To beat a dead horse

[nebula]

Wow!

This may take a while to hit every point.

Before I get to your last response, Logician, I need to go back to an earlier post - one I never got the chance to respond to.

When you began questioning God, I find it odd that you stated how you questioned "what [you] parents taught [you]." In fact, this is what I kept seeing from you with regard to your former Christianity: it all goes back to your parents.

I find it odd that your questionings never claimed these to be you beliefs.

That is, you weren't questioning: "Is what I believe wrong?"

You questioned: "What if what my parents taught me is wrong?"

I know I've had to face questions and doubts about what I believe, but I claimed ownership over what I believed.

I never regarded my Christian faith as waht anyone else taught me.

So, this is why I kept questioning about whether or not you had your own walk with Jesus. Your form of expression has just been questionable.

The God of the Bible is a logical impossibility.  I will assert that he cannot exist.  (Or, if he does, the Bible is completely incorrect about it's description of him).

Why?

Because by your understanding omniscience and omnipotence can logically be cancelled out, as you stated previously and in another thread?

However, by Occam's Razor, one should not take the position that there is/are (a) god(s)/supernatural force(s) unless one finds evidence to the effect that there is/are such things, just as one does not conclude that something exists without any evidence that it indeed does.

Why?

I found an interesting commentary on Occam's Razor, if you are interested:

Click here

The last paragraph is kind-of amusing.

I certainly don't see any evidence that the supernatural exists, so that would definitely qualify me to be a weak atheist.

Have you ever wondered if a parallel universe or another diminsion exists in congruence with our own?

however "god" by most definitions is a logically impossible concept.

Again, why?

So, if God is complete without us, he has no reason to create us.

Is this what life is broken down to in your life?

We obviously aren't agreeing on what "completeness" means.

I'll have to think of a better way to express this. I will try to get back to this.

[nebula]

As I've always understood Christian teachings on the matter, free will is the ability to choose one's own actions, which Adam and Eve were created with, however they were "unable" to sin as they had no knowledge of good and evil and had no desire to do anything evil, as the concept made no sense to them. . . .

But in fact, some - yes, some Christians do enjoy looking deeper - have looked deeper into the account for that better understanding.

Are you open to hearing some of these?

I am willing to share if you are interested in listening! 

Certainly! Lay 'em on.

Here's the thing.

First you need to understand the difference between Western (Greco-Roman) thought and Eastern thought - such as was expressed by the Hebrews. Western thought is about correct thinking; Eastern thought is about correct doing.

Thus, a Western-thinking person writing a religious text would tell you what to believe and why you should believe it point blank as such.

An Eastern-thinking person writing a religious text would describe the belief in action.

Here is an example as to how the two approaches would answer the question:

What is eternity?

Western thought: ETernity is "time without beginning or end," "infinite time," "the state or quality of being eternal." (dictionary.com)

Eastern thought: Imagine a beach extending across a shoreline. To this beach comes a bird who picks up a grain of sand in its beak and flies it across the ocean to deposit it on another continent. A thousand years later, the bird (or another like it, if you prefer) comes back to the beach, picks up a grain of sand, flies it over the ocean and deposits it on the other continent. The same happens a thousand years later. In fact, every thousand years, a bird comes to this beach, picks up a grain of sand, flies it over the ocean and deposits the sand on the other continent. By the time the entire beach of the first shoreline has been transported this way - that is only the beginning.

Which description gives "eternity" more meaning, more substance, more depth - even feeling?

***

So, with that understanding - onto the Garden of Eden.

According to Gen. 2, God told the man: "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17)

This was before He made the woman.

In Gen. 3, we see the serpent talking to the woman and saying: "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

In other words, he questioned God - let me get you thinking that what you believe about what God said isn't real. Hook 1.

Sound familiar?

What if what my parents taught me about God was wrong?

Next, we see the woman replying: "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

Now here is a puzzle: where did the "you shall not touch it" part come from?

Since the Lord did not speak this to the man, either he added this part in telling the woman what the Lord has said as an extra measure to keep her away from the tree, or she inserted this herself. Chances are more likely that she was told this by her husband.

Now what effect does that have on things? Hmmm . . . curious. . . .

So, in response the serpant says: "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

In other words, he is now directly challenging God - accusing Him of incenserity.

