Re: What am I getting wrong, then?

Post #217,176

8/3/05 7:47:58 AM

Here goes...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The god of the bible shows his colours with his first interaction with the first man and woman, where he tells them not to eat from the tree of good and evil. It's a form of oppression to deny knowledge and understanding. Children disavow parents for less. When they do eat from the tree of good and evil, they become aware that they're naked. So, before, they had the self awareness of toddlers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This situation is a lot deeper than what you describe. The Tree of Knowledge gave the _real_ knowledge. Not "knowing", "understanding", "appreciation" or "grocking". The kind of knowldge that rape victim has about sex. Like "experience", but infinitely more so. Returning to your "Children disavow parents for less", it's like turning 7-yo loose on a SM web site. But, again, infinitely more so. It's hard to imagine someone who is completely unaware and incapable of evil. But, try anyway. And then think of how she will feel when she realised she just killed someone. In the most sadistic and grisly way imaginable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is curious when combined with the other command to fill the earth and rule over the animals. You wouldn't put a toddler in charge of the family dog, let alone an ecosystem. Surely, an entity that can design and build a universe must have known this wouldn't work? And that a solution was to have the two people eat from a conveniently placed tree? So, if mankind followed the fruit eating command, they'd multiply and spectacularly fail the ecology command. But they'd have enough intelligence to realise the only way to obey and succeed at the latter command was acquire knowledge and understanding, breaking the former. Mankind would be stuck with a dilemma and lacking the wisdom for dealing with them. And an infant mentality fearful of disappointing the parent.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, a huge simplification. Nowadays it seems obvious that in order to accomplish something (anything) serious one must have a goodly understanding of evil, and be capable of evil him/hersels (just ask broomberg :) ). But it does not need to be the case. Certainly it must not be the case in the perfect world.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This god entity set this up deliberately. It's the same level of cruelty as pulling wings off flies. What a wanker! And this is his own PR. He can't be bothered to hide it and he still expects us to love him. Take comfort from his protection? We need protection from him! At least satan did us a favour and broke this gag before mankind felt its effect. So what does god do, knowing serpents are dumb animals and it was the work of his errant subordinate? Removes the legs from serpents. More pulling wings of flies. Oh satan, tell me more of our father so I can stay away from him!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is the hardest one. I am not sure I can do it justice. You need to consult a real specialst for this (and a Reform Rabbi or a Lesbian Episcopalian Priest are most likely not qualified). My understading is that God had to do things in a certain way if he was to produce real people and not string puppets. God could have created us in such a way that we would still be in Eden. But then we would not be "us". That goes to the concept of "hiding", tsimtsim. The Omnipresent and Omnipotent God created a piece of existace in which his presence and powers are utterly hidden. This, by itself, is the biggest possible miracle. Think about it. Suppose you play God with some microscopic people you yourself created. You can look everywhere in their world, and you can do anything to it. But, you are not, by your very nature, bound to _always_ look everywhere in their world, and you are not, by your very nature, bound to _make_happen_ everything that happens in that world. You can look away. You can go have lunch. Your creations will go on living without you.
The nature of God as it's understood by Jews and Christians(I think) is such that it's impossible for Him to look away. He _always_ knows what his creations are doing and he, personally, moves them all. Except you can't say "impossible" and "God" in one sentence. He managed, somehow, to create free will. He managed to create a stone He cannot lift. The stone is now lifting itself. If, in the process, the stone is suffering, well, the question is, is the free will worth it? Is the freedom to say "God does not exist" worth it? (parenthetically, I have to note that the freedom to say "God does not exist" is worth squat. It reminds me of the Russian joke: an American reporter tells a Russian one: "We have freedom of expression - I can shout 'Reagan is an asshole' in the street, and nothing bad will happen to me". To which the Russian reporter answers: "We have freedom of expression too. I, too can shout 'Reagan is an asshole' all I want'")

Look, if you want to understand theology, go talk to a real priest/rabbi. I, I just went to some courses. But don't behave like you know when you only know things second hands, from people who hate them.

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

Post #217,180

by warmachine

8/3/05 9:18:56 AM

Lame excuses

Having re-read the story of Adam and Eve, I still can't find anything that suggests the tree of knowledge gave deep knowledge and experience. Why should we assume this when it is named the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil', not the 'tree of total knowledge'? The idea of deep knowledge strikes me as a fabrication to cover a flaw. As said before, the couple became aware that they were naked. Toddlers know they're naked but aren't aware of what it means. Again, I assert that the tree of knowledge gave self-awareness and understanding, based on the passage "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked".

