The Old Testament

[Panthera tigris FC]

How do you know that?

Ah..the eternal question. I think it is relevant to many an assertion found herein.

The ubiquitous contradiction: "God works in mysterious ways...but I know his will with 100% certainty".

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

What we consider evidence differs.

Then one must ask why?

I consider life experience's, feeling God's presence, the writings in the Bible, amazing occurrences, and a God-given assurance to be evidence enough.

And I think these experiences can be explained by other means that don't require the conjuring of an infinitely complex God. When one considers evidence all of the possible explanations should be considered.

You seem to need to be able to dig it up and physically look at it or break it down and see it's chemical compound to believe.

Not really. I just look at the sum of the evidence and look for the simplest solution. In this case the theist position does not seem plausible.

Jesus said to Thomas in that famous visit after his resurrection - ""Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

I am well aware of this passage. It makes faith a virtue. A lovely self-reinforcing meme that religions are rife with (hence their persistence and success).

 

[evo]

So "In the beginning" is relative to this universe?

Pantera, as a bit of an aside I 'd be interested on whether you subscribe to a multi-verse/many worlds type scenario; or perhaps a single universe that just expands and contracts in an infinite cycle; or whether this a just a one off event that did indeed "come from nothing" and will eventually end.

or even something else entirely.

 

[Djevv]

Anyway, back to the text as a biblical rookie reading Genesis for the 1st time I see God, in the context of the text thus far, as unimaginably powerful but terribly flawed.

Flawed, howso?

By the way, I didn’t realize Satan had fallen from archangel to hells angel before Adam and Eve hit the scene. Where does Satan’s fall surface in the bible? … anyone know?

This link summarisises Christian thinking on this matter. Check out Isa 14:12-14 and Ezekeil 25: 12-18 scriptures especially.

Anyway, given that God was aware of the dangers Satan posed I think God failed on a number of fronts:
- failed to educate Adam & Eve on the dangers of Satan
(Eve comes across as childlike and innocent at best, dull witted at worst, clearly not intellectually equipped to deal with Satan. And knowing nothing other than peace and harmony and an ideal existence how could Adam and Eve possibly be expected to cope with that forked tongued fruit merchant)
- failed to stop Satan from entering Eden
- failed to protect Eve

How could this have happened?

God expected then and now for people to be responsible for themselves and their conduct. They would have been fully protected from Satan if they had remembered the commandment! Also there were two of them and Adam could have spoken up but didn't. Even further to that they could have spoken to God about it (to whom they had a very close relationship at the time).

One thing I can think of is if God had have educated Adam and Eve on Satan and the dangers Satan posed I guess it would have been an admission that Eden is no paradise. There are dangers. God and his creation are not perfect but of course that is not supported by the text - it's just a thought.

It's difficult to imagine how God could have left them so vulnerable given the consequences.

They had everything their hearts desired save one thing which was with held from them for a season. They knew the commandment and could have clarified things with the giver. They were not babies and were fully capable of looking after both themselves and the creation.

 

[jayfox]

Then one must ask why?

Why? I suspect because you have a scientific background with limited spiritual experience and I have the opposite.

And I think these experiences can be explained by other means that don't require the conjuring of an infinitely complex God. When one considers evidence all of the possible explanations should be considered.

But I believe that that infinitely complex God exists and explains it all nicely. Just because you don't 'need' to have Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Besides, you have many unexplainable gaps in your view of how we got here today. That doesn't make your theory wrong.

Not really. I just look at the sum of the evidence and look for the simplest solution. In this case the theist position does not seem plausible.

To you. To me it is the only plausible option. It simply makes sense. And is reaffirmed in my daily living.

I am well aware of this passage. It makes faith a virtue. A lovely self-reinforcing meme that religions are rife with (hence their persistence and success).

Downplay it and call it what you like, but I believe it is true. It is far harder to believe in something that you have not seen and I'm glad to know that God appreciates that.

 

[jayfox]

Hey, 1eyed,

that reminds me of a lovely episode called 'The Baptism' in 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' where Larry David is complaining about the compulsion Christians seem to have for forcing their beliefs on others. (No way relating this to you Djevv or Jayfox by the way, so stay cool)

He likened it to going around the world trying to force people to eat chicken.

"Here! Eat chicken! Chicken is good. Eat chicken!" he complains of christians.
"Don’t see jews going over to Africa saying hey Chicken! Eat this, Chicken! Chicken is good. Eat Chicken!" etc

Perhaps they should. Chicken is good! They're on to something! ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

"God works in mysterious ways...but I know his will with 100% certainty".

That's a fantastic quote.

 

[Djevv]

You've raised an interesting point here. What are angels (including fallen ones)? Earlier creations of God? Clearly they pre-date man...Satan fell before the creation of Adam and Eve. So "In the beginning" is relative to this universe?

I thought that in heaven, even if free-will exists that everyone would choose to follow God, because they are in his presence. Does this not apply to angels?

