed turn to agnosticism. One looks at institutionalized ritual and its phony myth books and says, "Well, THAT steaming mess, and that one and that one, certainly can't be right, so...jeez, I dunno," is basically how the thought process goes, in a nutshell. For me, anyway. One can most definitely find agnosticism while reeling away in shock and revulsion from the utter stupidity and hatefulness (and don't forget the mind-control and money-cult aspects) of organized religion...and then go on to examine the options more deeply in a quest to better understand reality.-As usual, thanks to all for letting me rant...unlike the Bible or Koran, this is more like a smorgasbord of thoughts that people are invited mostly to leave on the table, and just partake of the few that they may like :^D)
Love me or else
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 00:05 (4141 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
hy: In my goy opinion the attempt of Talmudic scholars to go back and "humanize" the image of the jealous, angry, violent, murderous Jewish God of the OT is honorable and sensible, since the bizarre description of him invented by the original writers, whoever they may have been, is as blasphemous as anything ever written-As the scholars of the Talmud recognized, they had to soften the stuff written by their warlike predecessors. > > hy: yet which were written by Mohammed LATER in his life, after he moved from Mecca to Medina and became more of a lunatic freak serial killer and began marauding around the Arabian peninsula slaughtering everything that didn't jump up and worship him and his new spy novel...-Mohammed did not write the quran. He was illiterate and dictated it to scribes.Which might help explain the exhorations to spread the religion by war.-> > Hy:As usual, thanks to all for letting me rant...unlike the Bible or Koran, this is more like a smorgasbord of thoughts that people are invited mostly to leave on the table, and just partake of the few that they may like :^D)-Always appreciate your comments. Do you care to reveal a little of your background, other than the religious? You seem well educated in science. As you perhaps know, I am a retired Internist-Cardiologist, and just submitted my third book for publication: The Atheist Delusion; Science IS Finding God, an answer to Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 17:29 (4140 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
Oi.. the hodgepodge of misunderstanding in all of this blows my mind. -Abraham was not tortured, he was tested. Why? Because, should you bother to actually READ the account instead of the cliff notes, YHWH was preparing to bestow a major gift on him and his lineage, and needed to ensure that they were worthy to do whatever was necessary to protect that gift. (i.e. making that bloodline into the nation of Isreal, from which not only would the line of Davidic kings come, not only would they become his chosen people, but they would also produce the heir apparent to his heavenly thrown, Jesus(Yeshua). If you were going to give someone a really major gift(and also a heavy responsibility), would you not test them to make sure they were willing, capable, and deserving of it?-As for Job, YHWH didn't test Job. I am not going to bother clearing up your ignorance on this, but go back and read the account for yourself. -On the whole, what most fail to see is the true nature of the events recorded in the bible. They fail to notice that YHW did not create the shit that mankind waded into, man did that for themselves. The whole account of the deception by the serpent is the backdrop for it. His right to rule, his universal sovereignty was questioned. Now, he could have prevented a whole lot of misery by destroying the uppity angel that possessed the serpent along with Adam and Eve, but it would only make things worse because it would have lent credence to the argument that he did not have the right to rule. Instead, he had to allow things to play out for a time, so that when it was all said and done, when he stamps out the corruption that runs rampant through humanity, there can be no question at all over whether or not his way is better. -It breaks down like this:-YHWH created everything(either directly or vicariously as a manager)-An uppity angel got jealous and challenged his right to rule, bringing mankind into it as well.(Worth pointing out that the issue is that they KNOWINGLY disobeyed)-YHWH was in a catch 22, if he scratched the sinners and started over, his right to rule would be challenged again eventually, if he didn't, there would be suffering because of stupid people making stupid choices and doing stupid things. So, he let's the uppity angel and the ignorant humans do it their way for a bit and watches them screwing it all up. -Along the way, he gave them some advice on how to 'make the best of a bad situation', which they routinely ignore and then whine about how mean and evil he is for letting them reap the rewards from humanity's own choices. he even gave them a couple of ways to erase the burden of their sins, not a get out of jail free card, but a means of atonement for violating his laws. (First with animal sacrifices and later through Yeshua). As for why he allowed his firstborn to die, it was because he was the only thing in creation whose value was high enough to cover the blood price of all creation. (because he was the principle instrument in creating everything else, and also because he was the only other creature aside from YHWH who had 'life in him' as opposed to just having it out on loan. Note that human's ate from the tree of knowledge, not the tree of life)-At some point in the future(according to the prophets), he will give the boot to the current system, put the uppity angel and his posse on time out for a bit, and take a thousand years to set things straight and show folks why his way is better. -At the end of that time, he let's the people choose, and those that don't want to live in his kingdom, he removes the gift of life that he gave them freely in the first place, letting them suffer the consequences of their actions. After that, he rules his kingdom his way having shown that his way is superior.- If you don't believe, good on you, you will find out eventually whether you were right or wrong, as will I, and we will all have to pay for the choices that we made/make. However, if you are going to criticize something, do have the decency to at least get the facts straight please, and try to think it through first instead of just tossing out the same old tired knee jerk reactions of "it's all his fault that we are so fucked up" and "God is such a cranky asshole because he punishes people that break his laws".-Ironically, in Genesis, when YHWH confronted Adam about his disobedience, Adam blamed it on his wife. When he confronted Eve, she blamed it on the snake. When will humanity grow a pair and take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of them without blaming it on someone else?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 17:54 (4140 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: Oi.. the hodgepodge of misunderstanding in all of this blows my mind. > Ironically, in Genesis, when YHWH confronted Adam about his disobedience, Adam blamed it on his wife. When he confronted Eve, she blamed it on the snake. When will humanity grow a pair and take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of them without blaming it on someone else?-I'm so glad you are presenting the OT as allegory. It seems a bit unfair that I'm part of the Chosen People and other nations are threatened with being wiped out. This is why I use science to prove God.So much confusion and misundestanding when you try to use religious teachings. They are just the confusion of unreasonable human minds.
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 18:46 (4140 days ago) @ David Turell
People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs. Why spin a book that doesn't need to be spun? This is part of what is warned against in the story of the serpent. Satan took some of the truth, left off the inconvenient bits, and then presented it as whole truth. Religions, as institutions, are notorious for this. The Hellfire doctrine which Hy referenced is one such case. They use the lake of fire reference to create this concept of an eternal torment, but leave off the part in Rev 20:14,15 where it plainly states that this is refrencing a second death. They also completely ignore the multiple times in the bible that it plainly says that the dead are conscious of nothing, nor are they capable of any action. Another good example is that of the Trinity. They take a statement designed to show unity of purpose between Yeshuah and YHWH, personify the Holy Spirit, and then use it to make the statement that they are all the same entity despite the fact that the entire book states otherwise. -Hy, I am not trying to be preachy. You are free to believe however you choose. All I would ask is that you educate yourself by reading the source text, cross referencing multiple translations, and getting a basic understanding about the original languages used before swallowing what people tell you. The bible is much akin to science in this one regard: if you want to get knowledge and understanding out of it you have to do the leg work. If you just swallow what everyone tells you then you will not only be ignorant of what is really there, but you will also have a lot of misplaced angst and hard feelings about something that have no basis or foundation in reality. Just like millions of people swallow the theory of evolution hook, line, and sinker, and run around thinking that they swung from trees after swimming in the seas and sitting in the the dark as a mushroom, if you swallow every line about faith that someone feeds you then you will run around blaming God for things he never did, slandering him with wild groundless accusations, and generally feeling resentment and bitterness for imagined slights.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 19:21 (4140 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: if you swallow every line about faith that someone feeds you then you will run around blaming God for things he never did, slandering him with wild groundless accusations, and generally feeling resentment and bitterness for imagined slights.-A great balanced comment!
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 16:59 (4140 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
HY: Religion is no help at all. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," commands Jesus (Matthew 22, 37). "Fear God," says Peter, his disciple (1st Epistle General, 2, 17). Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-That would be cause the word translated as fear does not mean fear as used in common English. Ancient Hebrew is a concrete language, they had NO words for abstracts like the modern concepts of 'love', 'hate', 'fear', etc. The word translated as 'fear' literally means a 'flowing or trembling of the gut', analogous to the 'butterflies in the stomach' or violent shaking of someone that is afraid. However, it also means awe or reverence. It means to being in awe of and revering God.- > > And that fragment of utter brilliance constitutes virtually the most concise expression possible of the utter failure of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general. > -No, it constitutes your complete ignorance of it. -> HY: Alan Watts also has exposited eloquently (how else would he do it) at length on the utter absurdity of being commanded, in ANY context, "Thou shalt love." Love by its nature MUST come from within, and is completely deaf to any form of external bullying, whether from a dusty book of poems and fables with pages too easily ripped or an ancient guy in a rolling plexiglas box wearing what appear to be a white bathrobe and huge pointy hat. As soon as you ORDER me to love this or that, I become fundamentally unable to do so. I can fear it, all right, which seems to be a fairly suitable substitute for love, to religionists. But for me to love someone or something that continuously dangles my own infintely torturous and perpetual blood-drenched demise over my troubled head, would demonstrate pretty low self-esteem on my part; rather, I curse it, saying "God Damocles! For the love of...You,...get OFF me already!" Otherwise, I am perfectly indistinguishable from Winston Smith being forced to love Big Brother, a horrible kind of impure, ill-gotten, mandated love conveyed in the final and most blood-chilling sentence of the entire terrifying tome. And that's supposed to make me feel all warm and fuzzy? > -Love is not a feeling. Love is an action, it is something that you do. It is likened to the care shown as though for a precious gift. So, a commandment to love is not absurd, because it does not have to come from within, but must shown through action as you care for the gifts that you have been given. -> HY: Moreover, the case is never adequately advanced as to why I even OUGHT to love something or someone so routinely depicted as petty, narcissistic, vindictive and rigidly domineering as Big Br--oops, I mean God. Not to mention murderous, but there is that, too. Why bother to create us and then threaten us all day, every day till we're dead? Guess we'll never know.-You are breathing. You have the capability and autonomy to question why you should do anything. If God was such a tyrant, why would he allow you any choice at all? If all he wanted was mindless slaves then why didn't he simply create us that way instead? Given the previous explanation of your complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the nature of love and fear in the biblical context, why should God NOT demand that you take care of the precious gift that you have been given and to show due respect?-See, you labor under the modern ignorant misconception that when you love something that you would never do anything to hurt it. A parent that loves their child often disciplines the child, not out of a desire to hurt the child, but out of a desire to ensure that the child grows up strong and good. Likewise, the tender of an orchard or vinyard will often cut the vines or trim the limbs of the plants under their care in order to ensure that they grow strong and healthy instead of being bent under the weight of their own dead or harmful growth. -Also, you might want to check some of your statements regarding their accuracy. The hellfire doctrine is not biblically sound. No where in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torment of the dead. In fact, it specifically says that the dead are conscious of nothing. And lastly, god does not FORCE you to do anything. He gives you a choice and makes you aware of the consequences of that choice. You are free to do as you please, as you have so aptly demonstrated. However, if you do chose to do as you please, you are accepting the consequences of your actions. This is no different than secular law. You are free to speed, do drugs, kill, steal, cheat on your taxes, or molest little children, but should you choose to do so, there are consequences for those actions. As a Godhead, the creator and rule of the universe, why should he NOT expect people to obey his laws? And, more to the point, why do YOU set a double standard, demanding that people do something(creating and enforcing laws) while decrying God for doing the same thing? Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, no?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 17:37 (4140 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 17:44
> BM: That would be cause the word translated as fear does not mean fear as used in common English. Ancient Hebrew is a concrete language, they had NO words for abstracts like the modern concepts of 'love', 'hate', 'fear', etc. The word translated as 'fear' literally means a 'flowing or trembling of the gut', analogous to the 'butterflies in the stomach' or violent shaking of someone that is afraid. However, it also means awe or reverence. It means to being in awe of and revering God. > Love is not a feeling. Love is an action, it is something that you do. It is likened to the care shown as though for a precious gift. So, a commandment to love is not absurd, because it does not have to come from within, but must shown through action as you care for the gifts that you have been given. > > See, you labor under the modern ignorant misconception that when you love something that you would never do anything to hurt it. A parent that loves their child often disciplines the child, not out of a desire to hurt the child, but out of a desire to ensure that the child grows up strong and good. Likewise, the tender of an orchard or vinyard will often cut the vines or trim the limbs of the plants under their care in order to ensure that they grow strong and healthy instead of being bent under the weight of their own dead or harmful growth. --Tony: I am in awe of your knowledge of ancient Hebrew. You sound like a Talmudic scholar. I am able only to read or listen to commentaries. Thank you for your explanation.-The Dead Sea scrolls are now available on Google. The ancient Isaiah is 99.9% the same as the Masoretic text in my Bible from 300AD:-http://phys.org/news/2012-12-google-dead-sea-scrolls-online.html
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 21:21 (4140 days ago) @ David Turell
I know very little. I am still studying and learning every day, but understanding even the basic concept of the Ancient Hebrew as a language, and the Israelites as a people makes some of the more common misunderstandings regarding the interpretation of the biblical texts much clearer.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else
by hyjyljyj , Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 16:38 (4139 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Welcome "aboard". Good to have another fresh voice... -B_M: "...your complete ignorance...etc."-Hello and Happy Holidays to you as well. Laying aside the amusing absolutism of bursting in to allege someone's "complete ignorance" about love and fear...they really aren't, after all, such alien concepts--biblical context be damned (that pun's for you, David :^D). Moreover the bold declaration that "Love is not a feeling. Love is an action" may be popular among the daytime TV and pop psychology set but is unbacked. It is opinion dressed up in a fact costume. We might very well feel love without doing anything about it, such as in the case of "forbidden fruit" (if you'll pardon the biblical metaphor for the married neighbor). In that case love is a feeling, regardless of whether one may wish to label it something else. It certainly feels like a feeling; is any further confirmation required, or even possible?-B_M: A parent that loves their child often disciplines the child, not out of a desire to hurt the child, but out of a desire to ensure that the child grows up strong and good. -And a parent who loves their child often doesn't kill it, plan to kill it, threaten to kill it, or dare it to kill its own children, all in the name of "love". See, it's all the killing that seems as if it might hurt the child. (But that's just me, and it has been established that I am ignorant.) It forms a depiction of so-called love, of which I do quite happily admit being totally, completely, 100% ignorant. I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "Everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects." Also, you might want to check some of your statements regarding their accuracy. The hellfire doctrine is not biblically sound. No where [sic] in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torment of the dead. That first sentence applies to its writer: Of course I have no idea what version of the Bible you have, but gee whiz...all of mine are chock full of references specifically to this. I am deeply uninterested in playing the Bible quote game, nor will I bother doing your homework for you; rather you can google it as I just did a moment ago, and verify the word-for-word passages for yourself. Plenty of results there to keep you busy begging the Lord for forgiveness for having unnecessarily embarrassed yourself regarding His Living Word. Here, in the spirit of Christmas I'll help you get started with the first result I came across, Matt 10:28, wherein we read: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell." Those are allegely the words of Jesus himself. Do they count? If not, you may prefer a second example from 2 Thess 1:8-9, which speaks of Jesus using "flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction..." (NRSV) If you wish to exclude those two troublesome verses from consideration, perhaps because they serve to obliterate your assertion that they don't exist, there are plenty more where those came from. Just making the effort to search for them as I did, rather than casting aspersions, might do more to further the discussion and make readers more open in the future to your views as rational, sensible and foundationally sound.-why do YOU set a double standard, demanding that people do something(creating and enforcing laws) while decrying God for doing the same thing? Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, no?-For God to "do the same thing", or do anything at all, presupposes that he exists as an a priori fact; and further that the creator of life deliberately instills within the objects of his creation an overwhelming desire to constantly do things that upset and enrage him to a marked degree: he makes rules which he knows in advance will be repeatedly violated. The issue of free will vs. determinism is something that rational people can have a respectful discussion about; conversely you are simply assuming, to make a point here on the agnostic web site, that the angry, jealous, vindictive, dictatorial God of the Bible actually exists just as described therein, and now that that's firmly established--because "the Bible tells us so," we suppose--they who question it prove thereby that they are ignorant hypocrites laboring under silly notions. Whereas one of the cool things that you will find about this forum, and the only reason I'm still here, is that participants uniformly refrain from ad hominem attacks and name-calling, which so far as I know with my finite brain and its sharply limited knowledge have never served to advance any position anywhere, online or in person. -Hopefully moving forward, more balance can be maintained :) Peace, Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukkah & Happy New Year
Love me or else
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 18:24 (4139 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
> Hy: you are simply assuming, to make a point here on the agnostic web site, that the angry, jealous, vindictive, dictatorial God of the Bible actually exists just as described therein, and now that that's firmly established--because "the Bible tells us so," we suppose--they who question it prove thereby that they are ignorant hypocrites laboring under silly notions. -Tony's approach is why I do not use religions or the bible to make my scientific points as to god's existence. I also try not to give God an human attributes or personality. There is no way for us to know once you avoid taking any Bible part as true. The OT has some true history. The rest is allegory or hearsay. I take on atheism only at the science level, as my new book will show. They have every right to make fun of the Biblical arguments, which is why i stay away.
