Shirking responsibility, The Blamer
Cited humans as the culprits of his err,
And cast them out of Eden, to this day—
This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. The "problem of evil" remains to this day the primary argument against the omnipotent & loving Bible God. Even so, I still infer, from the off-setting positive & negative values of Good/Evil, that the First Cause, whatever it might be, did not create an idyllic Garden of Eden, but something more like a Science experiment pitting Self-determination against Determinism;; Reason against Randomness ; and Virtue against Violence. The final outcome of this vital & volatile alchemy remains to be determined. But, we-here-now, must choose between the eye-opening Apple of Science, and obfuscated Obedience to Fate. :joke:


Like the winds of the sea
Are the waves of time,
As we journey along through life,
’Tis the set of the soul,
That determines the goal,
And not the calm or the strife.
___Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850–1919)

This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse

Contradictory statement.

God is omniscient so he knows good and evil therefore that's God's own original sin and thus makes him evil.
Which is contradictory to God being omnibenevolent.

EDIT:
Basically this leads to omniscience and omnibenevolence being incompatible which begs the question.

Or simply put you are what you know, God knows good and evil so he's both of that.

If we have free will, God shouldn't have penalized Adam & Eve. Disobedience is part and parcel of unrestricted volition.

Free will, but also cause and repercussion.

God gave Adam and Eve free will:

You are free to eat from any tree in the garden

but also told:

You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die

Using same rhetoric we can conclude:
They disobeyed but didn't die, doesn't that make God a liar?

Because he said:

you must not touch it, or you will die

Free will, but also cause and repercussion.

God gave Adam and Eve free will:
You are free to eat from any tree in the garden
but also told:
You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die

Using same rhetoric we can conclude:
They disobeyed but didn't die, doesn't that make God a liar?

Because he said:
you must not touch it, or you will die — SpaceDweller

I suppose I can say at this point that I finally got it.

Free will was bestowed upon humanity (Adam & Eve too) so that we could be good or bad (sans free will morality is meaningless).

When God, all-good as defined, warned Adam & Eve not to partake of the forbidden fruit, it was to be understood that doing so was evil.

The two, Adam & Eve, despite God's express instructions not to, ate, heartily I assume, the forbidden fruit, succumbing to Satan's vile machination. Adam and Eve then were, became, truly bad (they had, of their own accord, freely, committed an evil deed). Hence God had to penalize the two.

Having said that, Adam and Eve, before having taken the disastrous step that doomed them, were innocent - they didn't know what morality was. Why did God then punish the hapless couple? That God is all-good wouldn't have made any sense to them and so they wouldn't have known eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was bad.

The only logical explanation is God was ticked off by Adam's & Eve's disobedience. This suggests to me that evil inheres in disobedience. To be good is to be obedient. Why? I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment.

Another, far better, way to make sense of God's actions is with the help of the legal principle ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not). True Adam & Eve were innocent and didn't know right from wrong but they did commit evil (as explained above). Hence God did what an moral authority would do - punish!

Having said that, Adam and Eve, before having taken the disastrous step that doomed them, were innocent - they didn't know what morality was. Why did God then punish the hapless couple? — TheMadFool

I would call them helpless only if God didn't command them not to eat, in which case there would be no reason to punish them. ex. only serpent should have been punished in that case.
That command could also be interpreted as protective.

The only logical explanation is God was ticked off by Adam's & Eve's disobedience. This suggests to me that evil inheres in disobedience. To be good is to be obedient. Why? — TheMadFool

Good question, I'm not entirely sure whether I know an answer to this.

I think the answer lies in free will but more importantly in motive behind giving the free will.
If God didn't gave free will then we would have master-slave relationship.
Since God did gave free will then we have master-servant relationship.

master-servant relationship is more compatible with God's omnibenevolent nature than master-slave so it's a valid choice.

As for motive behind giving the free will, surely there must be reasonable answer.

To be good is to be obedient. Why? — TheMadFool

Why not rephrasing as:
To be obedient is to do good deeds, because commandments are there to protect from evil that is lurking .

Gnosticism was declared heresy by the church and stamped out therefore. — TheMadFool

Yes. But it was anathematized presumably, not because un-scriptural, but because It allowed direct contact with God, and bypassed the Church as mediator & translator. Later, the Protestants likewise claimed the right to know the written word of God in vernacular language. And at the same time, gave license to empirical scientists to consult the creation of God directly, Again, making an end run around the Holy Mother Church, with its ancient authorized scriptures, and again violently resisted. From then on, Catholic Mystics (closet Gnostics) tried to fly under-the-radar of the Inquisition, so they could have it both ways : direct divine visions and church sacraments. :halo:

↪Gnomon
This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse
Contradictory statement. — SpaceDweller

That was a poetic expression of the theological "Problem of Evil", not a statement of fact.