I am confused. ???

I believe that 'In the Beginning' refers to the creation of the universe - ie the Big Bang. These events are much later. This is my opinion only and many will disagree, but this seems to be something that is agreed upon by those of us who seek to reconcile the findings of modern science with Gen 1.

Angels are spirit beings that have freewill but no ability to repent. Once Lucifer sinned that was it, he was forever changed.

Yes, their creation predates Man's - the Bible is very unclear about what came before man so there is a lot of guesswork involved. Obviously being in God's presence was not sufficient to prevent Lucifer's fall - he was the highest ranking angel and chief musician (IMO) prior to his fall.

 

[jayfox]

Ah..the eternal question. I think it is relevant to many an assertion found herein.

The ubiquitous contradiction: "God works in mysterious ways...but I know his will with 100% certainty".

I've never heard of anyone who says that in one sentence, and I think that Christians need to be very, very careful saying that they know God's will with 100% certainty. We can think we know His will but then something else happens and we end up realizing that His will was something different altogether. Instead, I think Christians should 100% seek His will.

 

[jayfox]

I believe that 'In the Beginning' refers to the creation of the universe - ie the Big Bang. These events are much later. This is my opinion only and many will disagree, but this seems to be something that is agreed upon by those of us who seek to reconcile the findings of modern science with Gen 1.

Angels are spirit beings that have freewill but no ability to repent. Once Lucifer sinned that was it, he was forever changed.

Yes, their creation predates Man's - the Bible is very unclear about what came before man so there is a lot of guesswork involved. Obviously being in God's presence was not sufficient to prevent Lucifer's fall - he was the highest ranking angel and chief musician (IMO) prior to his fall.

Very good explanations Djevv. I believe the same thing.

I believe that Lucifer did not have the opportunity to repent, as we are given, because he had seen God in all His glory, unlike us. Problem was that Lucifer coveted that glory and wanted it for himself.

I also believe that the Bible is deliberately sketchy about the 'pre-man' details and that God only reveals to us as much as He believes we need to know.

 

[Djevv]

Ok this is good, I can work with this. It is usually quite rare to pin a theist down on a clear definition of something.

So we can conclude that within your paradigm there is no sin "out there"; as a thing-itself. Sin is a phenomena between you and God.

This is the part I'm really interested in: what then is the definition of evil within your worldview? Is that of the same order as sin?

Sin is the equivalent of the lawbreaker in our society. Any lawbreaker loses his good standing until he has repaid his debt to society.

I would say that evil is not a 'thing-in-itself' but the perversion of goodness. It has no existance by itself, but depends on the existance of good. It is what happens when a man (or angel) sins.

 

[jayfox]

Sin is the equivalent of the lawbreaker in our society. Any lawbreaker loses his good standing until he has repaid his debt to society.

I would say that evil is not a 'thing-in-itself' but the perversion of goodness. It has no existance by itself, but depends on the existance of good. It is what happens when a man (or angel) sins.

Agreed. And evil cannot create itself, it needs to be created by someone with the will to do other than good, i.e. someone with free choice to make decisions for themselves.

 

[Disco08]

The possibility for sin to exist simply has to have been created by God. He created humans and their emotions, from which all sin is born. If He'd created us with different emotions then sin (or evil) could have been entirely impossible.

I agree that evil (or the concept of evil) cannot create itself. For evil to exist it requires the creator to have allowed it amongst the things our free will can conceive of and achieve.

I'm not actually sure why this is a bone of contention anyway. It seems quite clear that God is attributed with the creation of evil in scripture:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

The only sticking point I see is the definition of a creator of evil as somehow perfect.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Pantera, as a bit of an aside I 'd be interested on whether you subscribe to a multi-verse/many worlds type scenario; or perhaps a single universe that just expands and contracts in an infinite cycle; or whether this a just a one off event that did indeed "come from nothing" and will eventually end.

or even something else entirely.

To be honest evo I don't rigorously subscribe to any of the theories, as I am not well versed enough in the physics to do so. Having said that, I always thought the multiverse (with it's expansions and contractions) was an appealing theory.

No doubt we will discuss it over a beer at some stage. ;D

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Why? I suspect because you have a scientific background with limited spiritual experience and I have the opposite.

Define "spiritual experience". You and I have the same sensory faculties....with all their inherent flaws.

But I believe that that infinitely complex God exists and explains it all nicely. Just because you don't 'need' to have Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

But this begs the question of explaining your infinitely complex God, when other, simpler explanations do so without such a onerous requirement.

Besides, you have many unexplainable gaps in your view of how we got here today. That doesn't make your theory wrong.

Far fewer than in the past. Areas where your God supposedly held sway are now firmly understood in the terms of a material world. Why cling to the remaining gaps? Science doesn't make unsubstantiated claims about such gaps (hence them being gaps) unlike religion, which relies on them.

To you. To me it is the only plausible option. It simply makes sense. And is reaffirmed in my daily living.