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 22:56 (4139 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Hy: you are simply assuming, to make a point here on the agnostic web site, that the angry, jealous, vindictive, dictatorial God of the Bible actually exists just as described therein, and now that that's firmly established--because "the Bible tells us so," we suppose--they who question it prove thereby that they are ignorant hypocrites laboring under silly notions. > -Let's put this in perspective. YOU started a thread talking about the OT God. YOU call him "angry, jealous, vindictive, dictatorial God of the Bible". YOU question why he killed people, and use that against him. That was a conversation YOU started. I simply responded to YOUR thread based on the criteria that YOU put into motion. -If YOU are going to start a thread about the Biblical God, why should I not respond using biblical sources? If YOU are going to criticize the Bible, why should I not question your knowledge of the bible based on the statements that you make? -If I were to start a thread on evolution and misused, misstated, or misrepresented the theory or relative science regarding it, you would point out my ignorance and attempt to educate me, as David, DHW, and others on this site have before about various topics. -You assume that God does not exist. DHW assumes nothing. David assumes that science provides the path to god, but assumes no deistic personality. I assume that the Bible offers some insight into god, as does as science. We all make assumptions. We are all ignorant. This entire website is devoted to speculation on things that we are ignorant of based on things that we do know.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 21:22 (4139 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
Ignorance is not an insult, Hyjyljyj. Sorry you took it that way. We are all ignorant of a great many things. Admitting that is the first step towards learning anything at all. One of the greatest things about this website and those that post here is that we tend to freely admit when we are ignorant of things. How can anyone hope to learn anything if they think they know it all already?-I will respond to both you and DHW more in depth later this evening when I have more time, but the simple truth is, you are not approaching the subject with an open mind to begin with. You start with the premise that you already know, and with a good degree of anger and bitterness, at least from the manner and tone of your posts. -As others here know, but you may not be aware, I do not claim to be agnostic. I am a deist, though I hold no claim to be a Christian fundamentalist. Just as David, DHW, and Bella all comment according to their own perspectives and beliefs, so do I. That will not change simply because there is a new person posting in the threads.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
PART ONE-I had written all this before seeing hyjyljyj's reply, so there is some duplication as we clearly have similar views on the subject.-dhw: Religion is no help at all. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," commands Jesus (Matthew 22, 37). "Fear God," says Peter, his disciple (1st Epistle General, 2, 17). Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-TONY: [...] the word translated as fear does not mean fear as used in common English. Ancient Hebrew is a concrete language, they had NO words for abstracts like the modern concepts of 'love', 'hate', 'fear', etc. The word translated as 'fear' literally means a 'flowing or trembling of the gut', analogous to the 'butterflies in the stomach' or violent shaking of someone that is afraid. However, it also means awe or reverence. It means being in awe of and revering God.-I will of course take your word for it as far as the language goes, but this does not mean the ancient Hebrews did not experience fear! When the young mother stood with her children waiting for God's flood to drown them, I doubt very much whether the word that entered her head meant awe or reverence. All language depends on context. My modern translation reads: "Be in fear of God." The fact is, no translation can ever be anything other than an interpretation of the original (I have had over 40 years' experience in translating texts), but with the Bible the reader is dependent not only on the subjectivity of the translator(s), but also on the authority of scholars who themselves cannot agree on the meaning of the original. Hyjyljyj and I have reacted to the translation that has been accepted for centuries and is still taught in schools and preached in churches over here (since the King James version is still standard). And frankly, if God is prepared to slaughter the innocents with his flood, I see every reason to fear him.-TONY: Love is not a feeling. Love is an action, it is something that you do. It is likened to the care shown as though for a precious gift. So, a commandment to love is not absurd, because it does not have to come from within, but must shown through action as you care for the gifts that you have been given. I am bewildered by this statement. All my life I have regarded love as an emotion or feeling (and all my dictionaries include one of these words in their definitions) ... possibly the most powerful, and certainly a great motivator of action. If you do not FEEL love, i.e. if it does not come from within, you will not act lovingly. How do you "do" love? TONY: See, you labor under the modern ignorant misconception that when you love something that you would never do anything to hurt it. A parent that loves their child often disciplines the child, not out of a desire to hurt the child, but out of a desire to ensure that the child grows up strong and good.-I don't think any of us would quarrel with this. But the threat I quoted (16 December at 13.00) is worth repeating in its modern version: "I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those that hate me; but exacting loving-kindness toward the thousandth generation in the case of those who love me and keep my commandments." I'd say this goes somewhat beyond disciplining a child.-TONY: Also, you might want to check some of your statements regarding their accuracy. The hellfire doctrine is not biblically sound. No where in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torment of the dead. In fact, it specifically says that the dead are conscious of nothing.-There are several quite specific mentions of hell or Hades. Here is just one (modern translation) from Luke 16, 22-25 (edited for brevity and relevance): Also the rich man died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus [...] So he called and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me [...] because I am in anguish in this blazing fire. But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you received in full your good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus correspondingly the injurious things. Now, however, he is having comfort here, but you are in anguish.' (Later, there is reference to "this place of torment.") Conscious of nothing? No torment of the dead? Why tell such an anecdote if it's not to be taken seriously?
Love me or else (Part Two)
PART TWO-TONY: Oi.. the hodgepodge of misunderstanding in all of this blows my mind. Abraham was not tortured, he was tested. I used "torture" to cover Abraham and Job, as I would regard it as mental torture if I were told to murder my son in order to prove my devotion to God. The text doesn't actually tell us why God "tested" him (my modern version uses the word "tempt"), but his reward is God saying that "in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed [...] and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Your own explanation (to make sure he's worthy to start the line leading to David and ultimately to Jesus) is a good defence, though not specified anywhere in the text as far as I can see.-TONY: As for Job, YHWH didn't test Job. I am not going to bother clearing up your ignorance on this, but go back and read the account for yourself. -Satan says that Job will curse God if God takes everything away from him, and God says he's all yours. When Job's suffering becomes unbearable, God tells him how powerful he (God) is, so Job says you're right, and God rewards him by making him even richer than before. Are you claiming that God didn't test him because he got Satan to do the dirty work? That's a quibble. Why do you think God rewarded him if it wasn't because he passed the test?-Your post goes on to castigate humans for blaming God when they themselves are to blame. Your wrath is directed at hyjljyj, and perhaps I should leave him to answer for himself (HE HAS!), but I have read his posts and I cannot find a single word to justify your attack. His post is, to use his own word, a "rant" against the cruelty of the God portrayed in the Bible, and he asks the question how we can love such a figure. You always do an excellent job defending God against these accusations, but as you so rightly say in another post: "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." We all do our share of spinning, whether knowingly or unknowingly, especially when there is such a huge text in which you can find evidence for virtually any argument you like. I stand solidly behind the examples hyjljyj and I have given, and although I do agree with you that much of the suffering in the world is our own fault, I'm afraid my interpretation of past and present catastrophes is not always the same as yours. -TONY: Hy, I am not trying to be preachy. You are free to believe however you choose. All I would ask is that you educate yourself by reading the source text, cross referencing multiple translations, and getting a basic understanding about the original languages used before swallowing what people tell you. The bible is much akin to science in this one regard: if you want to get knowledge and understanding out of it you have to do the leg work. If you just swallow what everyone tells you then you will not only be ignorant of what is really there, but you will also have a lot of misplaced angst and hard feelings about something that have no basis or foundation in reality. This is true, but hardly practicable. None of us can possibly make ourselves experts in all the fields that are required to form an opinion on the subjects we discuss, and in any case there is no "expert" consensus on any of them. Even you are forced to rely on scholars of Ancient Hebrew to make your judgements on what the texts really mean (although of course neither you nor they can ever know). You are, in my view, absolutely right to be sceptical when people present opinion as if it were fact. I am no physicist or cosmologist, but when an expert announces that before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing, I am sceptical. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but when an expert announces that "Natural selection explains the whole of life", I am sceptical. And when a biblical scholar tells me that "Fear God" does not mean be afraid, and I consider the awesome power of a God who can create and destroy whole worlds at will, and I recall other passages in the same book in which he makes it clear that he will jolly well use that power, I am sceptical. In your posts, you have several times used the word "ignorant", and again I can only answer for myself. I find the term completely apt. I am ignorant about Ancient Hebrew, ignorant about the origin of the universe and life, ignorant about the existence or non-existence of God, and ignorant about his nature, if he does exist. I am fortunate enough to be engaged in a discussion with several highly intelligent, highly educated, highly articulate people of various beliefs and non-beliefs, for all of whom I have the greatest respect, yourself emphatically included. I have no way of knowing how far their own ignorance on these subjects extends in proportion to my own. Unfortunately, nor have they!
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 18:33 (4139 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I am fortunate enough to be engaged in a discussion with several highly intelligent, highly educated, highly articulate people of various beliefs and non-beliefs, for all of whom I have the greatest respect, yourself emphatically included. I have no way of knowing how far their own ignorance on these subjects extends in proportion to my own. Unfortunately, nor have they!-Hear, hear!!!
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 18:30 (4139 days ago) @ dhw
> TONY: Also, you might want to check some of your statements regarding their accuracy. The hellfire doctrine is not biblically sound. No where in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torment of the dead. In fact, it specifically says that the dead are conscious of nothing. > > dhw:There are several quite specific mentions of hell or Hades. Here is just one (modern translation) from Luke 16, 22-25 (edited for brevity and relevance): Also the rich man died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus [...] So he called and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me [...] because I am in anguish in this blazing fire. But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you received in full your good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus correspondingly the injurious things. Now, however, he is having comfort here, but you are in anguish.' (Later, there is reference to "this place of torment.") Conscious of nothing? No torment of the dead? Why tell such an anecdote if it's not to be taken seriously?-All of this proves, we should stay away from arguing about the Bible. It is a human invention, with no proof it is the word of God, another human invention. Use science. God is there.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 05:06 (4139 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: ..This does not mean the ancient Hebrews did not experience fear! > -Yes, they absolutely felt fear. The difference is, as I have said, that their language is a concrete language. Passion, Anger, Jealousy, are all based on a word that literally means 'a flaring of the nostrils' because these are the concrete actions that the abstract feeling causes. They didn't think in abstracts. That didn't come along until the Greeks. -As for the flood account, consider this: YHWH looked and saw that the whole world was wicked. He was going to wipe out all of the creatures on the earth. Then, he spotted one man out of the lot that was good, and spared him and his family. The same happened to the woman in Jericho. The same with Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah(Southern Canaan), a people that were known for raping strangers. The Canaanites, whom he ordered exterminated, had been given multiple chances to clean up their act before they were destroyed. They, as a people, burned their children on the altars of Baal, their priestesses were prostitutes. -In fact, this is what you see time and time and time again throughout the text. YHWH gave people ample warning and time to clean up their act and get the heck out before he caused the destruction. -Something other to consider, to use an analogy, is the way ideals spread, like cancer. If a doctor were to excise a cancerous tumor, but leave half of it in, you could expect with some certainty that the cancer would spread, eventually killing its host. Even if the doctor only left a few of the cancerous cells, it is enough to spread and grow the cancerous tumors again. This was the ideal behind the genocide. Having given people multiple opportunities and ample time to change their ways, he decided to excise the culture from the world. Now, a doctor might remove some good cells in their efforts to excise the tumor. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that perhaps a few good people might have died. But consider two points. One, as mentioned before, YHWH repeatedly demonstrated that he would spare people that did not fit into the criteria. Two, if YHWH is the giver of life, then even should he kill a few so-called innocents, he has not taken anything that he could not return in better condition than he took it. - > DHW: How do you "do" love? > -Think of your relationship with your wife. You 'love' her in the abstract Greek since of the word, no? But how do you show your love? Do you take care of her? Do you treat her with kindness and respect? Show her trust? Help her when she needs it, and perhaps even when she doesn't? Tell her, kindly, when she is mistaken and show her why? Listen to her when she does the same for you? There are so very many many ways to "do" love. It is 'cherishing a precious gift that you have been given', whether that be your family, friends, mate, or even a stranger when you stop to consider that having other people on the planet that you can associate with in a meaningful way is indeed a gift. Just imagine how terrible life would be if you were all alone. If love were simply a feeling, you could love and do nothing, but if you do nothing you do not love. - > ..a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those that hate me;.. > -Note the end of that verse where the reward for loving him is the to thousandth generation, far exceeding the punishment. David often talks about epigenetics. In this form of genetics, the sins of the father are literally passed on to the offspring, yet, science shows that these epigenetic changes only last for a few generations. Even with these genetic anomalies, people can still choose to overcome their genetic inheritance to an extent, so even in that there is a chance for overcoming your inheritance. Also 1 John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. Simple as that. ->DHW: Conscious of nothing? No torment of the dead? Why tell such an anecdote if it's not to be taken seriously?-Read This Verses 1-7- As for the other, the word Hell did not even exist at the time the bible was written. It was introduced sometime after 700AD There are actually four or five different words that are all translated as hell in the KJV: she'ol, geeenna, hades, and tartarus. Of these, only she'ol, and geeenna are used in the OT, tartarus is only used once in a parable, and hades only appears in the NT. The quote from Luke actually uses the word tartarus and is a parable, which is much like a fable, a story told to teach a moral lesson. In this case, it says that when people do not believe, even if you brought someone back from the dead, right in front of them, the would not believe. It is worth mentioning here that they were talking among a people steeped in Greek culture, so using the common parlance when trying to teach them makes sense. -See Luke 16:30-31 where the parable is concluded: "31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." No matter what you try to tell someone, if they refuse to listen, you could raise the dead and they would still disbelieve. Believing is seeing, not the other way around. (Something we say about science all the time, where personal bias effects the interpretation of the results.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 05:57 (4139 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
One last post and then I will stop, as apparently it is rude for me to discuss the bible in a thread that centers on a biblical topic.. o_O-The OP asked how one could be commanded to love God. In my last post, I referenced 1 John 5:3 "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.(KJV)"-YHWH is often depicted as a father or husband figure. I would like to give an analogy here that might make some of this make more sense. -Say you are a husband to a woman, and a father to a house full of children. You married the woman in good faith and remained faithful to her throughout your marriage. The children, you provided with all that they needed: a beautiful home, guidance for how to live a healthy and prosperous life, food, and near complete freedom. However, you also provided them with some basic rules which you expected them to follow, so long as they live under your roof. Nothing to hard, just how to treat each other in order to ensure peace and tranquility and health in the home. Now, at some point your wife becomes unfaithful, sleeping around on you, talking trash, not taking care of her portion in regards to the house, lying to her kids etc. She continues this despite you calling her on it multiple times, and giving her many chances over the years to change. Would you divorce her? Would you do it if you knew that it would, in the end, end up poisoning the minds of your children? What if some, not all, of your children started behaving like their mother, breaking all of the rules that you had laid out for your household. In fact, those kids were so bad that they threatened the safety of the other children in your home. Would you continue to allow them to live in your home, or would you kick them out in order to keep the household from crumbling?-This is the story of YHWH, according to the OT/NT. Except for him, the universe is his house. There is only one exit door, death. You are either in the house, or not. The wages sin pays is death; justice demands it. Yet, even in this he provided a way back home, contingent upon a probationary period during which you could demonstrate your ability to live by the house rules. Loving him is following the house rules. The house rules are there to make life pleasant for everyone.-Religion was his wife, specifically the religion of the Israelite nation. But, she screwed around with Baal, had a lesbionic fling with Athtart, and on and on with multiple partners. The older she got the more corrupt she became, until she was shacking up with damn near every deity on the block.(This still goes on today... Have a look at the origins of the dates and practices of Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc. etc. etc. Apollo, Ishtar, the dead, and a whole slew of pagan religions kicked in by the early 'Christian' church when they became the state religion of Rome.)-His children were mankind. Some followed the rules, others at least tried to follow the rules, others still held them in complete contempt and scorn and tried to influence the other kids to do the same. They had to be kicked out of the house or things would have gotten so much worse that they can scarcely be imagined. Could you think of what the world would be like if Baal worship had rose to become the predominant religion? Now, there were times that he was harder on his kids than others. In fact, one time he kicked damn near all of them out of the house, but he was regretful at what he had to do that he promised that he would not do it again, not because he shouldn't, but because he knew that from then on, his kids would all be corrupt to some extent or another. So, he resigned himself to be patient until such a time as he could set things right. -Before Noah:-The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." - After the Flood:-"Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.-22"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."-How is it that it can be said that his is a vicious, angry, bitter tyrant? He made a promise not to wipe out all the earth no matter how fucked up we behaved, no matter how much we destroyed, no matter how much pain we caused each other or him. That is akin to giving your house to a man, watching him destroy to the point where it is better off to evict him, demolish the house, and rebuild, then showing mercy and giving him the keys again and saying you won't evict him no matter how bad he screws up all of your hard work. Yet, you sit here and call him a vicious tyrant and act as though he would have no reason to be bitter or angry!- Side Note to David: Religion, much like Science, does have a form of proof. The proof is in the accuracy of prophecies made, just as it is in science. The bible is full of prophecies.. can you count how many have come true?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Thursday, December 20, 2012, 13:45 (4138 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> BM: Side Note to David: Religion, much like Science, does have a form of proof. The proof is in the accuracy of prophecies made, just as it is in science. The bible is full of prophecies.. can you count how many have come true?-Show me! So I can accept the evidence or pick it apart.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 18:14 (4138 days ago) @ David Turell
