Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Without understanding the good and evil...they did not truly understand consequences. And without understanding good and evil...they had no way of knowing that the consequences were something to be avoided.
Err...sure....if you say so...God told them something they weren't able to comprehend (Adam that he'd die if he ate from the tree)...so he had no way of knowing it was wrong (hence why 'good & evil' differs from 'right & wrong'), and no way of knowing he'd die...

Quote:
Stop defending it.
Your original question to me was about other possible interpretations.

It appears that you forget your question, and then view answers to your question as defensiveness...your response is rather clearly the result of your emotions.

We are discussing your "other possible interpretations"...which I see as untenable....and am trying to explain why.

No untoward or unnecessary emotions involved...just the ones needed for lively debate. Not sure why you think there are, but you are welcome to the notion.

Quote:

They were denied the knowledge is a reasonable way to describe the circumstances

Yep.

Your original question to me to provide 'other possible interpretations'.

Quote:

Indeed. And I am 'splaining why I think those "other possible interpretations" do not work.

Quote:

QUESTION: Are you help brought in to ease the pressure on Neo?
Conspiracy theories now?

You do understand I'm not Christian, right? (I grew up in a Christian Church, but haven't been one for 20 years)

I have no idea of what you are on the religious spectrum...and if you gave me your position in great detail, I still would not know.

This is the Internet, Vikorr. Some fudging of fact goes on.

Anyway, the story as told in the Bible (using English equivalent words) shows a god setting up a trap for a couple of naive people. Change the story a bit to hide the identities and ask a third grade class what they think would happen in the given scenario...and you would probably get 100% agreement that the couple would eat the fruit they were forbidden to eat.

The tree did not have to be there. The tempter did not have to be there. The injunction did not have to be made.

It was a sting...a silly sting.

C'mon, Vikorr...you realize that.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I think if Setanta were dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave bellying laughing right now - I find Islam to be a dangerous religion...Set yelled at me black and blue for this view.

But in answer to your question, I'm probably Agnostic. I like the idea of God, but if one exists, I very much doubt it exists in the shape described by any of the religions.

Growing up in a church, I found that very few people questioned their beliefs. I'm of the belief that we should know and understand our beliefs - that they should make sense to us, and if they make sense to us, we are then able to articulate why we do and say things. In other words, that we shouldn't hold blindly to beliefs.

This wilful blindness in religion irritates me...just as much as when it's (as the only accurately encompassing term I can think of) non-theists attacking religions from their own blindly held belief systems...hence my occasional posts 'defending' religion - which isn't actually about defending religion, but hmmm...testing (?) other peoples belief system, where they appear to show blindness.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's a better take on it...still just one possible take...but better Smile

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

That's a better take on it...still just one possible take...but better

What is your honest take or belief?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Ah, RL, I think that should have been obvious? It's just a story...

...it has many possible lessons in it (most stories do)...it could be viewed as a sting (though this to me is cynically humorous)...it doesn't make any sense that they couldn't understand the consequences...they did know better...temptation so often gets the better of humans, etc.

And nor do I find Neo's interpretation to be any problem...it's a definitely valid lesson from that story.

I don't personally have much stock in it's lessons...because there are better things to learn from (like life)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

....I think if Setanta were dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave bellying laughing right now -.....

Don't count him out so soon. He's really a good old boy. Besides don't you know when you're dead you're dead. No rolling, no strolling, no baking or broiling.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Don't count him out so soon. He's really a good old boy. Besides don't you know when you're dead you're dead. No rolling, no strolling, no baking or broiling.

Do you believe this but also believe in some sort of resurrection?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I wrote:
Don't count him out so soon. He's really a good old boy. Besides don't you know when you're dead you're dead. No rolling, no strolling, no baking or broiling.
Do you believe this but also believe in some sort of resurrection?

Promised in the Bible. Even non believers may be there. (John 5:28)

I've always felt that that folks will be as much surprised by those who are present in the resurrection as by those who are not.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

as i (maybe I) am merely an atheist, not an Atheist. Also, i'm only an atheist because that's how the god squad thinks.

No, no, you are with capital A. in any case scenario (for you have special understanding of atheism, which differs from the general definition in the dictionary).
atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods, in the capacity of being the supreme or ultimate reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
You do not believe that the universe has no creator ... and ruler, for you jealously (and blindly) believe in the creationistic and evolutionistic capacity and abilities of the pseudoscientific hoax called the Big Bang theory.
1. You believe that Big Bang is omnipresent (he is not only everywhere throughout the universe ... but is expanding as well, that is presence outside the universe)
2. You believe that Big Bang is omnipotent (through explosions B.B. can 'create' space and time, even without having apriori the energy to do so, even without having the vaguest idea where He can take all this energy from) - hence the energy has sprung from the Big Bang Himself, hence the Big Bang is inexhaustible source of energy, hence He is omnipotent.
3. You believe that Big Bang is omniscient - He knows how to organise the evolution of the stars, He knows how to organise the evolution of the species, and he knows that there cannot exist anything else within and outside the universe that can know better than Him how the things are organised ... nowadays.
How exactly you are an atheist, and you don't believe in God?
FTWW when a term is writtent with a capital letter it signifies elementary respect to the audience ... to designate that this term has special definition, differing from the generally accepted in the dictionary one. Anyway.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Leave me out of your exchange of delusions and ignorance with RL. Islam is not a "dangerous" religion any more than any other religion is a dangerous religion, it is simply that practitioners of the religion are dangerous. I don't blame religions for the crimes of those who espouse the belief sets, nor do i blame ideologies for the crimes of those who espouse those.

