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: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
Contradictory statement.This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse
but also told:You are free to eat from any tree in the garden
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
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 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.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
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
Why not rephrasing as:To be good is to be obedient. Why? — 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:Gnosticism was declared heresy by the church and stamped out therefore. — TheMadFool
That was a poetic expression of the theological "Problem of Evil", not a statement of fact.↪Gnomon
This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse
Contradictory statement. — 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.God knows good and evil so he's both of that. — SpaceDweller
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
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 — TheMadFool
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
Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question.Morality is about restricting our freedom - we can't go around doing anything and everything we want. — TheMadFool
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.↪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
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
Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question. — SpaceDweller
Does it make sense to be willingly tortured in the name of morality?
Even after knowing the "secret knowledge". — SpaceDweller
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
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).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. 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:↪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
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.No but thanks, It appears not easy to verify credibility of your sources :meh: — SpaceDweller
"what is Truth" — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.