Is it possible for an omnipotent being. . . ?

Hook 2.

Question moves to challenge, and challenge turns to belief (or disblief, depending on the perspective):

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make {one} wise,"

Hook 3.

And consequentially, belief turns into direct, willing and knowful disobedience.

How many acts of disobedience begin with the questioning of the rule or law given by the authority figure?

"Does that 'Do not enter' sign apply to me?"

"Well, no it shouldn't because [X Y Z]. . . ."

"Yes, if I enter, I am not trespassing."

The person enters, gets caught, and gets fined (or whatever).

[You should hear Bill Cosby's comic routine on children and disobedience. It is quite funny!

Parent: "Didn't I tell you not to. . . ?"

Child whimpers: "Ye-e-e-e-s."

Parent: "So why did you?"

Child whimpers: "I don't know!"

Cosby explains the only explanation he could find for such behavior was found in the Bible.

God: "Didn't I tell you not the eat of the Tree. . . ?

Adam and Eve whimper: "Ye-e-e-e-e-s."

God: "So why did you?"

Adam and Eve whimper: "I don't know!"

]

You see, if you read the account just as the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the problem, you miss complete message. Whatever the Tree was and whatever the fruit was, it was not sin. The sin came from within that led to the action. What came from eating the fruit was just the consequence suffered from having disobeyed the word of the Lord.

[Gerioke]

Ok

Now I get what this has to do with anime.

[Logician]

Wow!

This may take a while to hit every point.

Before I get to your last response, Logician, I need to go back to an earlier post - one I never got the chance to respond to.

When you began questioning God, I find it odd that you stated how you questioned "what [you] parents taught [you]."  In fact, this is what I kept seeing from you with regard to your former Christianity: it all goes back to your parents.

I find it odd that your questionings never claimed these to be you beliefs.

That is, you weren't questioning: "Is what I believe wrong?"

You questioned: "What if what my parents taught me is wrong?"

First off, the reason why so much emphasas was placed on my parents there was simply because I was taught christianity as truth before I had properly developed the reason to question it. As a result, my parents could have taught me anything and I would have believed it just as fervently.

Also, after I had no more reason to believe it on my own , I found myself believing it (or at least professing it) because I felt questioning it to be unfair to my parents.

I know I've had to face questions and doubts about what I believe, but I claimed ownership over what I believed.

I never regarded my Christian faith as waht anyone else taught me.

So, this is why I kept questioning about whether or not you had your own walk with Jesus.  Your form of expression has just been questionable.

I did have what you would call "my own walk with Jesus." I don't suppose there's anything I could say to prove it to you, but I'm completely convinced, myself.

Why?

Because by your understanding omniscience and omnipotence can logically be cancelled out, as you stated previously and in another thread?

That and other such contradictions created by the definition of "God."

Do you have a definition of omniscience and/or omnipotence that do not lead to such contradictions?

From what I've heard from you so far, it doesn't sound like you care if the existence of God would lead to contradictions.

However, by Occam's Razor, one should not take the position that there is/are (a) god(s)/supernatural force(s) unless one finds evidence to the effect that there is/are such things, just as one does not conclude that something exists without any evidence that it indeed does.

Why?

Perhaps you spend your free time positing the existence of invisible pink unicorns? I know I do.

Sorry. That might be a bit of an inside joke...

Without necessity, evidence, or proof, there's no guarantee that something believed is even "in the right direction," let alone true.

I found an interesting commentary on Occam's Razor, if you are interested:

Click here

The last paragraph is kind-of amusing.

Interesting stuff there. It's interesting to see that Ockham didn't actually invent occam's razor.

I certainly don't see any evidence that the supernatural exists, so that would definitely qualify me to be a weak atheist.

Have you ever wondered if a parallel universe or another diminsion exists in congruence with our own?

Actually, yes, because theories exist saying that Heisenberg's uncertainty principal requires such parallel universes.

However, had I never heard of such theories, I wouldn't consider such things in a scientific light. I'd consider such things as I do my favorite episodes of Star Trek, as entertaining, but not supported by evidence.

however "god" by most definitions is a logically impossible concept.

Again, why?

I answered this above.

Edited May 14, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

So, if God is complete without us, he has no reason to create us.

Is this what life is broken down to in your life?