God knows good and evil so he's both of that. — SpaceDweller

I agree. That all-in-one understanding is the core concept of my personal BothAnd philosophy. The Creator is assumed to be Omnipotential, in addition to Omniscient. But not necessarily Omni-benevolent, since that is a matter of opinion for those affected by such super-human powers. Omnipotential includes the possibility of both Good and Evil.

That's why our temporal & relative world evolves along a Hegelian zig-zag path, alternating between extremes of Positive & Negative. But, fortunately for us, those oppositions tend to neutralize each other (Yin_Yang). So most of the time we are able to enjoy the sweet spot in the middle between demonic Bad and angelic Good. That's what we call "life in an imperfect world". Even when it's not ideal, it's not so bad. :joke:

BothAnd Principle :
G*D (All; BEING ; Cosmos ; Logos ; etc.) is the Eternal Necessary Whole of which our world, and ourselves, are Temporary Contingent Parts. Hence G*D is like the Yin/Yang symbol : both black and white.

Example of POSITIVE -- NEGATIVE DIALECTIC


YIN YANG

Nice comparison but fundamentally incorrect:

1. It makes the serpent redundant and insufficient.
2. It's not in line with the story of garden of Eden, and not even whole scriptures.

Basically if I would be to compare yin yang to the garden of Eden (or even whole bible) then God would be yang and the serpent would be yin.

However if we remove the serpent such that this applies to God only, then same should be valid for the serpent which is doesn't because if the devil is yin (evil) then where is his good side? (the devil is insufficient)

The Creator is assumed to be Omnipotential, in addition to Omniscient. But not necessarily Omni-benevolent, since that is a matter of opinion for those affected by such super-human powers. — Gnomon

And the opposite of that would be, the Creator is assumed to be omnipotent in addition to omnibenevolent. But not necessarily omniscient, since that is a matter of opinion of those affected by modern day science which is as limited as our understanding supernatural.

Interestingly enough though! we can not apply same semantic to God's omnipotent nature because scientific theory of big bang claims infinitely dense mass of matter as the creation of the universe.
So infinitely dense it even exceeds the laws of physics!
Well God also exceeds the laws of physics so what's the point?

I don't this such rhetoric is useful for this discussion.

Yes. But it was anathematized presumably, not because un-scriptural, but because It allowed direct contact with God, and bypassed the Church as mediator & translator. Later, the Protestants likewise claimed the right to know the written word of God in vernacular language. And at the same time, gave license to empirical scientists to consult the creation of God directly, Again, making an end run around the Holy Mother Church, with its ancient authorized scriptures, and again violently resisted. From then on, Catholic Mystics (closet Gnostics) tried to fly under-the-radar of the Inquisition, so they could have it both ways : direct divine visions and church sacraments — Gnomon

Sadly, Wikipedia reports that almost all Ngostic texts were destroyed by the Church and its henchmen. I guess we'll never know how much wisdom or truth they did or did not contain with the former being more interesting and that much more painful to bear.

Sadly, Wikipedia reports that almost all Ngostic texts were destroyed by the Church and its henchmen. I guess we'll never know how much wisdom or truth they did or did not contain — TheMadFool

There are valid reasons why gnostic texts do not contain any truth or wisdom.
Gnostic texts (unless I'm wrong) originate around 1st century AD, mostly concerning the life of Jesus and his teachings.

If we draw hypothesis that there were gnostic texts that somehow "annul" belief of Jesus' divinity, this still does not rule out God or scriptures written before that time which depict that event.

Apocryphal book of Enoch for example is not destroyed but it's story predates times of Jesus, so it makes more sense to destroy something that is older rather than younger because it makes no theoretical sense for older text (older by content) to contradict newer one.

My understanding of why it is not part of cannon is because the book was not old enough rather than because of contents of the book.
You can read it here if you wish and see for yourself, a good understanding of the bible will surely help to decode it.

Also a lot of logical (but not obvious) information that cancels out "secret knowledge" of gnostic texts is contained within the bible as well, for example in Galatians 1,6+ St. Paul said:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all

Therefore logical conclusion here is that Paul and other church leaders knew these gospels and they surely wanted to know what these gospels are about, what's so powerful about them.
What I'm saying is that they surely knew that "secret knowledge", and that's where one interesting question arises:

If they knew, why would they accept martyrdom? as if dying alone isn't worst thing in human life.
I think because that truth just wasn't powerful or true enough and as such there must be some other motive behind to write them, which is the key to the question that you asked:
Why did the church burn these books?

Morality, traditionally, doesn't make sense without free will. If one has free will, one can, as pertains to God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit, disobey. Morality consists of, going by religious and secular ethics, following rules of conduct.