That is a massive topic of conversation. Email me your address and I will send you some books when I get home that cover the topic much more thoroughly than I can do on here. My email is Ravaught@gmail.com
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Friday, December 21, 2012, 01:35 (4138 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: That is a massive topic of conversation. Email me your address and I will send you some books when I get home that cover the topic much more thoroughly than I can do on here. My email is Ravaught@gmail.com-I don't mean to make a huge excursion into prophesies. For the good of the group, I thought you might present let's say two prophesies to demonstrate your point. You have to remember I do not consider the Bible the innerant word of God. I consider the New Testament as heresay. This is why I use science. If you wish to discuss something on the side my email is turell@att.net but I think a discussion of prophesy is a legitimate subject here, just as I present NDE's as a proof of afterlife.-I admire the amount of study you have done in Ancient Hebrew and other languages. I have relied on authorities in that area. And I fully know the limitations of ancient Hebrew.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 21, 2012, 02:43 (4138 days ago) @ David Turell
Ok, as you wish. :)-Two prophecies, one from Isaiah, one from Daniel, because they are tied together. Isaiah 44-45 tells that the Israelite nation would be led into captivity, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. It names Babylon as the one to destroy them. It also names Cyrus, King of Persia, (in 45:1) as the one that would free them from captivity and rebuild the temple. This would happen some 200 years later.-Nebudchadnezzar, King of Babylon, in 618 B.C.E. In 539 B.C.E, the Medo-Persion empire headed by Darious I of Mede and Cyrus of Persia overthrew Babylon. -The book of Daniel, Chapter two has him interpretting a dream for Nebudchadnezzar, around approx 606/605 B.C.E. In his interpretation, stated that, counting Babylon, there would be 6 world powers, and by the description of them gave some indication of whom they would be, namely:Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Anglo-American, and the final would be a politically divided world power, the iron like tyrants and the clay like democracies that were ruled by the people (i.e. the League of Nations and it's second incarnation the U.N.).-I chose these two because you are able to verify them in outside historical records. There is also the prophecy regarding the destruction of Babylon that said it would never be inhabited again, which it has not been to this day, despite the fact that it is still prime real estate in the middle east.- We can keep going if you like. There are something like 2000 prophecies in the Bible, though I do not claim to be as familiar with all of them.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Saturday, December 22, 2012, 02:11 (4137 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: Ok, as you wish. :) > > Two prophecies, one from Isaiah, one from Daniel, because they are tied together. Isaiah 44-45 tells that the Israelite nation would be led into captivity, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. It names Babylon as the one to destroy them. It also names Cyrus, King of Persia, (in 45:1) as the one that would free them from captivity and rebuild the temple. This would happen some 200 years later.-In my bible, a Masaretic text, it is Isaiah 39. Cyrus is not mentioned there but the captivity is. Cyrus does free them later. My problem is that these are ancient documents. Isaiah dates to about 735-720 B.C., but our earliest scroll is written about the time of Jesus, written by the Essenes. Was it word of mouth before. How accurate is the description. This has always been my problem. You accept these writngs verbatim. Don't you really think the admonition in my Bible is correct?: "The books of the bible are ancient documents. As in all such cases, time has blurred the clear meaning os some of its original words, phrases and allusions." > The book of Daniel, Chapter two has him interpretting a dream for Nebudchadnezzar, around approx 606/605 B.C.E. In his interpretation, stated that, counting Babylon, there would be 6 world powers, and by the description of them gave some indication of whom they would be, namely:Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Anglo-American, and the final would be a politically divided world power, the iron like tyrants and the clay like democracies that were ruled by the people (i.e. the League of Nations and it's second incarnation the U.N.).-I have read this also. I cannot see how you can stretch the descripions Daniel gave to your statements above. I appreciate all the research you have done and I admire your faith in these documents, but we are totally on two different wavelengths. I appreciate your presenting them. With my point of view they are meaningless to me, but in no way am I trying to denigrate your belief system. Thank you for showing me what you mean.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 22, 2012, 02:56 (4137 days ago) @ David Turell
Errr, Daniel actually explains the prophecy himself. That was the other reason I used that one, because you can see the explanation right there where he is explaining it to Nebuchadnezzar. He doesn't use names but he does state that each of the sections represents world powers. I could explain it in greater detail, but I was giving you an opportunity to read it for yourself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Saturday, December 22, 2012, 05:52 (4137 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: Errr, Daniel actually explains the prophecy himself. That was the other reason I used that one, because you can see the explanation right there where he is explaining it to Nebuchadnezzar. He doesn't use names but he does state that each of the sections represents world powers. I could explain it in greater detail, but I was giving you an opportunity to read it for yourself.-I appreciate your efforts, but my version doesn't convince me.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 22, 2012, 20:45 (4136 days ago) @ David Turell
BM: Errr, Daniel actually explains the prophecy himself. That was the other reason I used that one, because you can see the explanation right there where he is explaining it to Nebuchadnezzar. He doesn't use names but he does state that each of the sections represents world powers. I could explain it in greater detail, but I was giving you an opportunity to read it for yourself. > > David: I appreciate your efforts, but my version doesn't convince me.-The irony of that statement is that people will accept other things, such as NDE's, string theory, the BBT, Evolution, etc on scanter evidence than can be gathered for the verification of the biblical text.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 00:33 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> BM: The irony of that statement is that people will accept other things, such as NDE's, string theory, the BBT, Evolution, etc on scanter evidence than can be gathered for the verification of the biblical text.-I don't see the irony, but perhaps I am more trusting of science than you are. I just recognize that large portions of both testaments are heresay as I said before. We are just not going to meet on this issue.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 22, 2012, 21:11 (4136 days ago) @ David Turell
BM: Ok, as you wish. :) > > > > Two prophecies, one from Isaiah, one from Daniel, because they are tied together. Isaiah 44-45 tells that the Israelite nation would be led into captivity, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. It names Babylon as the one to destroy them. It also names Cyrus, King of Persia, (in 45:1) as the one that would free them from captivity and rebuild the temple. This would happen some 200 years later. > > David: In my bible, a Masaretic text, it is Isaiah 39. Cyrus is not mentioned there but the captivity is. Cyrus does free them later. My problem is that these are ancient documents. Isaiah dates to about 735-720 B.C., but our earliest scroll is written about the time of Jesus, written by the Essenes. Was it word of mouth before. How accurate is the description. This has always been my problem. You accept these writngs verbatim. Don't you really think the admonition in my Bible is correct?: "The books of the bible are ancient documents. As in all such cases, time has blurred the clear meaning os some of its original words, phrases and allusions." > - Believe it or not, I don't take them on faith, not entirely at any rate. I take them as accurate based on a accumulation of outside data that supports to accuracy of the information that predates the Christian Greek Scriptures. I.E. If what archaeology can gather about the surrounding time frames matches what is found in the text to the Nth degree, then we can assume that the parts that archaeology can not yet confirm could, at a later date, be confirmed. -There was a stone found in Egypt, written in Egyptian, that mirrors the biblical story of Joseph almost word for word. Imhotep is the name on the Egyptian engraving(notice that even the name is similar and the differences between them are most likely due to the fact that Ancient Hebrew did not have written vowels).-The discovery of the five early Hittite Temples, complete with texts that verify the early biblical writings of the Pentateuch. -The discovery of Bab edh-Drha, and surrounding cities that match the date, location, and method of destruction to the Biblical 'cities of the plains'(i.e. Sodom, Gohmorrah, etc).-The evidence that the city walls of Jericho fell outward, as opposed to inwards as is normal during a city seige, and that the residential area matched the descriptions in Jeremiah. -I could go on and on with various other discoveries that have time and again confirmed the accounts given in the Bible. -So, no, I don't take it on faith. The evidence I continue to find strengthens my faith, however.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 22, 2012, 21:26 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Interesting article with appended references:-here
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 01:51 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Interesting article with appended references: > > here-Great article. Fits exactly what I have learned about the OT. Much of it true history as I learned on our trip to Israel in the mid 1970's.-"To use terms such as "false testament" for the Hebrew Bible and to vaporize its earlier personalities into nonexistence accordingly has no justification whatever in terms of the mass of geographical, archaeological, and historical evidence that correlates so admirably with Scripture." From the article above.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 00:43 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: Believe it or not, I don't take them on faith, not entirely at any rate. > > So, no, I don't take it on faith. The evidence I continue to find strengthens my faith, however.-What you have presented I fully accept. Much of the OT is true history and you have just documented that. I've spoken many years ago to the archeologists in the City of David dig just outside the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. It was just as the bible said. I am aware of the recent computer model of a 60 mile an hour wind removing enough water from the Sea of Reeds to allow the Jews to cross. -We each have our own approach to finding God. You said you were a Deist, but you sound like a Theist to me. Which is it?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 02:19 (4136 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, December 23, 2012, 02:26
BM: Believe it or not, I don't take them on faith, not entirely at any rate. > > > So, no, I don't take it on faith. The evidence I continue to find strengthens my faith, however. > > What you have presented I fully accept. Much of the OT is true history and you have just documented that...We each have our own approach to finding God.-David, I completely agree with your words above, "We each have our own approach to finding God". But what happened with me, in my search for God, was I found two different God's at one point in my life. One God, is the ALL THAT IS - The creator that IS the creation and the creator, within and without. The other God, is the God of the scriptures, who, he admits, is not that much different than the humans he created, as he created man in his own image. -I, like you, Tony, after much studying of all the evidence, fully recognized, that much of scripture, both New and Old Testaments and other documented testaments as well, such as the Koran, etc., is based on true history that did happen. -But after much soul/mind/heart searching (which I admit I have not concluded in any sense of finality), I've found it hard to put my faith in the God that spoke thru angels and face to face to humans and called himself God - the Great I AM, and not conclude that this God, is himself, a product of creation calling himself God of all creation. -This God may even have the right to do so, in some sense, to call himself our God, as he may have created humans, thru DNA and gene splicing, and may even have and still may, watch over and nurture us bringing us up in the way that we should go wanting the best for us, even intervening at times. And thru Jesus and other sent beings, have tried to steer us on the straight and narrow road to love, as a good Father should, helping us evolve into a better, less carnal species. -But, I cannot equate the two. This God that speaks with his creation with the God that is "The" All That Is. I believe beings did appear to these people (and even may still appear at times) claiming they were messengers from, or God himself, and did give them prophecies and/or words to write down for warnings etc. But, as I have mentioned before, I believe these beings came to be thru evolution and are not THE Creator of all creation. -I still have a very open mind about this and would truly like to hear your, Tony's, opinion on how or why you believe I am wrong, about these being two different Gods, or do you?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 23, 2012, 03:48 (4136 days ago) @ BBella
Bella: David, I completely agree with your words above, "We each have our own approach to finding God". But what happened with me, in my search for God, was I found two different God's at one point in my life. One God, is the ALL THAT IS - The creator that IS the creation and the creator, within and without. The other God, is the God of the scriptures, who, he admits, is not that much different than the humans he created, as he created man in his own image. > -> But after much soul/mind/heart searching (which I admit I have not concluded in any sense of finality), I've found it hard to put my faith in the God that spoke thru angels and face to face to humans and called himself God - the Great I AM, and not conclude that this God, is himself, a product of creation calling himself God of all creation. > > This God may even have the right to do so, in some sense, to call himself our God, as he may have created humans, thru DNA and gene splicing, and may even have and still may, watch over and nurture us bringing us up in the way that we should go wanting the best for us, even intervening at times. And thru Jesus and other sent beings, have tried to steer us on the straight and narrow road to love, as a good Father should, helping us evolve into a better, less carnal species. > > But, I cannot equate the two. This God that speaks with his creation with the God that is "The" All That Is. I believe beings did appear to these people (and even may still appear at times) claiming they were messengers from, or God himself, and did give them prophecies and/or words to write down for warnings etc. But, as I have mentioned before, I believe these beings came to be thru evolution and are not THE Creator of all creation. > > I still have a very open mind about this and would truly like to hear your, Tony's, opinion on how or why you believe I am wrong, about these being two different Gods, or do you?- First, I would ask why there needs be the distinction? Why can the creator of all not have a personality? Is there a good reason for that supposition or is it simply because it doesn't fit our concept of what a God should be? If there is a valid reason why God can not have a personality, I would be interested in hearing it. -Even the bible admits the existence of other gods. It merely names YHWH as the head cheese of Gods. If using the biblical form of Elohim, or powers, then yes, I believe in a myriad of gods, or beings that are more powerful than humanity. I also believe that there is a hierarchy. There are numerous references to a spiritual organization and different functions for different spiritual creatures inside that organization. From a more outside perspective, I see the universe as inherently organized and to me that reflects back on the nature of the creator. If the creation is organized, so to is the creator. I also see that nature was created lovingly, beautifully, and with great care. Simply look at all the beautiful, wonderful things we have in our home for us to enjoy! So many things we take for granted. How many pleasurable experiences do you have a day, from beautiful sunsets, wonderful aromas, pleasant tastes, etc etc etc. When all of creation could have been made plain and boring, it was made with extraordinary variety, all capable of working together in exquisite harmony. I do not find that to reflect on the concept of an impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring creator. So, the short answer to your question is, as regards God with a capital G, no, I do not think there are two. They are one in the same.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 05:17 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
BM: So, the short answer to your question is, as regards God with a capital G, no, I do not think there are two. They are one in the same.-i agree with Tony. The God as described by religions is a human concept of what God should be based on human attributes and with a personality. The God of creation, All That Is, is the true God and is not well-known to us. That is why I do not try to personify Him. In Adler's word, he is person like no other person. I think He is somewhat distant, as in the Muslim tradition, but definitely connected to us. We all share the same consciousness, ours just a tiny portion of the whole.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Monday, December 24, 2012, 07:05 (4135 days ago) @ David Turell
BM: So, the short answer to your question is, as regards God with a capital G, no, I do not think there are two. They are one in the same. > > i agree with Tony. The God as described by religions is a human concept of what God should be based on human attributes and with a personality. The God of creation, All That Is, is the true God and is not well-known to us. That is why > I do not try to personify Him. In Adler's word, he is person like no other person. I think He is somewhat distant, as in the Muslim tradition, but definitely connected to us. We all share the same consciousness, ours just a tiny portion of the whole.-But, David, by agreeing with Tony it seems you are agreeing that the two Gods he claims is one God, is the God of the scriptures who has plenty of personality just as humans do, and, is also the impersonal God of creation, which would be inconsistent, wouldn't it? Or, are you just agreeing with Tony that there is just one God? -I am curious, too, as to whether you believe in angels and other worldly beings that possibly communicated with our ancient ancestors in the name of God (or as God), as the scriptures report?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Monday, December 24, 2012, 14:53 (4134 days ago) @ BBella
> bblla: But, David, by agreeing with Tony it seems you are agreeing that the two Gods he claims is one God, is the God of the scriptures who has plenty of personality just as humans do, and, is also the impersonal God of creation, which would be inconsistent, wouldn't it? Or, are you just agreeing with Tony that there is just one God?-No, I think there is just one source of creation, one God, and I don't see evidence of his personality, just his actions of creation. - > > bbella: I am curious, too, as to whether you believe in angels and other worldly beings that possibly communicated with our ancient ancestors in the name of God (or as God), as the scriptures report?-Again no, I don't follow the scriptures. I do not believe in angels or in outer worldly visitors. -I will commment on your previous post following this.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Monday, December 24, 2012, 06:55 (4135 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