I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.

This sort of homocentricity has inhibited science for millenia.

Perhaps you feel sorry for my lack of "meaning," but such a loss is more than made up for by reasonable certainty that I have things right.

We obviously aren't agreeing on what "completeness" means.

I'll have to think of a better way to express this.  I will try to get back to this.

Alright.

[Fiosh]

Prove to me that love exists.

[Logician]

Certainly!  Lay 'em on. 

Here's the thing.

First you need to understand the difference between Western (Greco-Roman) thought and Eastern thought - such as was expressed by the Hebrews. Western thought is about correct thinking; Eastern thought is about correct doing.

Thus, a Western-thinking person writing a religious text would tell you what to believe and why you should believe it point blank as such.

An Eastern-thinking person writing a religious text would describe the belief in action.

Here is an example as to how the two approaches would answer the question:

What is eternity?

Western thought: ETernity is "time without beginning or end," "infinite time," "the state or quality of being eternal." (dictionary.com)

Eastern thought: Imagine a beach extending across a shoreline. To this beach comes a bird who picks up a grain of sand in its beak and flies it across the ocean to deposit it on another continent. A thousand years later, the bird (or another like it, if you prefer) comes back to the beach, picks up a grain of sand, flies it over the ocean and deposits it on the other continent. The same happens a thousand years later. In fact, every thousand years, a bird comes to this beach, picks up a grain of sand, flies it over the ocean and deposits the sand on the other continent. By the time the entire beach of the first shoreline has been transported this way - that is only the beginning.

Which description gives "eternity" more meaning, more substance, more depth - even feeling?

Ok, then.

***

So, with that understanding - onto the Garden of Eden.

According to Gen. 2, God told the man: "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  (Gen. 2:16,17)

This was before He made the woman.

In Gen. 3, we see the serpent talking to the woman and saying: "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

In other words, he questioned God - let me get you thinking that what you believe about what God said isn't real.  Hook 1.

Sound familiar?

What if what my parents taught me about God was wrong?

Are you saying that my questioning was due to Satan (or at least in some part)?

I thought you said such questioning was natural.

So, only naturally, I questioned as to whether I had dreamed up the mountain top experiences and two-way conversations with God and such. After all, it was certainly possible.

That's natural to question.

So, are you recanting?

Next, we see the woman replying: "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

Now here is a puzzle: where did the "you shall not touch it" part come from?

Since the Lord did not speak this to the man either he added this part in telling the woman what the Lord has said as an extra measure to keep her away from the tree, or she inserted this herself.  Chances are more likely that she was told this by her husband.

This probably doesn't really have any baring on this discussion, but on what do you base the claim that it was more likely her husband that added that?

Now what effect does that have on things?  Hmmm . . . curious. . . .

So, in response the serpant says: "You surely will not die!  "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

In other words, he is now directly challenging God - accusing Him of incenserity.

Is it possible for an omnipotent being. . . ?

Hook 2.

How does the accusation of incenserity apply to the question of the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being? I don't believe that an impotent, ignorant, etc... being exists who is trying to trick us into believing that he's omnipotent, omniscent, etc...

Edited May 14, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

Question moves to challenge, and challenge turns to belief (or disblief, depending on the perspective):

Question doesn't necessarily lead to challenge. If one is acting in anger or rebellion, this can happen, leading to atheism (or pseudoatheism) without proper justification (although the burden of proof is on the theist), which is one reason why I would say that atheism is not something one should feel "comfortable" in. An atheist who found atheism via rational means should be continually applying the scientific method to his/her atheism, rather than falling into dogmatism.

Anyway, you act as if atheism cannot be arrived at via rational, objective means. You act as if all atheists are trying to spite the God that they feel wronged them by refusing to believe he exists. From what I've seen, this describes the minority of atheists.

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make {one} wise,"

Hook 3.

And consequentially, belief turns into direct, willing and knowful disobedience.

a) Belief doesn't apply.

b) How do you expect me to disobey a God I don't believe in?

c) I still hold ethics/morals compatible (at least according to some Christians, but if I wanted the concensus of all Christians, I'd be waiting a while...) with Christianity and the Bible, and so am not disobeying God (whether he exists or not).

d) "Knowful" isn't a word.