The dilemma (for God) is this: Morality is about restricting our freedom - we can't go around doing anything and everything we want. However, morality is also about giving us our freedom - it's meaningless without being able to do anything and everything we want. Either we're free (can do whatever we want) or we're moral (can't do whatever we want) but not both.

Morality is about restricting our freedom - we can't go around doing anything and everything we want. — TheMadFool

Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question.

Does it make sense to be willingly tortured in the name of morality?
Even after knowing the "secret knowledge".

I don't think so, and this tells me there really is no secret knowledge or morality alone thereof that would be worth it.

↪Gnomon
Nice comparison but fundamentally incorrect:
1. It makes the serpent redundant and insufficient.
2. It's not in line with the story of garden of Eden, and not even whole scriptures. — SpaceDweller

Taken as a whole, the Old Testament presents at least two, maybe three or more, different models of deity. Among Hebrews, their tribal-god was merely a member of a god-family, Elohim, similar to the Greek Oympians. In that case, each family member had a specific role in ruling the world. For example, Yahweh was originally a lightning-spear-weilding weather-god, similar to Zeus. But. by the time tribal Hebrews had morphed into the short-term kingdom of national Jews, their minor local deity was promoted to an all-powerful singular universal eternal deity YHWH, who was so fearsome that it was dangerous to even say or write his name.

Ironically, the theologians among the prideful monotheistic priests & scribes were forced to address the philosophical Problem of Evil, which seemed to make the one-and-only deity of The Chosen People responsible, not just for the all-good Garden of Eden, but for for the blood, sweat & tears of the post-garden world. So, apparently they subtly & surreptitiously adopted a concept from polytheistic states, and promoted the snake (god's mouthpiece) in the garden, to a full-time tempter and legalistic adversary, as the anti-god Satan.

Later, as the Jews again morphed from a minor city-state into a world-empire in Roman Christianity, the mono-deity was again split into several personalities : abstract YHWH, personal Jesus, motherly Mary, mystical Holy Spirit, and demonic Satan. Hence, their belief system had come full-circle from Olympian Elohim to Cosmic Lord of Hosts. Therefore, if this condensed overview is close to correct, there was always a need for someone to blame for the imperfections of the divinely-created world. It was only the general deity's specific traits that evolved over the span from Genesis to Revelations. Some people today, imagine that Jesus and Satan were brothers in Heaven, who later became mortal enemies on Earth.

But that's just one of many myths that humans have imagined to explain : A> the contingent existence of the space-time world, and B> the existence of Evil in a world created by a supposedly benevolent ruler of the universe. Hence, an evil-god has always been a Necessary Being for mythology. So it seems that, just as we resolve black & white in the Yin-Yang symbol, we try to resolve the Problem of Evil in the notion of opposed deities in Heaven & Hell, while retaining the concept of One Omniscient, Omnipotent, Eternal Being. :cool:

Yahweh :
In the oldest biblical literature, he is a storm-and-warrior deity who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

YIN_YANG DEITY :


GOOD vs EVIL GODS :

Among Hebrews, their tribal-god was merely a member of a god-family, Elohim — Gnomon

Yahweh was originally a lightning-spear-weilding weather-god — Gnomon

I see, what you're referring to are "traditions" (English is not my native but here's hopefully accurate translator output), relevant traditions are:
1. Yahwistic tradition
2. Elohistic tradition
3. "Priesthood" tradition

First key difference for this discussion is that Elohistic tradition starts from Abraham onward, while Yahwistic tradition starts from garden of Eden.
Second key difference is that neither of these 2 include legal texts, legal texts belong to priesthood tradition.
To make things even more complex, the garden of Eden is made of 2 intertwined reports from 2 different traditions, Yahwistic and Priesthood. (Gen 1-2,4a;2,4b+)

All these traditions and reports however have same roots (ex. use same sources), but to say that Elohim and Yahweh are 2 different Gods or to say that they are deities is incorrect.

I don't know what to comment on the rest of your post because it would take a lot of investigation so I'll abstain, but it sound interesting. :up:

Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question. — SpaceDweller

Where did that come up?

Does it make sense to be willingly tortured in the name of morality?
Even after knowing the "secret knowledge". — SpaceDweller

It doesn't I guess but maybe that's the whole point! I dunno!

I don't think so, and this tells me there really is no secret knowledge or morality alone thereof that would be worth it. — SpaceDweller

I read in a paper quite a many years ago of a contract killing in a third-world country. The bounty: $66. If someone's willing to kill for $66...what are the possibilities?

Since we're now discussing God, I'm currently reading Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens and he writes that despite the claims, monotheism is a syncretic religion and borrows a page or two from polytheism (saints) and dualist religions like Zoroastrianism (the evil god Angra Manyu aka Satan).