Why is it the only plausible option? Have you honestly looked? Or is your current view sufficiently satisfying to make doing so uncomfortable? Of course it is reaffirmed. That was the point I made in my earlier post. When you view the world through such a 'theist prism' you can explain things and affirm your beliefs through the mundane.

Downplay it and call it what you like, but I believe it is true. It is far harder to believe in something that you have not seen and I'm glad to know that God appreciates that.

You don't see the self-reinforcing nature of making faith a virtue? You don't see how that contributes to making religion immune to scrutiny from its adherents?

If you think it is harder to believe in something based on faith, than you have never really put any real effort into trying to understand the universe we live in. Now THAT is work. I think it is far easier to believe in something that promises eternal reward, if only you sacrifice your critical faculties, than to make an effort to really look at your beliefs and try to understand WHY you believe.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I believe that 'In the Beginning' refers to the creation of the universe - ie the Big Bang. These events are much later. This is my opinion only and many will disagree, but this seems to be something that is agreed upon by those of us who seek to reconcile the findings of modern science with Gen 1.

Angels are spirit beings that have freewill but no ability to repent. Once Lucifer sinned that was it, he was forever changed.

Yes, their creation predates Man's - the Bible is very unclear about what came before man so there is a lot of guesswork involved. Obviously being in God's presence was not sufficient to prevent Lucifer's fall - he was the highest ranking angel and chief musician (IMO) prior to his fall.

I think the highlighted section sums it up. You are using guesswork to justify your beliefs.

Why is the angels' freewill any different to mans'? You have stated before that once we are in God's presence we will have freewill but will choose to follow him (ie. not sin). What is the difference with angels?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I've never heard of anyone who says that in one sentence, and I think that Christians need to be very, very careful saying that they know God's will with 100% certainty. We can think we know His will but then something else happens and we end up realizing that His will was something different altogether. Instead, I think Christians should 100% seek His will.

Do you not look at your belief system as a whole? I was stating the conclusions that you have made in different areas and juxtaposing them to point out the inherent contradiction.

By stating that you are a Christian you are already making many firm assertions in regard to the nature of your 'mysterious God'.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I also believe that the Bible is deliberately sketchy about the 'pre-man' details and that God only reveals to us as much as He believes we need to know.

That is an unfalsifiable assertion that just supports your beliefs. It has no support from your doctrines or scripture. Why do you believe it? Perhaps because of your axiom of the existence of the Christian God.

 

[evo]

I would say that evil is not a 'thing-in-itself' but the perversion of goodness. It has no existance by itself, but depends on the existance of good. It is what happens when a man (or angel) sins.

Yes, but as you pointed out earlier with light and darkness they are of the same order. We can recognise light by what it is not; dark. Good and evil are in the same category or set but opposites,right?

You believe there is actually 'something' that can be objectively pointed to and be able to say,there, that's "good". No?

 

[glantone]

Flawed, howso?

God expected then and now for people to be responsible for themselves and their conduct. They would have been fully protected from Satan if they had remembered the commandment! Also there were two of them and Adam could have spoken up but didn't. Even further to that they could have spoken to God about it (to whom they had a very close relationship at the time).

They had everything their hearts desired save one thing which was with held from them for a season. They knew the commandment and could have clarified things with the giver. They were not babies and were fully capable of looking after both themselves and the creation.

Djevv, thanks for the link on Satan’s fall from grace.

Here’s that infamous exchange which led to of all possibly wondrous things, the fig thong:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


I understand where you’re coming from and I’m also big on the concept of taking responsibility for one’s actions. However, from that brief exchange above I don’t see one iota of evidence that would suggest Eve was intellectually capable of properly assessing her situation, rationally weighing up her options or making an informed decision.

As I said in my previous post Eve appears at best to be childlike and at worst intellectually disabled. And as for Adam, …well that big lug remained as mute as a tailor’s dummy throughout.

To Eve’s credit, she is seen to pretty much parrot what God had commanded of her (as a child or simpleton might) but that slippery serpent’s simple contradiction of God’s commandment coupled with the image that the tree and its fruit - and I love this - looked good (now there’s a serious justification for ignoring your creator threat of death) and that its fruit offered the potential to be wise was enough for Eve, in the blink of an eye, to change her mind and follow the serpent’s recommendation.
Woman’s prerogative, eh?

If Eve was fully aware of the gravity of her situation and intellectually equipped by God to deal with Satan, God’s powerful nemesis, where is the evidence in the text?
Where's the neuron activity?

This is why I say God is flawed, and we’ve only just started Genesis - God fails to provide a safe and secure environment for Adam and Eve. And God fails to educate them on the very real dangers they were in.

Exchange the apples for candy and the promise to be wise for toys and you’ve got a school yard pedophile. Now, what do we teach our children regarding strangers with gifts?

Can you see how one might think God’s negligence here is on biblical scale?

Perhaps more information on Adam and Eve is introduced later in the story. I don't know.