How many acts of disobedience begin with the questioning of the rule or law given by the authority figure?

On what pretense do you assert that the questioning of an authority figure is wrong?

And, on what pretense to you assert that disobeying somebody who's got it wrong is wrong?

Or, are you saying that the authority figure is God? If that's the case, then since God cannot exist (at least not by the definition given in the Bible), the doctrines I'm quesitoning are the fabrications of humans, and this instance reduces to the other.

"Does that 'Do not enter' sign apply to me?"

"Well, no it shouldn't because [X Y Z]. . . ."

"Yes, if I enter, I am not trespassing."

The person enters, gets caught, and gets fined (or whatever).

You're making a case here saying that Christians should not question God because he's always right (which obviously won't work in convincing me as I don't believe God exists and you've included his existence as a premise). You're then further saying based on that that my questioning was an act of rebellion and disobedience against God (which it wasn't). And, with this, you're attacking my motives for abandoning my faith, hoping it will cast doubt on my current position.

If you want to convince me, attacking my motives isn't the way to do it.

[You should hear Bill Cosby's comic routine on children and disobedience.  It is quite funny!

Parent: "Didn't I tell you not to. . . ?"

Child whimpers: "Ye-e-e-e-s."

Parent: "So why did you?"

Child whimpers: "I don't know!"

Cosby explains the only explanation he could find for such behavior was found in the Bible.

God: "Didn't I tell you not the eat of the Tree. . . ?

Adam and Eve whimper: "Ye-e-e-e-e-s."

God: "So why did you?"

Adam and Eve whimper: "I don't know!"

]

You see, if you read the account just as the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the problem, you miss complete message.  Whatever the Tree was and whatever the fruit was, it was not sin.  The sin came from within that led to the action.  What came from eating the fruit was just the consequence suffered from having disobeyed the word of the Lord.

Ok, so do you believe that the fruit had any effect on Adam and Eve other than the filling of the stomache?

Anyway, from what you've written before, you don't believe the Genesis account to be a literal account, and instead believe in evolution.

I resolved it by discovering that the Bible wasn't written as a scientific account of Creation - for one science (scientific thought) had not been invented yet; for another, that isn't Hebrew mindset. Gen. 1 is to teach us about the LORD and His relation to man, not about the Earth. Gen. 1 presents the Gospel message, if you know what to look for. Trying to dig out science from it totally misses the point.

And it is possible that Gen. 1 describes a resurfacing of the Earth after a major global catastrophe. After all, "the earth was formless and void" and "the Spirit of God hovered over the waters" before God said, "Let there be light."

But that's another story.

Think of Gen. 1 more as a parable-like account, or a poetic account (something along those lines), and it actually makes sense!

So, why are you basing arguments off of the story at all?

[Logician]

Prove to me that love exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you asking to prove the existence of love?

[Logician]

Wow. You really are just a font of God's boundless love, aren't you?

I could spend less than five minutes on any of a hundred websites and write more meaningful information on the Christian religion than you write here. I stand by my opinion that your statements are an indication of a person with a poor understanding of the Christian faith.

And, yet you seem to have conveniently ignored my request to point out where I've demonstrated such ignorance more specifically.

What's to keep me from concluding that you're not just inventing ways to attack my character, or that you're not simply attempting (poorly) to defend your original statement because not doing so would make you look bad?

Oh, you're not? Then show me.

And be specific.

(Yes, this is an attack on your character, and I'm sorry for that, but I have no reason to doubt you'd simply ignore this second request if I didn't try to tug at your indignation a little bit.)

Logician,

You're probably wanting a less analytical and more religious definition, but too bad. And, I may have forgotten something, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

Yeah too bad - pretty disappointing for one who claims to know so much.

I know that what you were asking for (or at least all that would satisfy you) is basically the "Christian's definition of Christianity." I'm refusing to answer in that manner as it seems ominously similar to certain brainwashing techniques. (Trying to get me to write the definition in Christian terms causing cognitive dissonence making myself attribute my complience with your request to the fact that "I must be a Christian after all," thus making myself believe it simply because it releaves mental stresses.) I'm sure, being as Godly as you are, you didn't mean it at all in this way, but even so, I'm not going to comply with a request that could twist my instincts into overriding my reason to accomplish your goals.

Yes you did