Violence belongs to man, not to God. So the one who slashed the tires is man. — Agustino

So eating the fruit of knowledge is equivalent to man doing violence? Disobedience perhaps, but violence I think not.

Nope. — Agustino

Yes, what's the problem with that? All the works of evil are man's (and Satan's) not God's. That's what the Bible shows. — Agustino

I don't see how all of man's works may be evil but he himself is not.

because God doesn't make us feel better about our actions or what is done to us, but quite the opposite - God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. — Agustino

I don't see this.
Analogy is best.
If you walked into your family house as a child.
There was a hot piece of s*** in the middle of the room.
There's no one in the house, and so sadly it is your job to clean the poop.
Later, your father comes home and tells you yes I left that poop for you to clean.
You ask him why and he says because you grew up and now you know.
Now, who is at fault?
The child who had no decision behind his action, certainly there was action for him, tho involuntarily (knowledge).
or
The father who certainly decided 1. To have the arbitrary rule for the the ascertainment of knowledge and 2. To give you punishment for betraying rule 1.
I can make another analogy about my friend having a curfew and who really is to blame when the friend is punished.

So eating the fruit of knowledge is equivalent to man doing violence? Disobedience perhaps, but violence I think not. — Frank Barroso

What if the story is told from the perspective of man, and thus from the perspective of the criminal? What if man expelled God but transfers this expulsion onto God? The Prologue to John's Gospel does reveal that the Logos was expelled by man - that He was rejected and refused, and it asks us to read the OT in light of the NT.

Getting deeper into Plato's Republic and in reading all your comments, I'm beginning to see how I should ground everything in the Monad, the First Cause. Suffering and evil can only be understood, as they really are, from the perspective of the Source of all happiness and good.
Morality must be seen from the Source of virtue, being and existence must been seen from their Source. My very life derives meaning not from me but from my Source, my Creator.
This creates not only stronger explanations (though admittedly circlular ones), but it keeps the focus on my mysticism and my development of virtue on the Absolute. This of course is the reason to be a mystic in the first place.

So? Citing one exception merely proves the rule. — Thorongil

The phrase "The exception proves the rule" means that the exception tests the rule, not that it supports or justifies it. It's like in "proving ground" where weapons are tested.

Hmm... I never knew that.
Though it doesn't take away from Thorongil's point about using the term God or Theism in other than typically used ways. There is clearly no hard rule about this and philosophy does it all the time, just look at Kant's footnotes and his love of redefining words all the time.
However, in this particular case while I could redefine "God" it's best if I don't. At least not to redefine Him as my Absolute Source of being, meaning, and virtue. It's important for me to differentiate the two concepts. That way I can that say the religious God (a deific figure prayed to and intellectualy believed in and experienced thru a religious tradition) is a real expression of the Absolute. Thereby contrasting the two related concepts.

No. You're using it in the non-standard sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Hmm... I never knew that. — MysticMonist

He's wrong.

At least not to redefine Him as my Absolute Source of being, meaning, and virtue — MysticMonist

Theists do actually minimally conceive of God as the absolute source of being.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You objected to me using the word God to describe a range of possible meanings (because I lack certainty on exactly what/who God is), but you don't object if it use it to describe a First Cause or Source of being?
Just because there is a First Cause doesn't mean it's a diety. I do agree theists hold that God is the first cause, but the terms are not synonymous.
I'd like to suggest that Kabbalah is closest in this explanation of divinity. Ein Sof is the Absolute Source, but is itself unknowable. We don't know if it is a God or a passive force or what. It's just an unknowable Absolute. From this Absolute emanate things like virtue, goodness, existence which owe their being to the Absolute and in some way reflect, though imperfectly the nature of the Source.
I just realized the best solution to your objection of an imprecise definition of "God" is to refuse to speak of the nature of the Absolute and to only say it is unknowable in and of itself, yet it is the Source of all good things (which is redundant since evil things have no real existence).

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You objected to me using the word God to describe a range of possible meanings (because I lack certainty on exactly what/who God is), but you don't object if it use it to describe a First Cause or Source of being? — MysticMonist

Correct.