0 Replies

@Herald,

You've got a hell of a gall to tell me what i do or do not believe. As for the dictionary, you've got a gall to tell people what words mean in English, especially as it's so obviously not your native language.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Source

Leaving aside the archaic definition (which people such as you might prefer), definition 2.a. suits me just fine. I don't know if there is a god, i don't believe there is a god, and i don't care.

You then proceed to tell me several things which you allege that i believe, and you do so after quixotically and idiosyncratically defining those ideas to suit your goofy arguments.

It's pretty easy to dominate people in a debate if you get to define all the terms and tell your interlocutor what he or she does or does not believe. I won't be playing that ****, thank you not at all.

1 Reply

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs, then they are welcome to do so. Anyone can question anything that the Buddha taught and if I am able to answer I will.

I can't comment however, on why some other Buddhists, sometimes contradict the Buddha's teachings, leading to actions that may appear to be wrong.

1 Reply

@igm,

Horseshit. I questioned your beliefs and you had an hysterical fit, and claimed that you couldn't tell me what you meant by enlightenment unless and until i told you what i mean by enlightenment. You're as big a phony as any of the religious fanatics out there.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Ah, RL, I think that should have been obvious? It's just a story...

...it has many possible lessons in it (most stories do)...it could be viewed as a sting (though this to me is cynically humorous)...

Seems to me that it is "cynically humorous" to you because for some reason you just do not want the god entraping people. But the god was a ferocious, laughingly demanding, barberous, jealous god...who apparently was invented by the Hebrews to protect themselves from their neighbors who also had ferocious, laughingly demanding, barberous, jealous gods.

The god, so the story goes, put the naive couple into a garden that did not have to have a forbidden tree nor a tempter...but did so anyway. A four year old could tell you how this story was going to end up...and the god certainly should have had some inkling.

It was a sting...because the people inventing the story were trying to explain human suffering...an they wanted the fault for it to be on the humans.

Quote:

...it doesn't make any sense that they couldn't understand the consequences...they did know better...temptation so often gets the better of humans, etc.

Oh, it makes more sense to suppose they knew the consequenses and were willing to suffer extreme punishment and to have the rest of humanity forever suffer this same punishment so they could eat on particular fruit.

C'mon! Wake up and smell the coffee.

The "temptation" in this instance is absurd as an influence. The logical inference is that they DID NOT understand the punishment...whether you folk want to pretend it is different because you call it a consequence instead of a punishment.

Quote:

And nor do I find Neo's interpretation to be any problem...it's a definitely valid lesson from that story.

I've never disputed that there is a valid lesson from that story. The "valid lesson" is that the Bible tells absurd mythical stories that are laughable as life lessons...and that the god being worshiped is about as untrustworthy as a politician during a political campaign.

Quote:

I don't personally have much stock in it's lessons...because there are better things to learn from (like life)

Then what in hell are you doing seconding absurd arguments made to justify an absurd story?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

... they were trying to explain human suffering ... and they wanted the fault for it to be on the humans.

Speaking about explanations, faults and imposure of blame, who is to be blamed for the immanent biological catastrophy and energy crisis caused by saturation of the CO2 that could be pumpted out into the air without serious concequences?
- Who is to be blamed for the petrol spill in the Mexican Gulf, for exmaple?
- Who is to be blamed for the accelerated extinction of species?
- Who is to be blamed for the continuous acidification of the ocean?
- Who is to be blamed for the acid rain ... and defoliation of the forests ... desertification of the land ... for the forest fires ... and systematic destruction of the planet?
- What about the acidification of our own blood? God sent us unjustified omen, nevertheless we are innocent like a lily of the valley, or what?
Whose are all these faults:
A. To the Big Bang?
B. To God?
C ... or ours ... of the humans?
Can you explain us how exactly the casino economy is not responsible for the pumping of 8 ppm of CO2 in the last 3 years only, with suspicious economic effect ... and devastating ecological imprint?
On the other hand if we accept that God is: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and good-willed it is not unnatural for Him to punish inaction, unconcern, ignorance and wickedness ... not only the villainies.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

igm wrote:

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs, then they are welcome to do so. Anyone can question anything that the Buddha taught and if I am able to answer I will.

I can't comment however, on why some other Buddhists, sometimes contradict the Buddha's teachings, leading to actions that may appear to be wrong.

Setanta wrote:

...you couldn't tell me what you meant by enlightenment unless and until i told you what i mean by enlightenment.

I've changed my mind. If you still want to know I'll explain my understanding of the term as simply as possible.

1 Reply

@igm,

Sure, go ahead. Don't worry, oh he of great wisdom, you don't have to dumb it down for me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Horseshit. I questioned your beliefs and you had an hysterical fit,

This part is untrue.

1 Reply

@igm,

You lied about my having double posted; you falsely accused me of altering the quotation of your post; you said again and again that you had answered my questions when you had not. I consider that to be an hysterical reaction.

1 Reply

What are you up to now, setting up an excuse to bow out again?

0 Replies

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know