neologist wrote:That would be unfair as you state it. But your premise is unfounded. God created man with free will and man chose imperfection by choosing disobedience.
blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Diest TKO wrote:hmm.
I've always been bothered by this part of the Christian beliefs.
Even if Adam and Eve made the choice to eat from the tree of knowledge, the consequence being the fall of man, doesn't that support the idea that we are to answer for other's faults imperfections?
It just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
If one man choses imperfection, then the course to follow would be to give nothing but inperfection to the rest of mankind?
If we were perfect, and had free will. Doesn't it follow that we would make the perfect choices? It seems that there was a problem prior to any eating of fruit if you ask me.
T
K
O
Having lost their own perfection, they were unable to pass it on to their offspring.
Genesis chapter 3 makes it clear this is not a permanent condition.
tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
It always amuses me to think that the wishes and desires of whatever particular deity prevails at the time, that that Diety's wishes inevitably co-incide with those of the ruling elite. Its almost as if, having proved the efficacy of prayer and sacrifice (otherwise known as regression to the norm), rulers find it quite handy to have priests telling them what they want to hear.
And it saddens me that so many ordinary folk are taken in by this thoroughly obnoxious and parasitic relationship at the heart of their society.
The unholy alliance between politician and priest has persisted for milleniums.
Prompting the following:
Denis Diderot wrote:Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
not from where i see, where it depends on the personal interpretation (in this case, yours) of the sovereign in question. you say your interpretation is literal. i say "literal" is an interpretation, too. the end result is we're not talking about god, we're talking about neo talking about god. you should be able to see how that would change everything.
tinygiraffe wrote:neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
not from where i see, where it depends on the personal interpretation (in this case, yours) of the sovereign in question. you say your interpretation is literal. i say "literal" is an interpretation, too. the end result is we're not talking about god, we're talking about neo talking about god. you should be able to see how that would change everything.
True.
One would need to know much more about God.
Oh, I said that already. Didn't I?
neologist wrote:The unholy alliance between politician and priest has persisted for milleniums.
Prompting the following:
Denis Diderot wrote:Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. Off to research on Mr Diderot.
neologist wrote:Diest TKO wrote:hmm.
I've always been bothered by this part of the Christian beliefs.
Even if Adam and Eve made the choice to eat from the tree of knowledge, the consequence being the fall of man, doesn't that support the idea that we are to answer for other's faults imperfections?
It just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
If one man choses imperfection, then the course to follow would be to give nothing but inperfection to the rest of mankind?
If we were perfect, and had free will. Doesn't it follow that we would make the perfect choices? It seems that there was a problem prior to any eating of fruit if you ask me.
T
K
O
Having lost their own perfection, they were unable to pass it on to their offspring.
Genesis chapter 3 makes it clear this is not a permanent condition.
If my father is a murderer, does it get passed on to me?
If I am a murderer, does it mean it was passed on to me?
T
K
O
No. You and I are already imperfect.
Any chance all those folks who were killed in Bangladesh last week had committed the same set of sinful offenses and thereby brought the wrath of a Loving God down upon themselves??
Joe(not one innocent life lost, right?)Nation
neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote:neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
not from where i see, where it depends on the personal interpretation (in this case, yours) of the sovereign in question. you say your interpretation is literal. i say "literal" is an interpretation, too. the end result is we're not talking about god, we're talking about neo talking about god. you should be able to see how that would change everything.
True.
One would need to know much more about God.
Oh, I said that already. Didn't I?
But HOW would we come to know "much more about God"? How can there be "qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient" without our interpretations and definition of those qualities? There's no definitive text on the subject, there are no standardised tests to be passed or failed on, this forum itself is witness to the myriad ways of looking at the Bible and that is just one religion which itself is divided into various strands. For all intents and purposes, there is no God that we do not define 1st.
Quote:Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign persona that I have created to whom I have decided I am in a subordinate relation to.
Joe Nation wrote:Any chance all those folks who were killed in Bangladesh last week had committed the same set of sinful offenses and thereby brought the wrath of a Loving God down upon themselves??
Joe(not one innocent life lost, right?)Nation
We have the word of a clergyman:
John Wesley wrote:Sin is the moral cause of earthquakes.
VS. the bible:
Solomon wrote:I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all
(Ecclesiastes 9:11)
Ashers wrote:neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote:neologist wrote:tinygiraffe wrote: But your blind obedience isn't healthy, it creates people that are easily used by tyrants. consider the power of the religious right, it's better to have people that question authority.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
not from where i see, where it depends on the personal interpretation (in this case, yours) of the sovereign in question. you say your interpretation is literal. i say "literal" is an interpretation, too. the end result is we're not talking about god, we're talking about neo talking about god. you should be able to see how that would change everything.