I see, what you're referring to are "traditions" . . . but to say that Elohim and Yahweh are 2 different Gods or to say that they are deities is incorrect. — SpaceDweller

Yes. Like most cultural traditions, the origins of Yahweh myths fade away into pre-history. Some refer toYahweh as a storm god, similar to Greek Zeus, but others trace his beginnings as an iron-working volcano deity, similar to Hephaestus & Vulcan. But,after the emergence of civilizations, in most middle-eastern traditions, those "minor deities" were not assumed to be omnipotent, but merely specialists in certain phases of natural functions, and served as members of a Pantheon (god family or race).

Prior to the rise of city-states though, and communication between regions, each minor deity was typically the tribal-god of small groups, and were often pictured as war-lords. So, their natural functions were more general --- although the dry environment of desert people would emphasize the vital importance of rain, while mountain-people would find other functions more important. Yet, early multicultural middle-eastern empires began to pattern their gods after their emperors, who typically had officers from disparate regions. Thus, began the myths of remote emperor-gods, whose children, or appointees, ruled over local domains of their own.

The point of this recitation is to say that the rank & role of each deity varied over time. Some. such as
Baal (Lord of rain & dew for Canaanites), and chief deity of his own Chosen People, was for a while one of the tribal gods of Hebrews --- along with the female tree-goddess Asherah ( Astarte, Ishtar). But later, in the kingdom era, the Priests of Yahweh, demoted him to a "false-god" or demon-god, and began a campaign to stamp-out Asherah worship among Jews. So, there was a lot of myth-borrowing among the various tribes & nations of the middle east. For example the Jewish Asherah may have been originally the consort of El (Father of the Elohim family), and the mother-goddess of her people.

Therefore, to say that these mythical figures were deities, depends on the place & time. Their rank & role varied from place to place, and from time to time. And that includes Elohim & Yahweh, who may have been father & son in some myths. But later, in the Jewish traditions, El (proper name) may have inspired the notion of the single abstract formless deity of Monotheism (un-nameable). That name is still reflected in modern Islam as Al-lah. Anything else you want to know? :nerd:

PS___BTW, what does this have to do with "Maleus Scientia"?


Later, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud suggested that Mount Sinai was an erupting volcano in an uncharacteristic monograph, Moses and Mono- theism, and that Yahweh was certainly a volcano-god.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089214536484?journalCode=jota

The cult of YHWH as god of metallurgy originated among semi-nomadic copper ... This new desert kingdom would leave its mark on the main building at Timna:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-jewish-god-yahweh-originated-in-canaanite-vulcan-says-new-theory-1.5992072

Asherah is identified as the consort of the Sumerian god Anu, and Ugaritic ʾEl, the oldest deities of their respective pantheons. This role gave her a similarly high rank in the Ugaritic pantheon. Deuteronomy 12 has Yahweh (Jehovah) commanding the destruction of her shrines so as to maintain purity of his worship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

Hebrew "El" and Islamic "Allah" "
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Hebrew-word-Elohim-and-the-Arabic-word-Allah-etymologically-related

↪Gnomon
Since we're now discussing God, I'm currently reading Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens and he writes that despite the claims, monotheism is a syncretic religion and borrows a page or two from polytheism (saints) and dualist religions like Zoroastrianism (the evil god Angra Manyu aka Satan). — TheMadFool

Yes. Insightful book. And Harari is just one of many modern Jews, who acknowledge the assimilated, rather than revealed, regional & mythical foundations of Judaism, and ultimately of Christianity. :smile:

Anything else you want to know? — Gnomon

No but thanks, It appears not easy to verify credibility of your sources :meh:

PS___BTW, what does this have to do with "Maleus Scientia"? — Gnomon

Likely none, looks like this whole discussion ran out of context :gasp:

No but thanks, It appears not easy to verify credibility of your sources :meh: — SpaceDweller

Ironically, we now have access to a zillion libraries of information on the internet. But there's also a lot of "fake facts" mixed in. And, in the Trump era, even academics & experts are distrusted. So, ultimately, your own common sense & philosophical skepticism may have to make the judgment of trustworthiness.

I have personally consulted only a fraction of available sources, though. And, my understanding could be misconstrued. So, don't take my word for it. Test if for yourself. Just don't cherry-pick your sources to fit your preconceptions. Pilate's retort to Jesus still applies : "what is Truth". That's an open-ended philosophical question, not a final scientific consensus. :sad:

PS__This is not a situation where you can just "trust your gut", because you're looking for facts, not feelings.

"what is Truth" — Gnomon

The truth is there can be only one truth, and no matter what one may think the truth is, it will take belief that's truth :100: