Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh? Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It’s all about fear, that’s how the ruling classes keep the populace in check.

On the contrary, provoking the populace to reject traditional morality and express hostile and rebellious sentiments is how the bourgeoisie is kept in check, i.e. driven to spending more to live in more expensive areas where they hope to be insulated from the kind of moral depravity they see/imagine in more affordable areas.

When morality was/is high among all classes, there is no reason to pay more to segregate oneself residentially, and so demand could go down for expensive real-estate, and that would mean less money for all those high-paid unionists who make big money serving the elite classes that are kept elite by traditional Marxist rejection of religion/morality among the 'lower' classes.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Ok, so you just love God and don't want to disappoint Him out of love?

If you want to go all reductionist, yeah.

What other motivation could one possibly have when facing his literal creator who went through the effort that God is said to have gone through for us?

That’s the trouble with discussing theology. Half the people will think you are certifiable for saying you know God and the other half will think you’re trying to be ‘holier than thou' and bragging about it. And there is always the occasional one who thinks you’re just attention seeking.

You emphasize 'Faith' a lot. If 'Faith' is so important, how do you keep it after it becomes unnecessary? Doesn’t it have to at some point?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Ok, so you just love God and don't want to disappoint Him out of love?
If you want to go all reductionist, yeah.

What other motivation could one possibly have when facing his literal creator who went through the effort that God is said to have gone through for us?

I'm trying to figure out if you're actually being sincere in all you're saying or if you are playing around with meanings because you're just that kind of atheist/anti-theist.

Quote:

That’s the trouble with discussing theology. Half the people will think you are certifiable for saying you know God and the other half will think you’re trying to be ‘holier than thou' and bragging about it. And there is always the occasional one who thinks you’re just attention seeking.

Knowing God is like knowing infinity. You believe in it though you can never actually reach it. Personifying God in order to relate to and love Him allows you to relate to the part of yourself that is created in His image, and thus relate to Him that way. Really the whole issue of whether we are separate from or connected to God becomes moot when you realize that everything is connected and its all His creation and thus Him in one sense or another.

Really what belief comes down to is overcoming the mind's tendency to think in terms of separateness. Ego is the experience of being separated from the rest of the creation, when in fact we are just as connected with everything else that exists as our liver is connected with our heart and other organs.

Quote:

You emphasize 'Faith' a lot. If 'Faith' is so important, how do you keep it after it becomes unnecessary? Doesn’t it have to at some point?

Faith has two meanings: 1) sincere and strong belief in something/someone; and 2)fidelity in honoring something/someone, as in "a faithful spouse"

Faith never becomes unnecessary as long as you remember that there is fundamental doubt possible at the root of any and every possible belief. 'Cogito ergo sum' was what Des Cartes came up with to convince himself that if nothing else in the universe existed, he could at least know for certain that whatever it was that was questioning existence, i.e. that was thinking, in fact existed, even if it was just a thought in a dream or hallucination, etc.

Every time you perceive anything with your senses, you have to have faith that what you are perceiving is real and not an illusion. You might take such faith for granted, but it is faith nonetheless.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Good reminder. I had forgotten about those who think you’re just pulling their chain. FWIW, I’m not. If I sound flip, it’s because I’ve grown weary of cliche 'religious' answers that tell us we'll never be able to understand an infinite God.

Quote:

Every time you perceive anything with your senses, you have to have faith that what you are perceiving is real and not an illusion. You might take such faith for granted, but it is faith nonetheless.

Yes, of course it is. I’m assuming that we have gotten past the point where we have that kind of 'faith'. I have faith that my car will still be in the garage unless someone has taken it because I saw it there yesterday. Let us not belabor that point.

But what about the 'faith' we have in purely mental ideas? I had faith that electrons would flow and the room would be visible when I turned the light switch on. I require no care ,effort or ceremony to maintain that faith. I have never seen, felt or smelled an electron, yet that 'faith' remains unshakable. If I were to go about expressing my faith in that to others, they would think I may be a bit unstable.