Also, modesty is cultural and two lovers who have always been naked probably wouldn't care. This suggests a human author of ancient times describing a fictional event, not a real one.

You seem to be advocating that this god was right to deny knowledge. What knowledge is so henious that mankind must be spared from it? Men must have free will but must be protected like children? Men must be protected from knowledge of evil, even though free will means the ability to invent and choose evil?

Next, you say that knowledge was unnecessary to rule the planet. For toddlers to rule something without it breaking, it essentially has to look after itself. However, the passage "fill the earth and subdue it" and "have dominion over" suggests positive, planned action. Even if the ecosystem could withstand mistakes, toddlers with the ability to reproduce is going to lead to overpopulation problems. Unless limited food is being used to solve that, which means mankind has to have the knowledge and understanding to manage finite resources. Population management or resource management: not a job for people who aren't even aware they're naked. Unless mankind is denied free will, after all.

This god entity had to set it up to create free will. Couldn't have just given them the fruit and a less utopian world to exercise their free will? Couldn't have just left out the retrofitted suffering and asked for the occasional hug? The guy can create a really amazing Universe and this is the only plan he could come up with? Isn't someone just making pathetic excuses to cover flaws in some superstition?

Matthew Greet

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.

Post #217,186

by imric

8/3/05 9:50:06 AM

"I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one."

ROFL.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #217,212

by warmachine

8/3/05 11:31:03 AM

Well, yes!

This god entity is supposed to omniscient, omnipresent and ever-loving yet I find strange inconsistencies and flaws in his story. If he wants me to adopt him as my guardian and role model, his sales pitch has to do a lot better than that.

Time to find a better illusion.

Post #217,626

by Ashton

8/5/05 4:44:29 AM

Love. It._____but Point of Order flag, anyway -

Damn.. Again!
from InfoWorld --> ezbored --> Gawd Knoze where,
the same pointless exercise of Rutabagas/Aardvarks being hawked by fruit merchants. As-If...
These sordid repetitions are like Groundhog Day for naughty metaphysicians who flunked English (never mind Sanskrit) and think some primitive 'logic' will make up for that -

Each inventing his-own comfy set of Attributes to Assign to! the "the Character! of" the {Unknowable} / {The Absolute!) / or-by-any-other handle. This Idea thrown into a mish-mosh of homo-sap character-flaws writ Large and randomly, sprinkled to taste. And no MSG.

Nor is this about 'theology' (a sub-category of metaphysics, last I heard). It is not even about 'religion' (either Corporate or hand-crafted) - but about something oblique and too-scattered to even have a separate name. The dance may focus dimly upon one of countless baskets called 'Christianity' -- an idea about as cohesive as "The American People" -- but only in some contest maybe, to write the most imaginitive definitions? and get on Alex Trebek's Religion Bee.

No-longer-fascinating to observe a (self-described) 'literalist, linear thinker' attempting to counter a proposition set-forth; one based upon a Clear-metaphor about Unity <-and-> a World of Duality - yet which is being not-even-Noticed, while something-else is minutely-deconstructed, as if this metaphor were some (bloody- yes) literal History!

I bow before the opportunities within such rich loam, for an entire series in Cinerama, (DVD after Week II tanks):

Featuring Charlatan Heston as Robed-protagonist, George Carlin as tee-shirted antagonist and Bertie R? as naked (and unashamed) agonist at the entire brew-ha-ha-ha: a matter absolutely undebatable for being conducted with Python- silly models / on entirely different scales; producing no chance -- for a metaphysical 'discussion' twixt adult entities; persons possessing authentic and shared Curiosity about these daily illusions.

ie I fling the puce gantlet of that Point of Order:
unless comprehension can be demonstrated by both combatants -- of the difference between the connotation and denotation of a (any) metaphor -- this can only be more hi-fat Fast-food for satire. Earnest mish-mosh only ever reveals just 0/0.

Butting-out,

Carrion

Or: never mind; always an option.
We don't drown sillies here; Admin is such a prig about that.

Post #217,629

by warmachine

8/5/05 5:57:56 AM

Yes, yes! I know most believers see the bible as metaphor.