[BBella]But, I cannot equate the two. This God that speaks with his creation with the God that is "The" All That Is. > > > > I still have a very open mind about this and would truly like to hear your, Tony's, opinion on how or why you believe I am wrong, about these being two different Gods, or do you? > > >[Tony] First, I would ask why there needs be the distinction? Why can the creator of all not have a personality? Is there a good reason for that supposition or is it simply because it doesn't fit our concept of what a God should be?-Maybe there is not a distinction, but maybe there is. As for suppositions, I dispersed man made ideas of what a God should or shouldn't be along with religious beliefs a number of years ago (as much as possible). As to why God can or cannot have a personality, why should creation itself (what some call God) have to have a personality? If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. -With the possibility that creation may have always been, then it's unlikely we are the pinnacle of creation. Ancient archaeology, as well as very old indigenous tribes, and scriptures speak of others here before us, much further advanced than we are now. Those beings, who spoke to the ancients that books have been written about, were definitely more advanced than we are, you agree. So if there are advanced civilizations that have gone before us, somewhere out there, who is to say they are really in touch wit a so called "big guy?" What if the big guy is just someone more advanced than we, or maybe even than they are? -Of course there is no way for either of us to know for sure. But the evidence, for me, balances a bit more to the side that if there is a God, within and without all that is, that God would have no need to use surrogates to speak to us, if he even needed to speak at all, as that God would be us. Even those of old who made and fulfilled prophecies and such, told of a time we would come to realize we no longer need guidance and/or teachers, as we would understand/know more about ourselves and the creative properties from which we have sprung. Whether that is a weaning off process of our need for them, or just a misinterpretation of it's meaning, is neither here nor there in this conversation. We all are on a path to understanding who we are, more or less and whatever each finds helpful is the right path to take. I find it more helpful, at this time in my life, to know me by my own observations and less by others interpretation of me and my origins. > > Even the bible admits the existence of other gods. It merely names YHWH as the head cheese of Gods. -As well he may be the head cheese of the gods. But that doesn't mean he is the creator of all things, or creation itself.->If using the biblical form of Elohim, or powers, then yes, I believe in a myriad of gods, or beings that are more powerful than humanity. I also believe that there is a hierarchy. There are numerous references to a spiritual organization and different functions for different spiritual creatures inside that organization. From a more outside perspective, I see the universe as inherently organized and to me that reflects back on the nature of the creator.-Or, it may reflect the nature of creation itself, not necessarily a creator.->If the creation is organized, so to is the creator.-Organized or not, does not necessarily mean there is an organizer or creator of it. Creation, itself, may have always just been. Yes, we have been told there is a creator God, but is that creator God just a part of creation itself? There still remains that possibility. >I also see that nature was created lovingly, beautifully, and with great care....I do not find that to reflect on the concept of an impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring creator. So, the short answer to your question is, as regards God with a capital G, no, I do not think there are two. They are one in the same.-I see nature in all it's glory as well, but for me, I also see the reflective quality of the malleable fabric of nature and of that we see. From this fabric, "What Is" has evolved, which includes those gone before us and those evolved beings that still seem to communicate with us thru books and stories and have great hold on our societies still today without appearing to lift a finger. The beauty as well as the horror, of all that we see, no doubt may have been created literally just for us. Whether it has or hasn't, I have faith that it was for good intent, as it would be difficult for me to sleep at night if I didn't. But I also believe that those who created this "paradise" gone wrong, can make it disappear in a moment. Not because they are creation that made this possible, but because they made it possible the very same way our scientist or creators, here on earth, do the same everyday. By taking "What Is" and manipulating it for a purpose. I can only hope their purpose is for our best.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Monday, December 24, 2012, 15:31 (4134 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: Maybe there is not a distinction, but maybe there is. As for suppositions, I dispersed man made ideas of what a God should or shouldn't be along with religious beliefs a number of years ago (as much as possible). As to why God can or cannot have a personality, why should creation itself (what some call God) have to have a personality? -That is exactly my point. Religions have created a personality for God that they want him to have. They prefer that personality. It is all man made! -> bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)?-I firmly believe that no other beings have visited this Earth. I can find no scientifically proven evidence. It is science fiction fantasy. The nearest planets are so many light years away the visitors would either have to be in suspended animation during the trip or only subsequent generations born on board would get here. - > bbella: Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it.-I also firmly believe that something has always existed. What Aristotle and later Aquinas refer to as First Cause. I can't get beyond the logic that everyting has a cause. > > bbella:With the possibility that creation may have always been, then it's unlikely we are the pinnacle of creation. Ancient archaeology, as well as very old indigenous tribes, and scriptures speak of others here before us, much further advanced than we are now. Those beings, who spoke to the ancients that books have been written about, were definitely more advanced than we are, you agree. -This is why I stick to the science. We are the first sentient beings on this planet.- > > > > > Tony: Even the bible admits the existence of other gods. It merely names YHWH as the head cheese of Gods. > > bbedlla: As well he may be the head cheese of the gods. But that doesn't mean he is the creator of all things, or creation itself.-What Tony is discribing are the gods mentioned in the OT who are the gods of tribes other than the Hebrews. Actually monotheism antidated the Hebrews but they picked up the idea and ran with it, according to biblical scholars.- > bbella:Organized or not, does not necessarily mean there is an organizer or creator of it. Creation, itself, may have always just been. Yes, we have been told there is a creator God, but is that creator God just a part of creation itself? There still remains that possibility. -That is how I envision God as being within all of this universe and also outside. That is why I am a panentheist and view God as a universal intelligence. At a quantum mechanics level, organized as a mind. Always existing.-I approach many of the stories in the OT Bible as true history. Tony and I have been discussing that. But many of the stories are allegories that make moral points. Humans wrote these stories. Scholars are convinced several different people wrote Genesis, as an example. These stories were told by word of mouth until languages became written centuries later. The NT has the same problem. The first Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus died. All word of mouth till then. -I strictly believe religions cause more confusion than light. They are necessary as Rabbi Sachs point out for establishing moral and ethical values beacuse we have to coooperate in groups. Sachs is wonderful at explaining the allegories as he did in his debate with Dawkins, which I have presented here.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 24, 2012, 21:16 (4134 days ago) @ David Turell
> > bbella: Maybe there is not a distinction, but maybe there is. As for suppositions, I dispersed man made ideas of what a God should or shouldn't be along with religious beliefs a number of years ago (as much as possible). As to why God can or cannot have a personality, why should creation itself (what some call God) have to have a personality? > > David: That is exactly my point. Religions have created a personality for God that they want him to have. They prefer that personality. It is all man made! > -I am curious about this statement. The bible shows God with a full range of expression, from awe inspiring to frightening, from vengeful and jealous to loving and merciful, and yet you still think that we created the personality WE wanted him to have? Just earlier this week you and DHW were criticizing YHWH for not having the personality that YOU wanted him to have......just saying..--> David: That is how I envision God as being within all of this universe and also outside. That is why I am a panentheist and view God as a universal intelligence. At a quantum mechanics level, organized as a mind. Always existing. > --So, an organized mind would be devoid of personality? Without personality, what possible motive could their be for doing anything other than simply existing? That is the trap of your logic. If you do not allow for God to have a personality, then there can be no motivation for doing anything at all, period, because motive arises from desire, and desire arises from a personality, self-awareness, self-identification. If you allow for the UI to have a personality, which is a necessary component, then you are stuck trying to explain or describe that personality.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Monday, December 24, 2012, 22:02 (4134 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > > So, an organized mind would be devoid of personality? Without personality, what possible motive could their be for doing anything other than simply existing? That is the trap of your logic. If you do not allow for God to have a personality, then there can be no motivation for doing anything at all, period, because motive arises from desire, and desire arises from a personality, self-awareness, self-identification. If you allow for the UI to have a personality, which is a necessary component, then you are stuck trying to explain or describe that personality.-No I didn't say that. My point is I don't trust man made religious statements. I don't view God as revealing himself except through his works, so I don't think we know enough about Him to know what kind of person he is. Again, Adler: "a person like no other person". I am not stuck.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 02:25 (4134 days ago) @ David Turell
No I didn't say that. My point is I don't trust man made religious statements. I don't view God as revealing himself except through his works, so I don't think we know enough about Him to know what kind of person he is. Again, Adler: "a person like no other person". I am not stuck.-Ok, so just so I am understanding correctly -A) You agree He has a personality of some variety. B) He is revealed through his works. C) Is a person like no other. -I agree with all three of those statements whole-heartedly. As for his works being the only way he has revealed himself, I disagree to an extent. I think it is impossible, or nearly so with our limited language and our current state of mind for us to comprehend the entirety of his personality, but I do not take that to mean that he has not ever attempted, nor will ever attempt, to express that personality to his creations.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 05:20 (4134 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> bm: I agree with all three of those statements whole-heartedly. As for his works being the only way he has revealed himself, I disagree to an extent. I think it is impossible, or nearly so with our limited language and our current state of mind for us to comprehend the entirety of his personality, but I do not take that to mean that he has not ever attempted, nor will ever attempt, to express that personality to his creations.-I agree also with your previous summary, but I do not think His personality is clear. He is concealed and He choses to remain so. We cannot see or feel his face as the OT stories show. True faith is stronger if commited without miracles to settle the issue. I do not agree with the Catholic definition of miracles to establish sainthood, for esample. True faith is taken on faith, not absolute proof. God wants it that way. Therefore his personalty is not clear.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 25, 2012, 15:00 (4133 days ago) @ David Turell
I agree also with your previous summary, but I do not think His personality is clear. He is concealed and He choses to remain so. We cannot see or feel his face as the OT stories show. True faith is stronger if commited without miracles to settle the issue. I do not agree with the Catholic definition of miracles to establish sainthood, for esample. True faith is taken on faith, not absolute proof. God wants it that way. Therefore his personalty is not clear.-No, the Catholic definition is more along the lines of demanding proof for something that, to my mind at least, has already been proven.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 24, 2012, 20:52 (4134 days ago) @ BBella
Bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. > -I *think* I understand where you are coming with this. The Sephirothic Tree of Life in the Qabala details something very similar in it's depiction of the Ain and Ain Soph. In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. -The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows: "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . . But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]- > Bella: Of course there is no way for either of us to know for sure. But the evidence, for me, balances a bit more to the side that if there is a God, within and without all that is, that God would have no need to use surrogates to speak to us, if he even needed to speak at all, as that God would be us. -I find it interesting that YHWH is only detailed as using a surrogate for face to face viewing. There is no barrier for direct communication as it He is detailed as communicating with humans directly on a number of occasions, either vocally, in dreams, or, as in the case of Moses, directly. Though that experience left Moses glowing, literally, and scared all the people. Perhaps it is simply a case of it being more effort than it is worth to contain himself(his energies) to a point that it would not cause us physical/mental damage. Or maybe, if you believe the texts, it is because that is the way he has it set up. You don't get to the king without going through the intermediaries. - >Bella: Even those of old who made and fulfilled prophecies and such, told of a time we would come to realize we no longer need guidance and/or teachers, as we would understand/know more about ourselves and the creative properties from which we have sprung. > > -Even Genesis hints that weaning us was part of the initial plan, until we decided that we knew better than the boss.-> > Organized or not, does not necessarily mean there is an organizer or creator of it. Creation, itself, may have always just been. Yes, we have been told there is a creator God, but is that creator God just a part of creation itself? There still remains that possibility. > There is not any biblical claim (that I am aware of) that YHWH was not 'born' so to speak, or that he is apart from the nature of creation. It simply says 'time indefinite to time indefinite' or, translated literally, 'time unknowable'. As for being 'apart' from creation, it would violate one of the meanings of his name, which is unity. -> Bella: The beauty as well as the horror, of all that we see, no doubt may have been created literally just for us. Whether it has or hasn't, I have faith that it was for good intent, as it would be difficult for me to sleep at night if I didn't. But I also believe that those who created this "paradise" gone wrong, can make it disappear in a moment. Not because they are creation that made this possible, but because they made it possible the very same way our scientist or creators, here on earth, do the same everyday. By taking "What Is" and manipulating it for a purpose. I can only hope their purpose is for our best.-I do not disagree with this statement at all (I think). I have faith it was for good intent. I have faith that it was done through 'natural' processes, as that is the only possible way it could have been done. (i.e. unnatural does not exist within nature, it is an oxymoron) There is also no biblical evidence contradicting what you say, that I am aware of. The bible doesn't claim that anything was just *poofed* into existence from nothingness.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Friday, December 28, 2012, 06:18 (4131 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. > > > > I *think* I understand where you are coming with this. The Sephirothic Tree of Life in the Qabala details something very similar in it's depiction of the Ain and Ain Soph. In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. > > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows: > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]-I've heard/read the names Ain/Ein Soph a number of times before in different books I've read through the years but I haven't read the Zohar or the Qabalah but maybe it's time I look further into them. Nonetheless, let me see if I can get this straight: What this is saying is supposedly similar to what I've said - Energy before any being was made was unawakened energy without form or purpose yet full of potential for all that is now. Then this unawakened energy awakened with a first thought and movement, which then eventually became what most think of as God the creator. Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Friday, December 28, 2012, 12:23 (4130 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?-In Orthodox Judaism YHWH is God. The Zohar of the Kaballah gives a mystical background to Jewish belief. The quote follows my belief that first there was eternal energy. All else follows, but I feel that th energy was organized from the beginning.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Thursday, January 10, 2013, 22:19 (4117 days ago) @ BBella
Bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. > > > > > > > I *think* I understand where you are coming with this. The Sephirothic Tree of Life in the Qabala details something very similar in it's depiction of the Ain and Ain Soph. In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. > > > > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows: > > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1] > > I've heard/read the names Ain/Ein Soph a number of times before in different books I've read through the years but I haven't read the Zohar or the Qabalah but maybe it's time I look further into them. Nonetheless, let me see if I can get this straight: What this is saying is supposedly similar to what I've said - Energy before any being was made was unawakened energy without form or purpose yet full of potential for all that is now. Then this unawakened energy awakened with a first thought and movement, which then eventually became what most think of as God the creator. Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?-Sorry to have quoted the whole last post, Tony, but thought it was needed to refresh where we left off. Altho I've not had a moment to check out the Zohar or Qabalah, I've been digesting your last post, as I frequently do after a response with new to me information/perspective (besides having so little time, it's another reason I often do not respond quickly as I am a slow processor. I like to feel new information instead of thinking on it). -I noticed the last question I asked you wasn't answered - for whatever reason, I was truly seeking your opinion on what you thought it was saying. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? Or, do you think it is saying that when the creator created YHWH, the heavenly being awakened as a clean vessel (like Adam) and the creator spoke to him and communicated to him his wishes? -Just curious what you think since I can't tell by the info given which one it is saying.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, January 11, 2013, 03:17 (4117 days ago) @ BBella
> > >Tony: ..In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. > > > > > > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows: > > > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1] > > > >Bella: Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying? > > .. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? Or, do you think it is saying that when the creator created YHWH, the heavenly being awakened as a clean vessel (like Adam) and the creator spoke to him and communicated to him his wishes? > >- I think of it in terms of becoming self aware, and the effect that self awareness has on reality. Let's put it this way: If a human's self awareness shapes their personal perspective of reality, what affect would self-awareness have on a being that is one with reality. Becoming YHWH was, as David says, energy organizing into thought, and thought becoming form. (If that makes sense at all. Hard to explain what I see in my own head.) I believe YHWH is a spiritual creature, not a physical one in any sense that we understand. You could conceive of it as shaping his spiritual being, I suppose, but that does not quite fit the meaning I am trying to convey.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Monday, January 14, 2013, 04:28 (4114 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Bella: Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create.... >.. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? ->Tony: Becoming YHWH was, as David says, energy organizing into thought, and thought becoming form. (If that makes sense at all. Hard to explain what I see in my own head.) I believe YHWH is a spiritual creature, not a physical one in any sense that we understand. You could conceive of it as shaping his spiritual being, I suppose, but that does not quite fit the meaning I am trying to convey.-Thank you, Tony, for your very precise answer (which I think you are doing better than you think in relating) and your patience with my questions. And, yes, it actually does make sense, the way you explained it. But, if I may, I'd like to ask another quest-ion about your opinion about the (spiritual) form God organized into. Do you think it was a spontaneous thing that happened, God becoming a spiritual form? Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again!