That is the situation I find myself in with God. His existence is so profoundly evident that I don’t understand the need for faith or debate about it. The only question in my mind is - Now what? Other than the 'Christian' answer to 'obey" and the Muslim answer to 'submit', no one seems willing to actually reason with the question.

Yes, there is always the possibility that I have a mental illness and all my conclusions are a result of that, but I’m assuming we have moved on from there. At least I have.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Good reminder. I had forgotten about those who think you’re just pulling their chain. FWIW, I’m not. If I sound flip, it’s because I’ve grown weary of cliche 'religious' answers that tell us we'll never be able to understand an infinite God.

I'm interested in understanding anyone's POV when they are sincere. It doesn't mean I will agree, but I am interested in understanding.

Quote:

Quote:
Every time you perceive anything with your senses, you have to have faith that what you are perceiving is real and not an illusion. You might take such faith for granted, but it is faith nonetheless.

Yes, of course it is. I’m assuming that we have gotten past the point where we have that kind of 'faith'. I have faith that my car will still be in the garage unless someone has taken it because I saw it there yesterday. Let us not belabor that point.

It's an important point because if you take it for granted, it's easy to ignore the role that faith plays in everything we do and think at the psychological level.

Materialism is about externalizing the conditions for faith so that we don't have to face the fact that faith in external things begins within. As long as materialism leads us to differentiate between externally-justified faith and internal faith, we're missing the larger point which is that we are souls perceiving the universe from inside the vehicle of our bodies with their sensory organs. Our bodies are like Plato's cave; we can get some idea of what's going on outside the cave by analyzing the light that comes into the cave, but we can't go outside the cave.

So whatever we 'gather' from inside our bodies about what's going on outside them, faith is involved in believing our extrapolations are valid. We get so habituated in how we perceive and interpret external signals that we can take faith for granted, and that is the basis for materialism as a philosophy, but it would be a lie to forget that we don't ultimately have direct access to the universe outside our bodies/minds.

Quote:

But what about the 'faith' we have in purely mental ideas? I had faith that electrons would flow and the room would be visible when I turned the light switch on. I require no care ,effort or ceremony to maintain that faith. I have never seen, felt or smelled an electron, yet that 'faith' remains unshakable. If I were to go about expressing my faith in that to others, they would think I may be a bit unstable.

That's because of the philosophy that things that go without saying are more true than things that are said explicitly. Of course that is false and nothing changes about how true or false something is by talking about it explicitly, but the mind knows on some level that whatever goes unspoken can't be questioned, and it knows that questioning arouses doubt, so it tries to escape from the need for affirmative faith by avoiding doubt/questioning; but of course the problem with that is that it assumes any belief/faith will be surrendered the moment it becomes explicit; and of course you can't make what's true false or what's real imaginary just by questioning it.

What can happen, however, is like what happens in Orwell's 1984, which is where people succumb to bullying/ridicule and surrender their mind's to whatever 'the party' says is true. So people may think that if they abandon all but the most common-sensical self-evident beliefs, that no one will be able to bully/ridicule them for their beliefs and they'll be safe, but where the relativist paradigm reigns, any belief can be treated as true or false depending on one's perspective and interests, so there is really no belief that's safe within relativism.

Quote:

That is the situation I find myself in with God. His existence is so profoundly evident that I don’t understand the need for faith or debate about it. The only question in my mind is - Now what? Other than the 'Christian' answer to 'obey" and the Muslim answer to 'submit', no one seems willing to actually reason with the question.

Well, that just means that your faith is very strong. So, then you have to find a way to receive information about His will and submit to it. You can listen to and study what others have to say about whatever subject your are seeking guidance in, but ultimately you can't trust any worldly source because they are all imperfect manifestations of God's mind. So we are all just trying to honor God's will the best we can, if we're sincere and faithful, and of course part of that is trying to become aware of our biases and overcome those through observation/confession/repentance in prayer.

Quote:

Yes, there is always the possibility that I have a mental illness and all my conclusions are a result of that, but I’m assuming we have moved on from there. At least I have.