I know most people see the stories in the bible as fiction, superstition and aging, incoherent, moral philisophy. It ought to be placed next to Lord of the Rings but too many people claim the bible is The Truth. And we know where that can lead. Yes, I know the people here aren't like that. I just have to do it.

I don't argue about connotation as that'd be an even more, long-winded deconstruction of minutae ending in a 'it doesn't mean that' flame war. Just aim for the literal meaning and come to a conclusion sometime this month.

So, please don't laugh as I refight adolescent conflicts. I use madness to stop me from going insane.

Post #217,885

by Arkadiy

8/6/05 8:45:16 PM

8/6/05 8:56:35 PM

None so blind as those who won't see

Well, you look straight atv one of better illustrations of the difference between the Knowledge from a tree and "knowledge" as we know it, and you refuse to admit it as such. Instead, you write it off as a sign of "fiction".

Consider it again please: when a man and a women who haven't had a bad thought in their whole life (and they were cretated adults, not todlers) all of a sudden feel that they should not be naked, to me it's a sign that they have been deeply transformed. They now know what can be done to a naked human. And they know that the are now capable of it themselves. Sex, the blessed way to be fruitful and multiply (and, in case you didn't know, Cain was concieved in Eden), becomes just another activity that may be used for evil. Mind you, the good side of sex is still here, but the dark side is now with them too. Please remember the rape analogy - you look at your wife and realise, for the first time, that rape is possible.

There are more signs that can tell you how deep was the change causes by the Tree of knowledge, not just in Adam and Eve but in the world. God says that the world was "good" after it was created. There was no evil in it. The evil had to be brought in from the outside. After the Fall, the evil is a part of the world. God never gets to say "good" about it again.

Again, I am not an expert. If you care to know, go talk to someone who knows. I realise that spouting comfortable nonsence in an atheist company is easier, but if you aspire to intellectual honesty, you need to go learn what the other side is saying.

Edit: oh yes, and you skipped right over my whole paragraph about the world being different and Evil being unnecessary. Please remember: Tree of Knowledge is not the full name. It was Tree of KNowledge of Good and Evil. Not all knowledge was denied. Adam already knew enough to give true names to every living thing. No, it was only the knowldge of Evil. ANd, by contrast, knowldge of Good.

As to wheteher it was necessary for free will - I don't know. I'd be hard t pressed to write a book where characters don't suffer, don't have temptations and yet obviously have free will. Try it some time. See where it takes you.

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

Edited by Arkadiy Aug. 6, 2005, 08:56:35 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #217,886

by boxley

8/6/05 8:50:15 PM

I'll explain it in terms he can understand

A alien genetic scientist inserted a strand of dna into these very bright apes that would introduce guilt and evil and wanted them to thank him for his efforts.
somehow I think he would buy that.
thanx.
bill

Just call me Mr. Lynch \\

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #217,906

by warmachine

8/6/05 10:58:44 PM

Prefer a mad scientist idea

The biblical god is an ultra-tech being who throw a fit when his subjects discredited his pet theory. The garden of eden was the laboratory and mankind was dumped on the Earth because ethics prevent extermination of sentient beings.

Or there's always this idea [link|http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20031019.html|http://www.ghastlyco...m/d/20031019.html]

Post #217,913

by boxley

8/7/05 12:16:44 AM

that last frame......sez it all

Post #217,899

by Ashton

8/6/05 10:31:44 PM

Seems as if Core Functions ___ were outsourced.

Let us now ~~praise famous men~~ braise famous Avatars.

Dismissing all other metaphors than your fav one as, 'held by atheists' - may comfort you against daily Uncertainty, but it is more than just-intellectually dishonest flippancy. Petulance?

Then too, imagining that these 'metaphors you live by' were somehow Original 2000 years ago: just Discovered! then! and solely within this small group and its guru: that's not 'dishonest', that just betrays ignorance of the history of the world and of its many fav metaphysical tries at 'solutions' to the Mystery that anything Is.

But concluding, from both ignorance and dishonest appraisal of all that knowlege and a few chunks of wisdom as occasionally surface:

that The Truth, the whole Truth andnothingbut -- is Your Group's. (And by osmosis) Yours?