Just because there is a First Cause doesn't mean it's a diety. I do agree theists hold that God is the first cause, but the terms are not synonymous. — MysticMonist

Well, yes, there is a difference between deism and theism. But deists and theists do still believe in God, they just differ about whether God has revealed itself in history, can be prayed to, has a plan for the world, etc. Deists say no, theists say yes.

God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. — Agustino

If we're solely responsible for evil, how does that even affect God? Why does God have such a stake in the whole thing? Why would he create this soap opera where we're responsible for everything wrong that happened, and yet he throws us this bone to save us, if we retain the correct set of beliefs for our 70 year lifespans? That sounds like a human projection unto the concept of God; it represents a power-play, a form of abuse, essentially. In a world where we are solely responsible for all evil, the offer of forgiveness becomes not an act of love, but a show of power. In that scenario, our accepting God's offer becomes a fear-based action; power intimidates us, and when this power-based forgiveness is offered, we accept out of fear of the alternative; the abuser sucks the abused back into the cycle of abuse with a soft kiss to the forehead. Indeed, it's not a fear of Hell that inspires the acceptance on our part, it's a fear of an abusive God-figure. If God exists, he's not an abuser. If you're God is an abuser, he's a false God.

Otherwise, in a world created out of love it is a real problem for us due to our limited understanding. — Janus

What do you mean created out of love? Literally made of the stuff of love, or inspired by a metaphysical love of some sort? Or something else?

(That's @Noble Dust's 1,000th post. Please savour it like fine wine. Or meth. Whichever you prefer.)

>:O

I work in the wine industry, so I have a few recs: possibly a 2010 Barolo; Conterno or DeForville are a few good producers. Or, if you're more on the esoteric side, a Jura Chard; Overnoy, or if you can find a back vintage of the now retired Jaques Puffeney...anyways, carry on...

There is a wine industry in NYC? :-O Where's them vineyards?

Are you kidding? :-O NYC is literally the wine capital of the world. In terms of imports to shops/restraunts, anyway. It's an objective fact, as stuck up as it may sound. As far as NY state wine, the Finger Lakes upstate make some solid cold climate wines, and Long Island has a booming winemaking industry, but stick to the upstate wines for quality.

Now, are you going to respond to my response to you that was on topic?

Now, are you going to respond to my response to you that was on topic? — Noble Dust

No. Because your response ignored my basic premise and argued as if it was false. God's love is perceived to be the greatest threat by those who are unloving and violent - just like it was by the Pharisees. This doesn't mean they are correct though, they just have a distorted perception and they input their own violence to God.

At this they covered their ears, cried out in a loud voice, and rushed together at him. They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. — Acts 7:57-58

No. Because your response ignored my basic premise and argued as if it was false. — Agustino

Can you restate the premise, then? I looked back through some posts, but I'm not clear what you mean by your basic premise.

That it is not God who expels men, but men who expel God.

Ok. I can agree with the basic premise, at least in principle; at least for the sake of discussion. So how does my response to you saying that God lays all the blame on us ignore that premise? There's a difference between men "expelling God", and God "putting the blame on us". The one is an action of man, the other an action of God, and they aren't interchangeable. I still stand by my initial response and would welcome your comments.

the other an action of God — Noble Dust

No. Blame cannot be put - that is merely an expression of speech. Blame always exists on the guilty party - the guilty party places it themselves through their actions. God merely reveals it to us, because we cover our eyes and ears not to see it.

God puts all the blame on us — Agustino

that is merely an expression of speech — Agustino

What? I quoted a post from a day ago. Specifically, the quote upon which my response to you was based. Now you quote something you said a few minutes ago. Which is it?

Creation as an act of love.

What? I quoted a post from a few days ago. Specifically, the quote upon which my response to you was based. Now you quote something you said a few minutes ago. Which is it? — Noble Dust

Both are it. I've clarified what I meant by explaining that blame cannot be laid on someone, it is an objective fact, at most it can be revealed. To lay it on someone would be to lie presumably.

So God doesn't "put the blame on us"?

Can you elaborate?

So God doesn't "put the blame on us"? — Noble Dust

That's a figure of speech meant to show that he reveals that the blame is on us. So no, God doesn't take this thing called blame that isn't already on us and puts it there.

Figures of speech communicate just as powerfully as logic, so you need to enunciate just exactly what you mean here. How exactly are God and blame connected in your view?