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, January 14, 2013, 07:19 (4114 days ago) @ BBella
Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again!-That is an interesting question, and I certainly do not have any definite answers, as you said. My initial reaction is to point out the obvious that 'form' would have a totally different meaning for God than for us. Take away the physical aspect of form, and what is left? The shape of the thoughts? The totality of the awareness? -There are a lot of things I think of when I consider YHWH, but I don't tend to think of Him in terms of physical imagery like a big man with a beard and a stick or some such. Primarily I think of Him in terms of his attributes: wisdom, love, justice, power, etc. I think of Him in terms of his actions as well, what he does or has done in the past. To my way of thinking, this is his 'form'. The sum unified whole of all of his attributes, and even then my mind is only scratching the surface of something vastly beyond my comprehension. -This forum actually presents a wonderful analogy for this discussion. To my knowledge, you have never met David, DHW, myself, or any of the others that post here. Yet, you know that we exist, and every time you read one of our posts I suspect that your mental image of our 'form' changes subtly. Barring having seen a photograph of us, you have no idea about our physical attributes, and thus are forced to focus on the essence of who we are as witnessed from our writings and the descriptions of things from our pasts. This is the way I view God. -To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Monday, January 14, 2013, 14:49 (4113 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> b bella: To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.-This is exactly my position. God is a form that we cannot fully imagine and exists within and without our reality. Panentheism. dhw, take note.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 05:30 (4112 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again! > > That is an interesting question, and I certainly do not have any definite answers, as you said. My initial reaction is to point out the obvious that 'form' would have a totally different meaning for God than for us. Take away the physical aspect of form, and what is left? The shape of the thoughts? The totality of the awareness?-That's a mind bender for sure to try and imagine the shape of thought and awareness without form. But isn't that what consciousness is? When people experience NDE's, they experience [being] consciousness without form. Maybe that's also why some NDE'rs say they felt like they were wrapped in God's warmth of complete love and peace, because they were within that state of consciousness without form, [what humans think of as] the dwelling place of God. > There are a lot of things I think of when I consider YHWH, but I don't tend to think of Him in terms of physical imagery like a big man with a beard and a stick or some such. Primarily I think of Him in terms of his attributes: wisdom, love, justice, power, etc. I think of Him in terms of his actions as well, what he does or has done in the past. To my way of thinking, this is his 'form'. The sum unified whole of all of his attributes, and even then my mind is only scratching the surface of something vastly beyond my comprehension.-I think we may have a bit of a similar perspective in imagery. Being raised a Christian, it was difficult for me to wean myself from the image of the "big man with a beard". It was only after my experience's of knocking on heavens door, so to speak, and looking over the edge, that I began to let go of that image. I still pray, but it's different, in that I no longer feel I am speaking to an "entity" called God. I now feel more like I am expressing my hopes, wishes, thankfulness, etc., into the energetic flow of the fabric of What Is, which, I could just as easily call God if the name wasn't so tainted with the old imagery. But when speaking with Christians, I do just call it God. > This forum actually presents a wonderful analogy for this discussion. To my knowledge, you have never met David, DHW, myself, or any of the others that post here. Yet, you know that we exist, and every time you read one of our posts I suspect that your mental image of our 'form' changes subtly. Barring having seen a photograph of us, you have no idea about our physical attributes, and thus are forced to focus on the essence of who we are as witnessed from our writings and the descriptions of things from our pasts. This is the way I view God.-I completely understand exactly what you are saying. For years, that was the only way for me to get a peek of God was through the scriptures. I would pour over the Bible and many historical study books and concordances, seeking to grasp the Greek, Hebrew and even the elusive Armaic for endless hours trying to grasp the essence of God through those writings. In my last attempt to do so, before my illness, I dramatically came to a final conclusion. I could sum up God in totality with one word - Love. I think it was that final conclusion that allowed me to free myself from my search for God thru the scriptures. My mind was satisfied that the God of the scriptures, in totality, is Love. And having an obsessive mind, I began my search to find love in all things, which is where I believed God had his dwelling place, within all things. And then my illness suddenly came up in the midst of my search. Actually, just thereafter. Because I did finally see love in all things. It did take some acrobatic mind bending - which eventually brought me to the unlikely conclusion of reincarnation. And that's another story. lol. > > To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.-Again, it's as if you are describing consciousness in its energetic space between all that is - or what I call, All That Is.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 23, 2012, 03:36 (4136 days ago) @ David Turell
BM: Believe it or not, I don't take them on faith, not entirely at any rate. > > > So, no, I don't take it on faith. The evidence I continue to find strengthens my faith, however. > > David: What you have presented I fully accept. Much of the OT is true history and you have just documented that. I've spoken many years ago to the archeologists in the City of David dig just outside the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. It was just as the bible said. I am aware of the recent computer model of a 60 mile an hour wind removing enough water from the Sea of Reeds to allow the Jews to cross. > > We each have our own approach to finding God. You said you were a Deist, but you sound like a Theist to me. Which is it?-As to the first comment, I guess I just don't try and pick and choose what to believe out of the bible. So much evidence has been put forward that verifies the text even down to the minute details such as the names of a simple servant, that I have come to trust it's reliability. I take the approach that I will believe it until it is disproven, which anyone has yet managed to accomplish. At best, all they can come up with is the absence of evidence, which is not the same as evidence of absence. -As to the second, I consider that to be a pretty null distinction, honestly. If you have a god, and God created the universe, than by definition Deism really doesn't work because god would have had to have interacted with the laws of nature and mankind at some point in some manner. Does god interact with humanity directly, I don't presume to know. I personally tend to think that he would work through intermediaries or via some other indirect means. -If the question of universal sovereignty is what is really on the table, then he would have to take a hands off approach. Let the other fellow have his turn at the tables as it were so that the issue could be resolved entirely. In Biblical terms, God has not interfered with humanity directly since Christ. I can understand why it is necessary, so the lack of YHWH appearing on late night television specials does not bother me at all. -In that sense, perhaps both Deist and Theist are correct. God does exist. God did meddle in the affairs of humans. God has not done so in a long time, or at least not directly because of the larger plot afoot. And there will come a time when he does so again. Though, if the biblical prophecy is correct it will not be YHWH that takes over next, but his son, his son is supposed to prove that his dad's way is better before handing the reigns back over to dear old dad for the final smack down on the mutiny.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
Hyjyljyj and I find little comfort in religions that order us to love a God who, according to both the OT and the NT, inflicts savage (possibly eternal) punishments on those who do not love him. Tony has mounted an impassioned defence of his version of God, and has accused us of misunderstanding the bible.-I hope that is a fair summary. I'd like to reassure my fellow sceptic hyjyljyj that Tony (b_m) is generally a pretty cool debater, and does not intend to give offence! Of course there is a major problem here for hyjyljyj and myself, in that the bible simply isn't central to our thinking (or to David's, for that matter), as it is for you, Tony. It's a collection of books by fallible humans with different stories to tell, translated and interpreted by yet more fallible humans. Had you yourself been born into a different society, you might well have adopted a totally different religion, worshipping totally different versions of a god or gods, and the sources of that religion ... whether written or oral ... would have no more and no less authority than that of the bible. This will always be a gulf between us.-Both hyjyljyj and I have given detailed responses to your first set of posts, and I'd like to follow them through, but you seem to have latched on almost exclusively to the flood story. With various analogies you try to convince us that God was quite right to destroy every man, woman and child, but at the same time he's a kind god because he said he wouldn't do it again. Nevertheless, he remains a god who orders us to "love him or else", so let me go through the details:-1) If Ancient Hebrew did not have a word for abstracts like fear, but everyone knew what it was to be afraid, I don't see how anyone can possibly verify your claim that the original meant to be in awe of/revere, which if anything is even more abstract. But the "love me or else" argument does not depend on this anyway, as the bible is full of similar threats.-2) "Love is not a feeling. It is an action...It does not have to come from within." Both of us challenged this, and you reply, referring to my wife: "How do you show your love? Do you take care of her? Do you treat her with kindness and respect?" These are actions that derive from the fact I love her. If I did not feel love within, I might not perform these actions. I think you will find you are on your own in asserting that love is not a feeling. But I can understand how important this argument is for you, since you are trying to assert that God is only ordering us to perform loving actions and not actually to feel anything for him inside. Sorry, but I find it unconvincing.-3) "If YHWH is the giver of life, then even should he kill a few so-called innocents, he has not taken anything that he could not return in better condition than he took it." In the context of the all-destroying flood, "a few so-called innocents" (why so-called?) would include every single dead child. You can only be making the huge assumption here that God is going to give them a new and better life, which raises the whole question of an afterlife, and I've asked you specifically about that on the mind-reading thread. Here, I can only express my horror at your moral shrug of the shoulders. When Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, including no doubt "a few so-called innocents", would you have accepted his actions on the grounds that there was a better life to come? (No, I'm not comparing God to Hitler, I'm challenging your dismissal of human suffering.)-4) Hell. You wrote: "Nowhere in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torture of the dead." Both of us have given you concrete references. You have dismissed mine as a parable, and ignored hyjyljyj's more direct quotes. Frankly, it makes no difference whether it's called hell, gehenna, tartarus, l'enfer, die Hölle, inferno or infierno, it is there in the bible. The quote from Ecclesiastes is one man's view, and Matthew, Luke and Thess. 2 tell a very different story. Do you still say there is no mention of eternal damnation/torture of the dead/hell in the bible?-5) You had accused both of us of ignorance in relation to the stories of Abraham and Job. I stand fully behind my interpretation of those stories, and as you have not responded to my comments, I remain in the dark as to what you consider to be such a gross misrepresentation.-Finally, I will ask you a question which I would not under any circumstances wish to seem offensive, as I have far too much respect for your beliefs, intellect and learning. But I will quote you on what I consider to be one of the most penetrating insights so far in this discussion: "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." Have you considered the possibility that you may be one of them?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 17:27 (4138 days ago) @ dhw
I simply hate to see him getting a bum wrap with accusations that ignore a wealth of other information. - > DHW 1) on fear > -Don't take my word for it: Fear-If you read the above link(very short) you will see that there are several words that are all translated as 'fear'.-> 2) DHW: on love > -If you had this feeling, but did absolutely nothing about it, could it be said that you still loved your wife, or would the utter lack of action indicate that your emotion is a lie? To put the shoe on the other foot, show me 'love', as you mean it. Can you? Can anyone?-> 3) DHW: On innocents > -First, I say 'so-called innocents' because the texts says they were all wicked. So, you are making the assumption that the people were innocent, I just think the text meant what it said. As to your comparison to Hitler, there is a major difference: Hitler couldn't bring the Jews back if he wanted.- > 4)DHW: On Hell > -It makes a lot of difference which word is used. You yourself are notorious for knitpicking words, and yet you do not apply the same standard to your conversations regarding the bible. I get that it is not central to your life, but still.. the root for she'ol is sha'al, which simply means "unknown" or pit(since you can't see or know what is in the bottom of a dark pit). Geeenna was the Valley of Hinom, and a real place here on Earth. Tartarus was used only in a parable. -But let's but your standard to the test, shall we?-Job 14:13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! (KJV)-Job 14:13 "Oh that Thou wouldst hide me in Sheol, that Thou wouldst conceal me until Thy wrath returns {to Thee,} that Thou wouldst set a limit for me and remember me! (NAS)-......Note that the same word above is translated as Hell over 30 times in the KJV, but if they had translated it as Hell here, it would have buggered up their hell fire doctrine............-Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?" (NKJ)-Now, why would Job WANT to go to your fiery hell? Why would god send Job, whom he declared blameless and upright, to a supposed fiery hell designed for sinners?-"All versions of the Bible except for these three, the Latin Vulgate, the KJV and the NKJV, reject any notion of hell occurring in the original Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament. Also, please especially note from the comparison table that the translators of the Jewish Publication Society Bible and the Tanakh/The Complete Jewish Bible disagree with the Latin Vulgate, the KJV and the NKJV by making no mention of hell whatsoever in their Bibles. If the Jews, who are experts in their own language Hebrew, do not include hell in their Bibles, then this confirms that there is not a single word that means hell in the original Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament. "-Also:-"The Bible refers to fish, birds, animals and man as "souls." Strong's Concordance defines the Hebrew word "soul" as "a breathing creature, animal or man." We know that fish, birds and animals do not know right from wrong, they operate on instinct. So, obviously the word "soul" does not refer to something "spiritual." In fact, it means just the opposite. The common characteristics of all four groups of these living creatures is that they have five senses. All four groups can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Those are the five senses. The word "soul" refers to a creature that obtains his knowledge through the five senses. "-Without a 'soul' as a spiritual entity residing in your physical form, hell doctrine loses all meaning anyway. -Lastly, and the most damning is Rev 20:14: "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." So hell was cast into hell? That makes no sense if the hell-fire doctrine is true. -> 5) On Job > -I did answer your talk of Job, though you may not have realized it. The answer is in Job 1:6-11, and goes back to what I was saying about the question of YHWH's universal sovereignty, which is the central theme of the bible. Satan said, in a nutshell, that people would only serve YHWH for what they could get out of him, and that if YHWH was not giving Job all of this stuff that Job would turn away. If YHWH had told Satan to piss off, it would have seemed that he was afraid that Satan was right, regardless of whether or not it was true. So he allowed Job to be tested by Satan. Job passed the test and had everything returned to him 10 fold. (most people forget that last bit)-James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:- > "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." Have you considered the possibility that you may be one of them?-Yes, I have considered it, which is one reason why I am very, very cautious and meticulous in my research. It is the very reason that I go through numerous translations cross referencing them, even to the point of attempting to learn basic Ancient-Hebrew myself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Thursday, December 20, 2012, 19:51 (4138 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
[dhw] "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." Have you considered the possibility that you may be one of them? > > Yes, I have considered it, which is one reason why I am very, very cautious and meticulous in my research. It is the very reason that I go through numerous translations cross referencing them, even to the point of attempting to learn basic Ancient-Hebrew myself.-Just to give my 1/2cent on these scriptures/words in question: I agreed with dhw and considered this same thought, so was tired of going from religion to religion finding out they all believed differently and was afraid I was only seeing into the scriptures what I wanted to see. So I swore off all religions and beliefs and did my own extensive 5 year study into the original (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc) versions and found the exact same understanding as Tony has given about these words and meanings. I've evolved my own thoughts since then...but just wanted to say that Tony is correct about the original meanings of these words and scriptures in question. Many of the "beliefs" about what the scriptures teach came from the early church's attempt to control their parishioners through fear and then placing their own spin (mark) on the original scriptures by translating them into a language their parishioners could read that agreed with the church's own doctrines. Many churches no longer even teach the hell fire and damnation doctrine because of coming to understand these mistranslations.
Love me or else (Part Two)
I am going to try and extend my earlier summary of the discussion, as this will be my last post for about ten days (see dhw going away).-Hyjyljyj and I find little comfort in religions that order us to love a God who inflicts savage (possibly eternal) punishments on those who do not love him. I quoted Matthew ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" etc.) and Peter ("Fear God"). As a prime example of God's savage punishments, I referred to the Flood. Hyjyljyj and I alluded to hell as part of God's threat to those who don't love him, and we found nothing lovable in the tests to which God put Abraham and Job. -As regards the latter, I have never disputed that they were being tested. My objection is to the mental and physical torment to which they were subjected (though in fairness to you Abraham doesn't actually seem too bothered). The difference between us is therefore not about what happened, but about our view of God's attitude. -Tony, both you and BBella say that Ancient Hebrew has no equivalent word for abstractions like fear and love, and you referred me to a website which offers three words that might mean fear. You say the correct meaning is 'revere'. 1) I don't know why you should assume that 'revere' is the correct meaning, since meaning depends on context, and in the many exhortations to fear God, there is often no context. 2) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought Peter's epistle (if indeed he wrote it) was in Greek. 3) It doesn't make the slightest difference to the basic argument, which is that the God of both testaments gives us ample reason to fear him.-You say that love is not a feeling. Since Ancient Hebrew has no word for abstractions like love and fear, I'm surprised you haven't challenged this translation as well, but you have accepted it. If you think love means performing kind actions, and does not mean the emotion that leads people to perform kind actions, we shall have to agree to disagree.-I'm appalled by the story of the Flood, which I take as a prime example of God's terrifying use of his power. You say the bible states that all the victims were wicked. I'll take your word for it that this really is the meaning of the Ancient Hebrew. (Who knows? All translations are suspect, as indeed are all the original texts, since they were written by fallible humans, though you would probably dispute that.) Forgive my scepticism, but I can't imagine for one moment how newborn babes and toddlers can be classified as wicked. Your defence is that God will give them a better life. There can be no meeting of minds here, I'm afraid. I do not dismiss human suffering on the grounds that there may be compensation in another life. -This brings us to the subject of hell. You tell us that nowhere in the bible is there any mention of eternal damnation or torment of the dead. Hyjyljyj and I gave three (out of several) specific references from the New Testament. You have diligently demonstrated that the words used in the Old Testament do not mean hell. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, which I assume has been compiled by reasonably competent scholars, shows with detailed references to both OT and NT that there were/are different concepts of what we call hell. Some of them explicitly entail eternal damnation and torment of the dead. But of course there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters. The relevance of this to our discussion is that no matter what kind of punishment is threatened, I find no comfort in a religion that orders me to love God (my understanding of love, not yours) or an almighty power will punish me. I have throughout my life tried to be kind to people and not to do harmful things, and I worry if I feel I have hurt someone, but this is out of love and empathy for my fellow humans, and not out of love for God. Nevertheless, I have done wrong things, and if God exists I'm not going to blame him for my sins or for the sins of others (one of your more misanthropic arguments). But the starting point of this whole discussion was my statement (in the section entitled "Where is it now?") that there is no comfort to be had from religion. I'm afraid your study of Ancient Hebrew and your ingenious defence of God's actions still bring me no comfort.-I'm sure you will have an answer to all of this, and I'll try to catch up when I return.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Friday, December 21, 2012, 20:23 (4137 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:The relevance of this to our discussion is that no matter what kind of punishment is threatened, I find no comfort in a religion that orders me to love God (my understanding of love, not yours) or an almighty power will punish me. - Be good, there is reward; be bad there is punishment. This is the level of handling young children, and attests to the mental level of the population when all of this was written. We have grown up since then. we are not sacrificing our kids to Baal. The bible's admonitions must be taken with that in mind. The current Rabbis and Talmudists have commentaries that correct for the ancient bias in the writings. We should all work from that approach, not the bold statements that were meant for 2,000 years ago.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 21, 2012, 23:47 (4137 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw:The relevance of this to our discussion is that no matter what kind of punishment is threatened, I find no comfort in a religion that orders me to love God (my understanding of love, not yours) or an almighty power will punish me. > > David: Be good, there is reward; be bad there is punishment. This is the level of handling young children, and attests to the mental level of the population when all of this was written. We have grown up since then. we are not sacrificing our kids to Baal. The bible's admonitions must be taken with that in mind. The current Rabbis and Talmudists have commentaries that correct for the ancient bias in the writings. We should all work from that approach, not the bold statements that were meant for 2,000 years ago.-If we are oh so much more mature, then why do we have laws, rules, and courts? If you break a law, you are punished, no? I would be willing to bet your insurance company offers you some kind of compensation or reward for driving safely as well as a punishment for reckless driving. I would even be willing to bet that you very own body will punish or reward you based on your actions towards it. If you eat garbage food you will get fat and die young, if you take care of it, you will live a long life(supposing it isn't cut short by some other thing). -We may not burn kids alive any more, but that didn't stop a gun man from killing 27 in an elementary school, the genocides in Africa and SW Asia, or the concentration camps in both the U.S. and Europe. It doesn't stop us from sending our young men and women off to die in fruitless wars over some shitty bit of real-estate or mineral rights under false pretenses. It doesn't stop us from poisoning them with food that is unfit for worms and leaves the dieing of obesity, diabetes, or heart problems. It doesn't stop people from giving them mind altering drugs, both doctors and street pharmacists alike. No, you are absolutely correct. We do not burn our children anymore. What we do is so much worse. When they burned their children they only suffered for a few moments, what we do to our children messes them up for a lifetime. Yet somehow, we are so much better than they were.....-(Rereading that, it sounds a lot more emotionally charged than it really is. )
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Saturday, December 22, 2012, 00:35 (4137 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> BM: If we are oh so much more mature, then why do we have laws, rules, and courts? -I'm not saying we are less evil individually, but philosophically, since the Greeks, we are more mature in theology and philosophy. We can see easily the child-like workings of religion at that day and time. Of course, there are religions that are still doing it.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 22, 2012, 20:43 (4136 days ago) @ David Turell
> > BM: If we are oh so much more mature, then why do we have laws, rules, and courts? > > David:I'm not saying we are less evil individually, but philosophically, since the Greeks, we are more mature in theology and philosophy. We can see easily the child-like workings of religion at that day and time. Of course, there are religions that are still doing it.- What does religion have to do with it? If offering reward and punishment is as dealing with a child, then humanity is infantile in the extreme. My point was not that we are any more or less evil, but that we have not matured. We are just like children who point at other children and poke fun of them. "Look at stupid head over there!" "Look how stupid my parents are!" Or in your case, "Look at how stupid those ancient civilizations were. They are like children!"-The only thing that has matured in our mentality since the Greeks is our ability to rationalize our actions so that they seem more moral in our own eyes and we don't feel as guilty about them. We can slaughter a thousand people and it is ok so long as we dehumanize the other guys first. Slap a label on an ideology then apply the ideology to a culture, and suddenly it becomes ok to do whatever we want. And it is not simply religion that is to blame, though I gladly admit that religious institutions have done more than their fair share of harm.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by David Turell , Sunday, December 23, 2012, 00:29 (4136 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > What does religion have to do with it? If offering reward and punishment is as dealing with a child, then humanity is infantile in the extreme. My point was not that we are any more or less evil, but that we have not matured. -You are right. We have not matured a great deal since those times. But the real point is the maturation of the concept of God, which is why we are on this thread. The God of the Hebrews at face value was threatening to destroy whole cities and whole nations. Granted the Talmudists have found a softening way to interpret the OT. Jesus brought love as the main approach in the NT, but he was preceded by Hillel who was already preaching the same message from the OT so what is being done now from the OT started then. Hillel and Jesus overlapped by a very few years, as Hillel died when Jesus was very young. The Quran approaches God at a distance. He is not so personal and one knows him by his works. Like Karen johnson, I view this pattern of presentation of God as a maturing of the way to appreciate God. -And the reward or punishment aspect of religion I find very puerile. the real message, as you know, is you are good for goodness sake, not for fear of punishment. Catholics are allowed a fresh start with confession, and Jews with the 10 days of atonment. This softens the childishness.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 21, 2012, 23:14 (4137 days ago) @ dhw
Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.'He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am making everything new!' Then he said, 'Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true'" (Revelation 21:3-5).-Is this the depiction of a tyranical asshole of a God? I will respond more later, but this gives me comfort because I find cold comfort in the world and machinations of man.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 21, 2012, 23:34 (4137 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: .. The difference between us is therefore not about what happened, but about our view of God's attitude. > -I think the more fundamental difference between us is not our view of God's attitude, but rather what rights he has as God. To illustrate the difference, you are judging God's actions(as described) based on human standards; I am looking at his actions and seeking to understand without judgement, because I do not feel it is my place to judge God any more than it is a child's place to judge their parents, and for much the same reason. My mental faculties are not suitable for judging God. My sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair, and justice are not His, and though I might try to meet His standard I know that I will always fall short. Far from being discouraging, it is motivational for me to continue to try harder in all things. - > You say that love is not a feeling. Since Ancient Hebrew has no word for abstractions like love and fear, I'm surprised you haven't challenged this translation as well, but you have accepted it. If you think love means performing kind actions, and does not mean the emotion that leads people to perform kind actions, we shall have to agree to disagree. > -I am always frustrated when I try to discuss this topic, because things I understand and take for granted do not translate well. I do not(did not) mean to imply that the emotions or feelings do not exists, but rather that the Hebrew language did not have a word for them as such. They were, as we are, very emotional people, and perhaps even more so than we are, based on the descriptions given. To them, though, emotions were ephemeral, much as they are to us, and because those emotions were not concrete their language could not support their expression. The Greeks were the first to use abstract words in their language, and by extension all Western languages inherited them. Language shapes our thinking patters, something that is well studied, and so their thought processes were different. -To them, the feeling was insufficient because it was not concrete. The actions by which the emotions were expressed became paramount. If you loved, you demonstrated love, or else it could not be said that you loved at all by any but yourself.- > DHW: I do not dismiss human suffering on the grounds that there may be compensation in another life. > -I do not dismiss the suffering, either. I find it a tragic shame. The difference between you and I on this note is where the blame is assigned. Do you blame the judge for punishing the criminals, or do you blame the criminals for forcing the judge to judge them at all by committing crimes? Humanity has not yet learned to accept it's own culpability. Ironically, when YHWH asked Adam what he had done, he blamed his wife, and she in turn blamed the serpent, the serpent in turn(previously) had blamed YHWH. Not one of them accepted responsibility for breaking the law, even though they KNEW it was the law. ->DHW: The relevance of this to our discussion is that no matter what kind of punishment is threatened, I find no comfort in a religion that orders me to love God (my understanding of love, not yours) or an almighty power will punish me. >-My understanding is of course flawed. Always has been, always will be. However, if you have any sense of justice, then you must also have a sense of applicable punishment, of one form or another. Is that the case, and if so, what forms of punishment would you find acceptable? Also, if you chose to violate the laws of the UK, would you expect some form of punishment? Are they within their rights to execute that punishment?- >DHW: I have throughout my life tried to be kind to people and not to do harmful things, and I worry if I feel I have hurt someone, but this is out of love and empathy for my fellow humans, and not out of love for God. >-So.. your love demands action in the form of how you treat people? If it demands action in regards to others, than why not for God?->DHW: Nevertheless, I have done wrong things, and if God exists I'm not going to blame him for my sins or for the sins of others (one of your more misanthropic arguments). .. there is no comfort to be had from religion. > -So, you admit that you have done wrong in your life and that you accept responsibility for it, but you think there should be no consequences for that? You find no comfort in the fact that not just your actions, but the intent behind those actions is being judged? Would you find more comfort in a government that didn't punish those that broke the law?-This brings me to the last comment on why the Hell Fire doctrine makes no sense. "The wages sin pays is death." That is the price we pay for our errors, and every man, woman, or child will eventually pay that price. There is no call for eternal everlasting punishment for our sins, because once you die you have already paid the reparations. That is the punishment inflicted by YHWH, because it is demanded by justice that when you break laws you must make amends. The fact that we get off so lightly is what amazes me.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by romansh 
, Saturday, December 22, 2012, 00:14 (4137 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The difference between you and I on this note is where the blame is assigned. Do you blame the judge for punishing the criminals, or do you blame the criminals for forcing the judge to judge them at all by committing crimes? Humanity has not yet learned to accept it's own culpability. -I must admit when I read this I am disheartened. If by blame you mean a rainstorm is caused by the sun beating down on some ocean somewhere, then fair enough.-Now I might hold a criminal responsible is different from the criminal being responsible (unless we hold the rain cloud responsible for the rainstorm).-When we punish criminals there might be several reasons 1) to protect society 2) to provide a deterrent for future criminal activities 3) to educate the criminal-Unfortunately society seems preoccupied with giving judgement and handing out vengeance. Sounds positively Biblical. Oh wait ...
Love me or else (Part One)
Part One-This thread has expanded during my absence, and to my great regret hyjyljyj, who triggered the discussion, has apparently had enough. I shall therefore have to struggle on alone! TONY: Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain etc.'" (Revelation 21:3-5). Is this the depiction of a tyranical asshole of a God? [...] this gives me comfort because I find cold comfort in the world and machinations of man.-You are, in my view, rightly sceptical of those who swallow the pronouncements of atheistic scientists as if they were facts. Why, then, do you swallow the pronouncements of authors you know little or nothing about, written some two thousand years ago in a language you do not speak, describing a future for which neither you nor they can provide any testable evidence? No, this is not the depiction of a tyrannical asshole. But as you say elsewhere: "The bible shows God with a full range of expression, from awe inspiring to frightening, from vengeful and jealous to loving and merciful." If I believed in God, I'd imagine him to be all of those things, and while you find cold comfort in this world, I find no comfort in your cherry-picked quotations. "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." (b_m) Too true. Your Revelations passage is followed by: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." So here am I, an unbeliever (but not a disbeliever). I die because my "unbelief" makes me a sinner (see below), I then burn in the lake of fire and brimstone ... nothing to do with hell according to you ... as a kind of bonus punishment perhaps (second death), but (see below) I'm dead already, in which case the lake could be a bubble bath and I wouldn't know the difference. Why should I believe any of this?-TONY: This brings me to the last comment on why the Hell Fire doctrine makes no sense. "The wages sin pays is death." That is the price we pay for our errors, and every man, woman, or child will eventually pay that price. There is no call for eternal everlasting punishment for our sins, because once you die you have already paid the reparations. See above. It's now even less clear to me what sort of afterlife you envisage, since everybody dies, which is the price we pay for our sins, then we shall all live happily ever after with God, apart from us abominable unbelievers and our murderous colleagues, who will burn in fire and brimstone, which is a second death but is not a form of hell.-DHW: ...The difference between us is therefore not about what happened, but about our view of God's attitude. TONY: I think the more fundamental difference between us is not our view of God's attitude, but rather what rights he has as God. [...] My sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair, and justice are not His...-How do you know your sense of right and wrong are not his? And what could be more terrifying than being at the mercy of a power whose sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair and justice are not the same as ours? You continually try to justify suffering as if it were all the fault of humans. Behind many of your posts I sense a man of enormous sensitivity who would not consciously do anything to harm his fellow beings, but once you launch into your defence of God you become a misanthrope! You rightly talk of the beauty of God's world, but when it comes to the horrors of his world, you either blame man or you fall back on the notion that we mustn't judge God, and in any case he'll make it up to any innocent victims in some nebulous afterlife. You rightly talk of the horrors of man's making, but seem to ignore the beauty ... charity, empathy, altruism, love, art, music. Just like the bible, the world can be spun to fit your own beliefs. I see it and the human race as a mixture of good and bad, but I do not accept that all suffering is man-made. I agree that you can't have truth without lies, good without bad, laughter without tears. But if that really is the only way your God could make this world, why can't you countenance the possibility that he himself may well consist of the same mixture. Yes, if he exists he has all the rights he wants. How is that comforting?
Love me or else (Part Two)
Part Two-Dhw: You say that love is not a feeling. Since Ancient Hebrew has no word for abstractions like love and fear, I'm surprised you haven't challenged this translation as well, but you have accepted it. If you think love means performing kind actions, and does not mean the emotion that leads people to perform kind actions, we shall have to agree to disagree.-TONY: I am always frustrated when I try to discuss this topic, because things I understand and take for granted do not translate well. I do not (did not) mean to imply that the emotions or feelings do not exists, but rather that the Hebrew language did not have a word for them as such. -Don't be frustrated! Just don't make and then try to defend authoritative remarks like "Love is not a feeling. It is an action...It does not have to come from within."-Dhw: I do not dismiss human suffering on the grounds that there may be compensation in another life. TONY I do not dismiss the suffering, either. I find it a tragic shame. The difference between you and I on this note is where the blame is assigned. Do you blame the judge for punishing the criminals, or do you blame the criminals for forcing the judge to judge them at all by committing crimes? -You keep talking about blame, judge, criminals, punishment, as if every person on earth deserved to be struck down by lightning, disease, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts, earthquakes. This pattern of suffering goes back to long before we arrived (I think our fellow animals can suffer too), and in terms of self-centredness (probably the main root of evil), that was already established when Nature introduced carnivores.-Dhw: I have throughout my life tried to be kind to people and not to do harmful things, and I worry if I feel I have hurt someone, but this is out of love and empathy for my fellow humans, and not out of love for God. -TONY: So.. your love demands action in the form of how you treat people? If it demands action in regards to others, than why not for God?-I don't know if there is a such a being as God, and if there is, I have no idea what he is like, since the only image I have ever been given is one of massive contradictions offered to me by a variety of humans who have no more access to the truth than I have. But if he does exist, I still see nothing wrong in loving my fellow humans for their own sake and not for his. Dhw: Nevertheless, I have done wrong things, and if God exists I'm not going to blame him for my sins or for the sins of others (one of your more misanthropic arguments). .. there is no comfort to be had from religion. TONY: So, you admit that you have done wrong in your life and that you accept responsibility for it, but you think there should be no consequences for that? You find no comfort in the fact that not just your actions, but the intent behind those actions is being judged? Would you find more comfort in a government that didn't punish those that broke the law?-I don't believe I've ever done any lasting harm to anyone with the wrongs I've committed, but as you so rightly say, God may have different standards from mine. For instance, if I don't have faith in Jesus, maybe I shall be denied everlasting life, or even worse I shall suffer everlasting damnation (as threatened in various parts of the bible according to some interpreters). So I most certainly find no comfort in the thought that my actions are being judged by a power who can arbitrarily do what he likes with me, especially when I don't feel that even my wrong actions merit being chucked in a lake of fire and brimstone.-BBella: Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it.-This is very similar to the idea that I've been trying to articulate: a form of energy that is constantly changing ... not with self-awareness, but nevertheless with a creative intelligence, just like the unknown mechanism within the genome (David prefers "genome" to "cell"). I'm slightly ashamed to say that I have never delved into the Kabbalah (the spelling I'm used to), and am hugely impressed by Tony's initial description of Ein Sof as "nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable." That is surely the perfect description of an atheistic first cause. My own compromise would allow for intelligence but not for the "self-realization, awakening to awareness" that apparently follows. David's UI would presumably already have had purpose and intelligence AND self-realization from the start, though perhaps our panentheist could live with "an awakening to awareness".
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 31, 2012, 17:07 (4127 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Don't be frustrated! Just don't make and then try to defend authoritative remarks like "Love is not a feeling. It is an action...It does not have to come from within." > -I can define love as action in great detail. Can you do the same with love as a feeling?-> Dhw: I do not dismiss human suffering on the grounds that there may be compensation in another life. > > TONY I do not dismiss the suffering, either. I find it a tragic shame. > > DHW: You keep talking about blame, judge, criminals, punishment, as if every person on earth deserved to be struck down by lightning, disease, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts, earthquakes. This pattern of suffering goes back to long before we arrived (I think our fellow animals can suffer too), and in terms of self-centredness (probably the main root of evil), that was already established when Nature introduced carnivores. > -Ironically, at least according to the biblical record, initially animals were not carnivores, nor was that the intent when they were created. (Gen 1:30) So apparently, God agrees with your logic. I knew you would resort back to natural disasters(I said as much in my previous post before reading this one.) While I can certainly say that the majority of victims in the case of natural disasters are actually self-inflicted, and perhaps climatologist might agree that the vast majority of natural disaster(excluding volcanoes and earthquakes) are likely a direct result of mankind's actions regarding the environment, I do not know the geological or weather patterns of early earth. I can not say for certain what the conditions were.- >DHW: .. if he does exist, I still see nothing wrong in loving my fellow humans for their own sake and not for his. > -There is nothing wrong with loving your fellow man for their own sake. I have not meant to imply that you should love others for God's sake, only that you should show the same consideration to God. If all of our actions were grounded in love, how much better would this world be?- > DHW: I don't believe I've ever done any lasting harm to anyone with the wrongs I've committed, but as you so rightly say, God may have different standards from mine. For instance, if I don't have faith in Jesus, maybe I shall be denied everlasting life, or even worse I shall suffer everlasting damnation (as threatened in various parts of the bible according to some interpreters). So I most certainly find no comfort in the thought that my actions are being judged by a power who can arbitrarily do what he likes with me, especially when I don't feel that even my wrong actions merit being chucked in a lake of fire and brimstone. > -Acts 24:15 ... This is actually the answer to your thought. There is no 'burning in hell' or 'lava bubble baths' for people that try to do the right thing but fall short either due to ignorance or simple human imperfection. Yes, the wage you pay for mistakes is death, and that is a price we all pay. Then you are offered an opportunity to learn how to do things correctly before being offered a choice to follow the rules or not. So, no, your wrong actions do not warrant being chucked in a lake of fire and brimstone, and fortunately, that is not what the book says would happen to you anyway. - > BBella: Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. > > This is very similar to the idea that I've been trying to articulate: a form of energy that is constantly changing ... not with self-awareness, but nevertheless with a creative intelligence, just like the unknown mechanism within the genome (David prefers "genome" to "cell"). I'm slightly ashamed to say that I have never delved into the Kabbalah (the spelling I'm used to), and am hugely impressed by Tony's initial description of Ein Sof as "nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable." That is surely the perfect description of an atheistic first cause. My own compromise would allow for intelligence but not for the "self-realization, awakening to awareness" that apparently follows. David's UI would presumably already have had purpose and intelligence AND self-realization from the start, though perhaps our panentheist could live with "an awakening to awareness".-Agreed, though it would depend on how we were defining intelligence. To me, intelligence and self-awareness are intricately interwoven, which is why I chose to use that term. If you mean perhaps an animal intelligence, a more primitive intelligence that is not self aware, then I suppose we could agree.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
Part One-Dhw: Why, then, do you swallow the pronouncements of authors you know little or nothing about, written some two thousand years ago in a language you do not speak, describing a future for which neither you nor they can provide any testable evidence? TONY: As I told David, for me, the evidence is in the trustworthiness of all of the predictions that came before. [...] Why should I trust [the bible] any less than some scientist that I do not know and have not met, many of which speak a language that I do not?-Many scientists have made accurate predictions. Does that mean I should also believe them when they predict that science will prove that life and the mechanisms for evolution came about by chance? You have no more evidence for Revelation 3-5 than they have for their prediction, so why not keep an agnostically open mind instead of presenting it as proof of God's benevolence?-Dhw: ...while you find cold comfort in this world, I find no comfort in your cherry-picked quotations.-TONY: Cherry picked? I fully admit the full spectrum of his personality, how is that cherry picking? [...] I do not know of any place where it says that unbelief, in and of itself, makes you a sinner. You quoted Revelation 21;3-5, which says there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain etc. (proof that God is not a "tyrannical asshole") but have now twice ignored verse 8, which says that the fearful, and UNBELIEVING etc. "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."-Dhw: It's now even less clear to me what sort of afterlife you envisage. TONY: The meek shall inherit the earth. The entire book talks over and over and over throughout about a resurrection (of the righteous and unrighteous no less) [...] I would need to believe in an afterlife, as such, before I could explain to you what kind of after life I believe in. You and St John between you have now explained it very clearly. Apparently all of us are to be resurrected. If we die and come to life again, that is an afterlife. And according to St John, an author whom you trust, some folk will then have their tears wiped away by God, while the unbelieving like me will suffer a "second death" in a lake of fire and brimstone. Thank you. TONY: What is more terrifying than a sense of justice that is not like ours? How about a higher power that has our sense of justice.....-We already live under a higher power that has our sense of justice. And as you keep repeating, we know society's rules and deserve to be punished if we break them. But if, for instance, God thinks unbelievers should be chucked into a lake of fire and brimstone, or a Muslim fundamentalist should be offered 1000 virgins for killing you and me, we have every reason to be scared stiff. Dhw: ...when it comes to the horrors of his world, you either blame man or you fall back on the notion that we mustn't judge God, and in any case he'll make it up to any innocent victims in some nebulous afterlife. -TONY: I am fairly certain I never said we were all going to heaven or hell...-No, you didn't, though Revelation 21; 3-5 and Revelation 21;8 would do for starters! You wrote (20 Dec. at 05.06) "...even should he kill a few so-called innocents, he has not taken anything that he could not return in better condition than he took it." I assume that once someone is dead, the only way they can be better off will be through some form of afterlife. I would regard resurrection and whatever happens after it as a "nebulous afterlife".-TONY: Yes, I say you musn't judge god because we are not qualified to judge god any more than a infant is qualified to the actions of their parents. -Of course you're right. If God exists, he makes the rules and so he alone is "qualified". I do not find that comforting.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 17:40 (4125 days ago) @ dhw
One common thread of miscommunication in this seems to be in the definition of an afterlife. To me "after life" lends itself to the concept of something other than life, some other form of existence than what we would call life. In that sense, no, I do not believe in an "afterlife" as such that all people must go to. If you include resurrection, which to me is equivalent to resuscitation, or a return to the state of living, then yes, I suppose I do believe in an after life. I guess the language barrier strikes again. -As for your comments regarding the burning hell and what not, I have not ignored it. I presented scriptural evidence that explained that the 'lake of fire' concept simply meant a second death from which there is no return, which also falls in line with the use of 'fire' throughout the book which is used to reference complete destruction and/or total annihilation, not some eternal torment. After you rejected that evidence, I left it alone because we wind up in the position where no matter what I show you from the text you will take dogma over what is written, so there is no point in hounding on it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 17:59 (4125 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> BM: As for your comments regarding the burning hell and what not, I have not ignored it. I presented scriptural evidence that explained that the 'lake of fire' concept simply meant a second death from which there is no return, which also falls in line with the use of 'fire' throughout the book which is used to reference complete destruction and/or total annihilation, not some eternal torment. After you rejected that evidence, I left it alone because we wind up in the position where no matter what I show you from the text you will take dogma over what is written, so there is no point in hounding on it. -You have quoted Kaballah before. What is wrong with those proposed stages as being the after life? Since none of us really know, and we Jews don't believe in Hell, there are alternative theories.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 03, 2013, 00:58 (4125 days ago) @ David Turell
> > BM: As for your comments regarding the burning hell and what not, I have not ignored it. I presented scriptural evidence that explained that the 'lake of fire' concept simply meant a second death from which there is no return, which also falls in line with the use of 'fire' throughout the book which is used to reference complete destruction and/or total annihilation, not some eternal torment. After you rejected that evidence, I left it alone because we wind up in the position where no matter what I show you from the text you will take dogma over what is written, so there is no point in hounding on it. > > You have quoted Kaballah before. What is wrong with those proposed stages as being the after life? Since none of us really know, and we Jews don't believe in Hell, there are alternative theories.-Nothing at all, really. I just find that the Kaballah tends to be a bit heavy on the mystical/astrological side. I don't disagree with everything that it says by any means, I just approach those things with caution. I've seen too much freaky stuff in my life to not have a sense of caution about mysticism, demonology, magic, etc etc.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Thursday, January 03, 2013, 01:20 (4125 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> >DT: You have quoted Kaballah before. What is wrong with those proposed stages as being the after life? Since none of us really know, and we Jews don't believe in Hell, there are alternative theories. > > BM: Nothing at all, really. I just find that the Kaballah tends to be a bit heavy on the mystical/astrological side. I don't disagree with everything that it says by any means, I just approach those things with caution. I've seen too much freaky stuff in my life to not have a sense of caution about mysticism, demonology, magic, etc etc.-Fair enough. I think I'll make it past the limbo possibility.
Love me or else (Part One)
TONY: One common thread of miscommunication in this seems to be in the definition of an afterlife. To me "after life" lends itself to the concept of something other than life. [...] If you include resurrection, which to me is equivalent to resuscitation, or a return to the state of living, then yes, I suppose I do believe in an after life. I guess the language barrier strikes again.-As it so often does. Now that we've agreed that life after death = an afterlife, may I once more try your patience by outlining the scenario presented by your interpretation of Revelations:-We all die. We are all resurrected. In this second life, those who love God will go on living with him forever, but those who in the second life continue to be unbelievers, fornicators, liars etc. will die for a second time and that will be the end of them. Is this correct?-If it is, may I ask you to humour my obsessive need to tie up loose ends. It would be helpful if you would answer in your own words, rather than in quotes. In the new earth (or Jerusalem), each of us will be resurrected physically, since we are still capable of murder and fornication. Will the new earth then be capable of holding and sustaining every human that ever lived (plus resurrected animals, so we can eat them all over again?), or will the resurrection be an on-going process? And will dhw, who died at the ripe old age of 90, be resurrected as a 90-year-old? Since the opportunity for capital crimes such as murder, fornication and agnosticism must still be available, the new earth can hardly be different from the old earth until God has got rid of us sinners, so do you think there will be a Judgement Day as touted by many Christians? Or will judgement be continuous, with the new Jerusalem divided, so that the faithful can go and live separately with God in their section? If the first death was our punishment for being sinners, and we start afresh in the second life but are still the same person, living in a similar world full of murderers, fornicators and agnostics, what do you think might make the 90-year-old dhw do better second time around (apart from the obvious physical incapabilities!)? I know some of this may sound facetious, but please believe me, my motives are serious.-TONY: As for your comments regarding the burning hell and what not, I have not ignored it. I presented scriptural evidence that explained that the 'lake of fire' concept simply meant a second death from which there is no return, which also falls in line with the use of 'fire' throughout the book which is used to reference complete destruction and/or total annihilation, not some eternal torment. -I'd better make it clear that I don't believe in hell either. The starting point of this whole thread was the "Love me or else..." threat posed throughout the bible. The discussion on hell is actually a digression. If "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" actually means eternal death (though why that should be equated with fire and brimstone rather than cold earth I really don't know), it doesn't make any difference to the argument. Instead of God saying love me or I'll torment you forever, he's saying love me or I'll kill you forever, so you won't live happily ever after with me. Admittedly nothing like as nasty as eternal torment, but it's the judgemental criteria and exercise of power that I find so off-putting. Fortunately, even though I'm one of the unbelievers on the list of those earmarked for a final cremation, this won't keep me awake at nights, because I just can't find any reason whatsoever for believing John ... if he wrote it ... or any of the other unknown, fallible humans who come up with such predictions. I'm sorry that despite your valiant efforts (and I must stress that I do appreciate your scholarship and your patience), I still find no comfort in religion. But don't give up on me! I still have an open mind on NDEs etc., and the implications of those are very far-reaching.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 19:14 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
To tie up logistics as best I can for DHW ...- > DHW: We all die. We are all resurrected. In this second life, those who love God will go on living with him forever, but those who in the second life continue to be unbelievers, fornicators, liars etc. will die for a second time and that will be the end of them. Is this correct? > -There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again for a short time. Those that choose to side with him at that point will be cut off permanently. Essentially, the only reason we are extended the forgiveness that he has offered us, and the associated second chance, is that we are so messed up that there is no way we could meet the standard, and more importantly we do not KNOW the entire standard. After the reign of Christ, we will have had the opportunity to learn the standard 100%, so when Satan is let loose it is a choice made with perfect knowledge of the consequences, and therefore is not forgivable. ->DHW: Will the new earth then be capable of holding and sustaining every human that ever lived (plus resurrected animals, so we can eat them all over again?), or will the resurrection be an on-going process? -My understanding is that it will be an ongoing process. There is no mention of resurrecting animals at all, so I can not comment on that. Ask the wolf, maybe he has his own version of the Bible and can clarify their beliefs. But, it IS said that we will not be omnivores at that point, and hinted that the animals will not be carnivores. It does not go into great detail of the logistics, however. ->DHW: And will dhw, who died at the ripe old age of 90, be resurrected as a 90-year-old?-Age would be irrelevant, but your body would be healthy, and likely the physical signs of aging would not exist. Whether that would happen immediately or if it would be a slow transition over time as the body heals itself in perfect conditions is not discussed.- >DHW:Since the opportunity for capital crimes such as murder, fornication and agnosticism must still be available, the new earth can hardly be different from the old earth until God has got rid of us sinners, so do you think there will be a Judgement Day as touted by many Christians? Or will judgement be continuous, with the new Jerusalem divided, so that the faithful can go and live separately with God in their section? If the first death was our punishment for being sinners, and we start afresh in the second life but are still the same person, living in a similar world full of murderers, fornicators and agnostics, what do you think might make the 90-year-old dhw do better second time around (apart from the obvious physical incapabilities!)? I know some of this may sound facetious, but please believe me, my motives are serious.-The Bible actually answers this directly. Those violating the laws(which are few in number) would be cut off immediately. It is somewhere in Isaiah, but I would have to look it up again. So, yes, we still have all of the same potential as now, but no, it would not be a world full of sinners because the simply would not be tolerated. As for what the 90-year-old you would do better, I don't know, and couldn't know, because I do not know what mistakes you made this time around. What I can say is what you would have the opportunity to do, which is practically anything. YHWH's laws are laws of freedom, not restraint. In fact, most often they are laws that we strive to put into play without success, namely treat everyone/everything with perfect love and respect. Beyond that, I have not heard of any limitations on our actions at that time. It is worth point out though, that if you had an eternity, you would have the patience to think your way through a problem before acting, which, as noted by Tolkien, is one of the failings of the short lived race of man. - > DHW: ... it's the judgmental criteria and exercise of power that I find so off-putting. Fortunately, even though I'm one of the unbelievers on the list of those earmarked for a final cremation, this won't keep me awake at nights, because I just can't find any reason whatsoever for believing John ... if he wrote it ... or any of the other unknown, fallible humans who come up with such predictions. > -It has been remarked that in a perfect government, the government has a monopoly on force, and the sole mission of protecting the populace from the use of force. That requires three primary components: the Law, the Judge, and the Punishment. -There is no way around that, nor should there be. I think I would rather have the judge with millenia of experience, infinite compassion, understanding, and wisdom wielding the hammer. At least then if I get the hammer I KNOW I have done something worth deserving my fate, and that the fate would be swift and painless.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
TONY [Resurrection] will be an ongoing process.-Presumably this will be when all life on earth has been extinguished, or else there would be an ongoing intermingling of the living and the resurrected. Therefore it will be when God has got rid of the old earth and built the new earth. On this there will be no meat-eating, but I note that the new earth will also be without seas. I can't help feeling this will lead to a bit of a water shortage, not to mention the difficulty of growing fruit and veg. Does the bible give us any indication of what we're going to eat and drink? TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again.-It's not clear to me when this 1000 year reign is to happen in relation to the ongoing resurrection, but you say that after it "we will have had the opportunity to learn the standard 100%." Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? (What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"? Before and/or after the arrival of Satan? (I'm surprised you believe in him, but that's a different subject.)-TONY: YHWH's laws are laws of freedom, not restraint.-"Thou shalt not etc." = freedom, but I like your rider to this statement: "treat everyone/everything with perfect love and respect." That's practically all we need, isn't it? But unless God actually reveals himself directly to us all, and says: "This is me, folks, the one and only true Christian God," I find capital punishment rather drastic if our Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Waga-Waga friends, and especially poor old dhw, persist in their unbelief. However, your next comment answers that:-TONY: It has been remarked that in a perfect government, the government has a monopoly on force, and the sole mission of protecting the populace from the use of force.-If your mission is to protect the populace from the use of force, and you have a monopoly on force, your mission can only be to protect the populace from your own misuse of force. And if you have a monopoly, you alone decide what constitutes the use or misuse of force. A great recipe for "perfect government" and for tyranny. God, once he has tied Satan up again (wonderful how he can tie him up and set him free whenever he feels like it ... or is he going to "cut him off" too?) will have the monopoly. You go on to say: "I would rather have the judge with millennia of experience, infinite compassion, understanding, and wisdom wielding the hammer." Well, who wouldn't? But even if he does NOT have infinite compassion, understanding and wisdom by your standards or mine, as indicated by the title of this thread, he still has the monopoly. Regardless of translators' disagreements, Peter's "Fear God" has a powerful foundation. However, faith is faith, and my self-appointed task on this thread is to find out about "the logistics" of your resurrection theory!
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 19:22 (4111 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Presumably this will be when all life on earth has been extinguished, or else there would be an ongoing intermingling of the living and the resurrected. Therefore it will be when God has got rid of the old earth and built the new earth. On this there will be no meat-eating, but I note that the new earth will also be without seas. I can't help feeling this will lead to a bit of a water shortage, not to mention the difficulty of growing fruit and veg. Does the bible give us any indication of what we're going to eat and drink? > -All life extinguished? No oceans? Where did that come from? Well for food, it states quite clearly all seed bearing plants and animals get the leafy vegetation. Not sure where some of your other stuff came from. > TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again. > >DWH: It's not clear to me when this 1000 year reign is to happen in relation to the ongoing resurrection, but you say that after it "we will have had the opportunity to learn the standard 100%." Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) -I do not think it will be Christianity as we know it, no. Religion as we think of it is a purely human concept. One thing I want to re-emphasize is that even though I do take a lot from the bible, and take it seriously, I am not professing to a given religion. Rather, I think what we will be taught is what amounts to universal truth. i.e. This is the way reality REALLY is, this is how you can exist in harmony with it, and these are the consequences if you don't. It is not religion in the sense of all the pomp, dogma, doctrine, and all that other fluff.-Christianity only exists, CAN ONLY exist, in the context of the current world system, or this current incarnation if that floats your boat better. If you have died, and paid the price for your sins, and have been resurrected, and have not sinned, then you are no longer in need of a ransom sacrifice. At that point, Christianity as we know it could no longer apply.-Similarly, faith at that point would gradually be replaced by accurate knowledge, something the Bible actually states directly. '[For this means everlasting life, taking in the accurate knowledge of you and the one whom you sent forth..'- >Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"? -The implication is that the possibility for them will exist, but that something will forestall it from happening. While this is only a guess, I think the example of Abraham points the right direction. When the act is committed too in the heart and mind of the person, that point of no return, that is when I think they would be cut off. Abraham was tested right up to the split second before he would have plunged the knife, and then stopped. -Agnosticism would actually be non-existent at that point. Not because it is wrong, but simply because presented with direct evidence it would not be possible. :P ->Before and/or after the arrival of Satan? (I'm surprised you believe in him, but that's a different subject.)-Satan is a title, not a name. It means the opposer. Likewise for devil, which means deceiver or accuser. Call it the spirit of the world, or an attitude shared by many, or an individual, it matters little. Whether it was an actual entity or not is rather irrelevant. Sometimes I am just as torn by the personification of Satan as I am by other things. According to the Bible, he was a beautiful angel. If I believe in god, I see no reason not to be believe in one or more other spirit creatures. But wouldn't you say that sums up the attitude of the world nicely? Opposed to the rules God set forth, accusing him of everything in the book? Even the Original Adam and Eve story was about opposing the rules and accusing God of keeping something good from his children. -> > TONY: YHWH's laws are laws of freedom, not restraint. > > "Thou shalt not etc." = freedom, but I like your rider to this statement: "treat everyone/everything with perfect love and respect." That's practically all we need, isn't it?-".. and the greatest of these is love.' Yes, it is all we need. Look at the thou shalt nots... they can all be summed up by that one golden rule. It is the one rule that grants perfect freedom to everyone, without letting anyone impugn the freedom or happiness another. - There were many, many holes in your last paragraph, but unfortunately, for me to address them would take more time than I have at the moment. All I can tell you is that even a very cursory reading of the bible would pretty much demolish that entire last paragraph. Hell, even a cursory reading of Genesis and Revelation along would demolish it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
Tony believes we shall all be physically resurrected. Even allowing for God's existence, I have great difficulty understanding the practicality of this vision, based on Revelation 21, 1-8, as recommended by Tony himself. -TONY: All life extinguished? No oceans? Where did that come from? Well for food, it states quite clearly all seed bearing plants and animals get the leafy vegetation. Not sure where some of your other stuff came from.-I asked when this ongoing resurrection was to take place. If bodies are resurrected on the old earth while ordinary folk are still living on it, I'd have thought there'd be much confusion. In this life, I could be chatting to my great-great-great grandfather, who at the age of 213 would be in far better shape than me. No oceans? Verse 1: "...for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." As regards no meat-eating: "It is said that we will not be omnivores at that point, and hinted that the animals will not be carnivores" (B-M, 15 January at 19.14). I still think you'll have a job providing even seeds and leaves for us all.-TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again. Dhw: Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? (What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) TONY: I do not think it will be Christianity as we know it, no. Religion as we think of it is a purely human concept [...] -I could not agree more, and this applies to all the texts written by fallible humans, including the bible on which you have based this whole scenario. TONY: [...] If you have died, and paid the price for your sins, and have been resurrected, and have not sinned, then you are no longer in need of a ransom sacrifice. At that point, Christianity as we know it could no longer apply. [...] faith at that point would gradually be replaced by accurate knowledge, something the Bible actually states directly. '[For this means everlasting life, taking in the accurate knowledge of you and the one whom you sent forth...'-All of the above is 100% Christian, right down (up?) to your 1000 year reign of Christ. But of course religion will change if Christ stands in front of us and says, "Look, it's me, and all you Hindus, Buddhists, Waga-Wagas and agnostics got it wrong, and now I ... the one whom God sent forth ... am gonna tell you the truth." Dhw: Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"? TONY: The implication is that the possibility for them will exist, but that something will forestall it from happening. [...] Agnosticism would actually be non-existent at that point. Not because it is wrong, but simply because presented with direct evidence it would not be possible.-So the whole business of evil fornicators, murderers and agnostics being chucked in the lake of fire and brimstone is a total sham. When we see direct evidence (e.g. Christ standing in front of us all), we shall of course all be "forestalled". Except: "When the act is committed too in the heart and mind of the person, that point of no return, that is when I think they would be cut off." So if we THINK naughty thoughts BEFORE we've had the direct evidence, we'll be cut off, even though we shan't DO anything naughty because the direct evidence will have forestalled us in the nick of time (Abraham's "split second"). I think: "Fornicate!" Then comes the direct evidence. I don't fornicate. But it's too late, and off I go into the lake! This is going to be 1000 years of split-second timing for someone in authority.-TONY: It has been remarked that in a perfect government, the government has a monopoly on force, and the sole mission of protecting the populace from the use of force. DHW: If your mission is to protect the populace from force, and you have a monopoly on force, your mission can only be to protect the populace from your own misuse of force. And if you have a monopoly, you alone decide what constitutes the use or misuse of force. A great recipe for "perfect government" and for tyranny. [...] Even if [God] does NOT have infinite compassion, understanding and wisdom by your standards or mine [...] he still has the monopoly. [...] Peter's "Fear God" still has a powerful foundation. TONY: There were many, many holes in your last paragraph, but unfortunately, for me to address them would take more time than I have at the moment. All I can tell you is that even a very cursory reading of the bible would pretty much demolish that entire last paragraph. Hell, even a cursory reading of Genesis and Revelation along would demolish it.-But I do not accept the authority of the bible. See our discussion under "How God works". Please point out the holes in the argument, not how the argument contradicts the unreliable collection of texts that make up the bible.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 17, 2013, 20:19 (4110 days ago) @ dhw
Ok DHW, you win. The book of revelation is meant as a literal interpretation, and the only things that will survive the end of gods wrath are the sheep. Babylon the Great is literally the City of Babylon and is literally a whore. There will literally be 7 headed dragons, two head wild beast with 7 horns. The entire planet is going to be literally destroyed, along with the entire universe, and new ones are going to be created only this time without oceans. There are literally four bowls floating up in heaven filled with literal liquid anger, and these are literally going to be poured out on the earth. After some time, we will all be slaves to the asshole dictator god that takes great joy in destroying, abusing, and punishing the things he created like some sort of freak genius bully. Oh, and life the universe and everything was created in a literal 6 days. - I give up.... - Sorry, but I explained the the new heavens and new earth were figurative, and even explained what they were references to, so you moved to the next word in the verse and said that it HAD to be literal. That is not reasonable debate, that is willful misrepresentation, which I am sorry to say I do not have the temperament to deal with patiently.- Also, penance for sins is not simply a Christian concept. In virtually every spiritual belief system death is the price you pay for your sins.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 17, 2013, 21:17 (4110 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Mathew 13:13 That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don't really see. They hear, but they don't really listen or understand.-Mathew 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Friday, January 18, 2013, 01:20 (4110 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Also, penance for sins is not simply a Christian concept. In virtually every spiritual belief system death is the price you pay for your sins.-It is not in Judaism to the best of my knowledge. If we honestly admit our sins and transgressions durng the High Holy Days, we stqrt the next year clean again.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, January 18, 2013, 02:05 (4110 days ago) @ David Turell
Yes, even in Judaism:-After the destruction of the Temple and the consequent cessation of sacrifices, the rabbis declared: "Prayer, repentance, and charity avert the evil decree" (TJ, Ta'an. 2:1, 65b). Suffering is also regarded as a means of atonement and is considered more effective than sacrifice to win God's favor (Ber. 5a). Exile and the destruction of the Temple (Sanh. 37b, Ex. R. 31:10) were also reputed to bring about the same effect. Above all, death is the final atonement for sins (Mekh. Jethro 7); "May my death be an expiation for all my sins" is a formula recited when the end is near (Sanh. 6:2). Atonement for some sins is achieved immediately after the individual repents, while for others repentance alone does not suffice. If a person transgresses a positive commandment and repents, he is immediately forgiven (Yoma 85b). For a negative commandment, repentance suspends the punishment, and the Day of Atonement procures atonement: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you... from all your sins" (Lev. 16:30). For a graver sin, punishable by death or extirpation, repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend the punishment and suffering completes the atonement (cf. Ps. 89:33). If one has been guilty of profaning the Divine Name, however, penitence, the Day of Atonement, and suffering merely suspend punishment, and death procures the final atonement: "The Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears; surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die" (Isa. 22:4; Yoma 86a).
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Friday, January 18, 2013, 15:55 (4109 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Yes, even in Judaism: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you... from all your sins" (Lev. 16:30). -You have to remember I know what interpretations I was taught. Your research has found material that is not used today, in my experience. Lev. 16:30 is in my Bible and yours is a true quote. It simply says we can be cleaned and have atonement. It doesn't prove your point.-> Tony: For a graver sin, punishable by death or extirpation, repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend the punishment and suffering completes the atonement (cf. Ps. 89:33). -Not in my Bible. Psalms 89:33 talks only of beating with a rod. It is a discussion of God's covenant with David. I don't know what you are quoting.-> Tony:If one has been guilty of profaning the Divine Name, however, penitence, the Day of Atonement, and suffering merely suspend punishment, and death procures the final atonement: "The Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears; surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die" (Isa. 22:4; Yoma 86a).[/i]-To my eye your presentation here is way off the mark. Isaiah is lamenting a battle in the invasion of Judah. Your quote is 22:14 in my Bible. You and I are discussing individuals sins, not battling armies. -I do not have the erudition you have in studying commentaries. I don't know your references, but I do know the quote from Hillel: The whole Torah teaching is to treat others as you would treat yourself. This about 50 years before Jesus was born. -And I have a prejudice: I believe Torah, Mishna, and other commentaries override all others. I know what I was taught. -If you are using Christian scholar's versions of the OT, it is the opinion of some Jewish scholars that those interpretations are twisted to foretell the NT and add force to it. I don't have the scholarship to judge these comments which I have read. I'll stick to my Masoretic text and current Jewish teachings as I understand them.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, January 18, 2013, 16:56 (4109 days ago) @ David Turell
If you are using Christian scholar's versions of the OT, it is the opinion of some Jewish scholars that those interpretations are twisted to foretell the NT and add force to it. I don't have the scholarship to judge these comments which I have read. I'll stick to my Masoretic text and current Jewish teachings as I understand them.-HAHA I took that directly from a website on Judaism.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part One)
by David Turell , Friday, January 18, 2013, 18:39 (4109 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> tony: HAHA I took that directly from a website on Judaism. -Have no idea who these folks are. It doesn't matter. i believe what I believe. There are Jewish liberal nuts here who want us to abandon Israel and voted for Obama.
Love me or else (Part One)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 31, 2012, 16:18 (4127 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: You are, in my view, rightly sceptical of those who swallow the pronouncements of atheistic scientists as if they were facts. Why, then, do you swallow the pronouncements of authors you know little or nothing about, written some two thousand years ago in a language you do not speak, describing a future for which neither you nor they can provide any testable evidence? -As I told David, for me, the evidence is in the trustworthiness of all of the predictions that came before. In that, it is much like science. If I see a whole chain of predictions, all of which have come to pass, why would I doubt the other predictions that were made? Isn't that the standard that we apply to science and any other field of research. You make a hypothesis that predicts certain outcomes, record the results, and then use the successful predictions as a measure of the accuracy of your hypothesis? In this regard the Bible has been HUGELY successful. Why should I trust it any less than some scientist that I do not know and have not met, many of which speak a language that I do not?- >DHW: If I believed in God, I'd imagine him to be all of those things, and while you find cold comfort in this world, I find no comfort in your cherry-picked quotations.-Cherry picked? I fully admit the full spectrum of his personality, how is that cherry picking?->DHW: So here am I, an unbeliever (but not a disbeliever). I die because my "unbelief" makes me a sinner (see below), I then burn in the lake of fire and brimstone ... nothing to do with hell according to you ... as a kind of bonus punishment perhaps (second death), but (see below) I'm dead already, in which case the lake could be a bubble bath and I wouldn't know the difference. Why should I believe any of this?-I do not know of any place where it says that unbelief, in and of itself, makes you a sinner. Just saying.. - > > DHW: See above. It's now even less clear to me what sort of afterlife you envisage, since everybody dies, which is the price we pay for our sins, then we shall all live happily ever after with God, apart from us abominable unbelievers and our murderous colleagues, who will burn in fire and brimstone, which is a second death but is not a form of hell. > -The meek shall inherit the earth. The entire book talks over and over and over throughout about a resurrection(of the righteous and unrighteous no less), a restoration of the earth over time, one last period of time where people pick sides, and then creation moving on from where it stopped. What use is an afterlife when you have life? I would need to believe in an afterlife, as such, before I could explain to you what kind of after life I believe in. - > TONY: I think the more fundamental difference between us is not our view of God's attitude, but rather what rights he has as God. [...] My sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair, and justice are not His... > > DHW: How do you know your sense of right and wrong are not his? And what could be more terrifying than being at the mercy of a power whose sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair and justice are not the same as ours? -Because if his sense of right and wrong were as messed up as mine we would all be screwed. What is more terrifying then a sense of justice that is not like ours? How about a higher power that has our sense of justice.....- > DHW: You rightly talk of the beauty of God's world, but when it comes to the horrors of his world, you either blame man or you fall back on the notion that we mustn't judge God, and in any case he'll make it up to any innocent victims in some nebulous afterlife. -I am fairly certain I never said we were all going to heaven or hell... I have actually argued AGAINST them. Yes, I say you musn't judge god because we are not qualified to judge god any more than a infant is qualified to the actions of their parents. As for blaming man, please tell me which of the horrors of this world are not conclusively of man's doing? The ONLY thing you could come up with are likely disease or natural disasters, the former being certainly the fault of mankind and the latter generally being a result of people not being mindful of their environment. (For example, in the Tsunami that hit the Philippines some years back there was a culture known as Sea Gypsies that did not loose a single individual because they paid attention and took proper action. The same is generally true for all natural disasters.)->DHW: You rightly talk of the horrors of man's making, but seem to ignore the beauty ... charity, empathy, altruism, love, art, music. Just like the bible, the world can be spun to fit your own beliefs. I see it and the human race as a mixture of good and bad, but I do not accept that all suffering is man-made. I agree that you can't have truth without lies, good without bad, laughter without tears. But if that really is the only way your God could make this world, why can't you countenance the possibility that he himself may well consist of the same mixture. Yes, if he exists he has all the rights he wants. How is that comforting?-Humans do some beautiful things as well, it is certainly the truth. Small wonder that we would be favored for our potential and hated for our actions. What other species creates such beauty at the same time as such horror.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 18:51 (4138 days ago) @ dhw
DHW, I would also like to point your attention to a particular set of verses that I was reminded of while formulating a rebuttal for your question of Abraham. You accused me of ignoring the questions of Job and focusing solely on the flood account, despite the fact that I mentioned numerous other instances where YHWH destroyed cities or cultures. One that I mentioned was Sodom and Gomorrah. Check out Genesis 17:20-33. Had their been even 10 righteous men in the entirety of both cities, he would have spared them. he didn't find ten, but he still spared Lot and his family, not for their sake, but because of Abraham.-Genesis chapter 22 quite clearly, and pointedly, states that the sacrifice of Isaac was a test. I am not certain how that could be misunderstood. Just for clarification, I went back to the KJV(Not my personal because of the numerous translation errors). Nissah, the word rendered 'tempt' in the KJV is more aptly rendered 'tested or proved', but the intent is still the same. Gen 22:1, in the very first line says that Abraham was being tested. The purpose is outlined in 16-18.-16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.-Again, it is not me putting a spin on it. It is exactly what is written there. Now, you might wonder WHY Abraham had to be tested, after he had been called righteous and so-on earlier. The reason is that he had shown some incredible lapses of faith early on, doubting that YHWH would provide him an heir, calling Sarai his sister instead of his wife, etc. So, YHWH made him prove his faith.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by BBella , Thursday, December 20, 2012, 20:16 (4138 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Again, it is not me putting a spin on it. It is exactly what is written there. Now, you might wonder WHY Abraham had to be tested, after he had been called righteous and so-on earlier. The reason is that he had shown some incredible lapses of faith early on, doubting that YHWH would provide him an heir, calling Sarai his sister instead of his wife, etc. So, YHWH made him prove his faith.-I agree with pretty much every assessment you have given about your interpretation of all these scriptures, Tony, but as I said before, in my post before this one, I've evolved my thoughts since this study, which was many years ago. -A question I asked myself back then, and now ask you: Why would God, who has created all things and knows every hair on every head, and knows our thoughts even before we think them, would have to test Abraham to find out if he would be faithful to Him? Some say it wasn't done to prove to God but to Abraham, and/or to the future followers and readers the extent of Abrahams faithfulness. But Abraham would have proven his faithfulness to God no matter what, eventually, anyway, as he was faithful to God, and his life, that was to be recorder in the scriptures, would have proven that out, even without this incident. And, God could have at any point at any time declared his blessings to him and his offspring before his death. -I believe God was out to prove that Abraham would obey his "voice" and nothing more. But why did God not already know this?
Love me or else (Part Two)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 20, 2012, 20:39 (4138 days ago) @ BBella
Bella: A question I asked myself back then, and now ask you: Why would God, who has created all things and knows every hair on every head, and knows our thoughts even before we think them, would have to test Abraham to find out if he would be faithful to Him? Some say it wasn't done to prove to God but to Abraham, and/or to the future followers and readers the extent of Abrahams faithfulness. But Abraham would have proven his faithfulness to God no matter what, eventually, anyway, as he was faithful to God, and his life, that was to be recorder in the scriptures, would have proven that out, even without this incident. And, God could have at any point at any time declared his blessings to him and his offspring before his death. > > I believe God was out to prove that Abraham would obey his "voice" and nothing more. But why did God not already know this?-In short, free will. -Abraham had a choice. YHWH may know your thoughts as you think them, and your intentions as you form them, but you still have a choice and the potential to make the wrong choice. That is actually a parallel theme throughout the Bible, running alongside the issue of Universal Sovereignty. -So, yes, YHWH was testing whether or not Abraham would obey, which was, in and of itself, a test of faith. YHWH had promised long before the time of Isaac that his seed would become many and powerful. If Abraham trusted in that promise, had faith in it, then he could do what was asked of him without hesitation. If he did not trust it, then he would have hesitated, or even balked at the command. It was explicitly stated as being a test, a test that Abraham would hold nothing back from YHWH, as YHWH held nothing back from his people. After all, he did not ask Abraham to do anything that he was not willing to do himself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Love me or else (Part Two)
by romansh , Thursday, December 20, 2012, 23:54 (4138 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
In short, free will. > > Abraham had a choice ... Free will is not about making choices!