True.
One would need to know much more about God.
Oh, I said that already. Didn't I?
But HOW would we come to know "much more about God"? How can there be "qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient" without our interpretations and definition of those qualities? There's no definitive text on the subject, there are no standardised tests to be passed or failed on, this forum itself is witness to the myriad ways of looking at the Bible and that is just one religion which itself is divided into various strands. For all intents and purposes, there is no God that we do not define 1st.
Quote:Depends on the qualities of the sovereign to whom one is obedient.
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign persona that I have created to whom I have decided I am in a subordinate relation to.
Were I to define my own God, surely he would permit one or two of my small and insignificant vices. :wink:
neologist wrote:Joe Nation wrote:Any chance all those folks who were killed in Bangladesh last week had committed the same set of sinful offenses and thereby brought the wrath of a Loving God down upon themselves??
Joe(not one innocent life lost, right?)Nation
We have the word of a clergyman:
John Wesley wrote:Sin is the moral cause of earthquakes.
VS. the bible:
Solomon wrote:I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all
(Ecclesiastes 9:11)
Well, that is revealing as to the nature of your god.
Joe(So how come Las Vegas doesn't just burst into flames?)Nation
PS
Quote:Were I to define my own God, surely he would permit one or two of my small and insignificant vices.
Of course, you never will define your own God because you can't.
I don't know, "we are our own harshest critics" springs to mind, that and some of us love setting tough targets for ourselves. Maybe the difficulty in following the tough rules you (not you personally, the collective) set yourself is offset by the ease gained through the solidified identity and the rigid framework for thinking that those very same rules provide.
Joe Nation wrote:neologist wrote:Joe Nation wrote:Any chance all those folks who were killed in Bangladesh last week had committed the same set of sinful offenses and thereby brought the wrath of a Loving God down upon themselves??
Joe(not one innocent life lost, right?)Nation
We have the word of a clergyman:
John Wesley wrote:Sin is the moral cause of earthquakes.
VS. the bible:
Solomon wrote:I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all
(Ecclesiastes 9:11)
Well, that is revealing as to the nature of your god.
Joe(So how come Las Vegas doesn't just burst into flames?)Nation
You obviously have not read the post.
Joe Nation wrote: neologist wrote:Were I to define my own God, surely he would permit one or two of my small and insignificant vices.
Of course, you never will define your own God because you can't.
True; but that was my point.
I detect a separation from reality here. Have you tarried long at the wine today, Joe?
Well, I was going with John Wesley rather than Sol. How do you choose, Neo? How do you keep it straight? What does your god whisper to you?
There's a place in Central Park called the Ramble. There are hundreds of paths through it, some intersecting, some not. If you don't watch where you are going you can end up right where you started. It's okay to run in circles if that is what you want to do.
Quote:One would need to know much more about God.
You can't know much more about something which is unknowable.
Joe(Diet Coke and Gatorade today.)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:Well, I was going with John Wesley rather than Sol. How do you choose, Neo? How do you keep it straight? What does your god whisper to you?
No kidding?
You agree with John Wesley?
When did you have your conversion? Did something whisper?
Neo, I'm not saying that you are the creator/definer of the God (big 'g') who is the creator of the worlds, the beginning and end of all things...that'd be silly as long as you see yourself as separate from God but that's something else entirely. No, I'm saying you're the creator/definer of your concept of god (little 'g' if you like) and that, for all intents and purposes, is all there is.
Who defined the concept of god, who developed it, who interpreted the Bible, the clergy's view, your life experiences. I'm sure I remember you saying and quoting a bit from the Bible regarding the need for a critical & keen eye to discern things rather than just blind faith in rules. Even if you say that God has divinely placed your current views right into your head or through your own interpretations you have uncovered the "Truth", not only are those ideas of the nature of God and your relationship your own and not only, in the latter case, do they again require your mind to interpret and elaborate on them...but they are all just another onion layer of abstraction on the concept of god.
If you look at this with respect to god permitting some of your small and insignificant vices or with the original topic poster and his idea of smoking and being in sin, again, there are no formation or acceptance of rules like smoking is a sin, that we do not accept or endorse and submit ourselves to. Even if you believe the origins of these rules lie with the supreme being, God and it's up to us to uncover them, your introduction to them was via the words, concepts and language of humanity and we cannot help but interpret and define words put forward to us to create meaning for ourselves. Hence I re-worded your quote as:
Depends on the qualities of the sovereign persona that I have created to whom I have decided I am in a subordinate relation to.
This is why I originally asked how we can know much more about God as if it's an objective thing, "out there", that we can all find for ourselves, intact and exactly the same for everyone.