That is beyond any possibility of discussion. That's for your pulpit amongst the Convinced, who need to hear it often, ever to feel safe-enough. It also remains the stuff of guaranteed interminable planetary warfare over the Conceit of human spokespersons -- and their flocks of outsourcing-sheep - unwilling/too-lazy to do their *own* internal research.

(We wouldn't be able to discuss your 'Knowledge'/ ie meta-knowledge or your personal ideas about epiphanies within human jelloware either - for all root reasons)

Finally, one needn't call-self an 'atheist' or join a mob of such - to notice that you don't even see your fav metaphor as being entirely about the large Concepts of 'duality | unity'! .. as you ramble-off to focus upon a mere handful of the infinite consequences of ever exploring this Idea-fork. Must be that ol' Debbil's M$-grade digitalscholarship you're building-on.

None So Blind.. Indeed!

Post #217,900

by warmachine

8/6/05 10:37:29 PM

Intellect without capacity for evil?

So, you contend that adam and eve had the intellect, reasoning and self awareness of adults yet were incapable of evil thoughts, as well as not knowing any. They would be incapable of wanting to fulfil sexual desire when the other doesn't want to, rather than choosing not to. Neither could invent the evil of rape. The free will to choose between good and evil yet incapable of inventing evil. An ideal yet to be described by any philospher or storyteller and certainly not me. The worker's paradise of Marxism required enforcement and propaganda. Even in the fake, programmed utopia of Brave New World, Bernard invents evil by discrediting the Director of Hatcheries. Forgive me when I say intellect without capacity for evil is a daft idea.

Besides, if it was that important that mankind not know evil, why wasn't the tree better hidden or guarded? Sooner or later, someone curious will try it. Sounds like entrapment to me. Or was the retrofitted suffering and pulling legs of serpents a necessary part of creating free will?

Post #217,914

by boxley

8/7/05 12:20:16 AM

I have met intellect without the capacity for evil

in many people, Im saddened that your life has been such that you have not. Now I have also met some truly evil folks, it also seemed in some way that those folks were mentally crippled. I am convinced that capacity for true evil diminishes intellect. Most of us are a combination of both.
thanx,
bill

Post #217,935

by warmachine

8/7/05 5:32:22 AM

Capacity or choice

Are you sure you're not confusing capacity with choice? From the assertion that truly evil people are mentally crippled, it does not follow the capacity for true evil is crippling. Someone can have the capacity to be truly evil but choose not to be truly evil. Considering a lot of murders are committed by loved ones, I'd say the difference between capacity and choice is large.

Post #218,027

by Ashton

8/7/05 7:55:40 PM

Hey, warfarin - sometimes 'logic' Is enough!

[short form] Yup - capacity VS choice.

[funner form]
Jung was the most metaphysically ept of those legions endlessly yammerin about 'analyzin' a machine which is beyond-itself recursively Unanalyzable.
(Not that That stops any Univ from starting a Department, mind you/us)
Jung had a pretty good comprehension of Eastern scholarship through the ages.. Damn-good it seems, for any Western simplistic-inculcated drudge.

Those engrams, memes, archetypes -by anyothername- appear to be as essential to daily homo-sap machine-ops as is the h\ufffdmoglobin; anyone who claims to have 'eliminated' that er root-nature? might as well start a late-night Tee Vee Show and get paid for bloviating. 'Conquer' is about second-by-second Choice, then.

Oh and -
Ditto in Spades re all the BS everywhere, about the "character (!!), feelings, loving, hating, cajoling, Gender (!?!) and whispering-to-Moi" yada of the [Absolute] is blowing smoke at supersonic velocities.

The [Absolute] is a concept fucking Defined as
Without. Attributes. ..meaning:
'Defined' in Sanskrit itself!

(the Only language extant designed-for; 'premeditatedly'-designed for - attempting some useful communication about metaphysical ideas, among the few who ever pay much genuine Attention to such arcanery. ie Even re the unsustainable propositions: one needs to learn, eventually.. Why one Is 'unsustainable', if a chirpy Grasshopper is ever to grow-Upwards and not just bloat sideways, with more fatty cant.)

Still, most Will prefer George Burns anyway.. suck it up

I Who Be

Post #217,919

by Another Scott

8/7/05 12:44:03 AM

My $0.02 on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (new thread)

Created as new thread #217918 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=217918|My $0.02 on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.]

Welcome to IWETHEY!