Illness is a condition that deviates from optimal health. If your mind is unhealthy, allow it to heal. If you are thinking of mental illness as a category of deviance from normalcy, that's the wrong way of understanding mental illness. You don't have to think the same way as anyone else to be mentally healthy. Mental health means that your mind works in a way that doesn't cause health problems. You can think about whatever you want, but be mindful of the physiological effects of your mental activities, because those can harm your health.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I really do appreciate the effort you make to understand what I’m saying, but when I make the same effort to understand your words, I can’t help but think we’re not talking about the same thing.

I liked that part about things taken for granted not necessarily being true.
That pretty well encapsulates how I feel about most religious dogma. And society’s as well. So, I’m surprised that you would suggest I hesitate to question things. Faith included.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I really do appreciate the effort you make to understand what I’m saying, but when I make the same effort to understand your words, I can’t help but think we’re not talking about the same thing.

It sounds like you're done with this exchange. All the best to you, then. It's at least been refreshing to have a sincere discussion about religion without all the ridicule and other nastiness that usually comes with it.

Quote:

I liked that part about things taken for granted not necessarily being true.
That pretty well encapsulates how I feel about most religious dogma. And society’s as well. So, I’m surprised that you would suggest I hesitate to question things. Faith included.

How did I suggest you not question anything? What you should do is question things in a way that leads to greater understanding and not just toward rejection.

Acceptance/rejection is unnecessary. As you question things for further clarification, your faith/beliefs will automatically adjust to what rings true to you. Sometimes questioning leads to greater acceptance/faith, if done right and not just for the sake of chipping away at faith to replace it with doubt.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

the mind knows on some level that whatever goes unspoken can't be questioned, and it knows that questioning arouses doubt, so it tries to escape from the need for affirmative faith by avoiding doubt/questioning;

We were discussing my 'faith' , and why I didn’t feel the need to 'tend it'.
My apologies if you were not implying here that I might be afraid to question it.

Quote:

What you should do is question things in a way that leads to greater understanding and not just toward rejection.

Should I stop beating my wife too? But you were not implying that I’m just being a negative nelly or anything?

Am I being too thin skinned?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

We were discussing my 'faith' , and why I didn’t feel the need to 'tend it'.
My apologies if you were not implying here that I might be afraid to question it.

I was describing a general phenomenon that applies to everyone, not just you. Specifically, it's a (universal) cultural pattern having to do with language that if something goes unspoken, it can't/won't be questioned; and as such it can pass more securely than if it is explicated and thus put on the table for questioning.

Quote:

Quote:
What you should do is question things in a way that leads to greater understanding and not just toward rejection.

Should I stop beating my wife too? But you were not implying that I’m just being a negative nelly or anything?

Am I being too thin skinned?

Yes, I think you are getting defensive by taking things I say to the personal level instead of thinking about it on a general level.

I don't know you so all I am speaking to is what I read from your posts, in this case that I think you're equating 'questioning' with doubt instead of separating the issue of doubt/faith from questioning altogether.

I think when people (not just you) question and think critically, they should do it from the perspective that questioning can lead in any direction, and not just toward undermining whatever is being questioned, because that is why we have so much authoritarian culture where people react against being questioned, i.e. because they automatically see it as an attack instead of as an opportunity to explore reality/truth more deeply.

It's as if people know that all they are working with are lies, so they avoid questioning because they are afraid the lies will dissolve in the light. Things that are real/true don't dissolve in the light, at least not if the person looking is honest and not just hell-bent on ridiculing things to death for the sake of doing so.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's as if people know that all they are working with are lies, so they avoid questioning because they are afraid the lies will dissolve in the light.

Oh jeez, double down why don’t ya.

I was trying to discuss Theology asshole, Not either one of us.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It's as if people know that all they are working with are lies, so they avoid questioning because they are afraid the lies will dissolve in the light.

Oh jeez, double down why don’t ya.

I was trying to discuss Theology asshole, Not either one of us.

You're taking things I'm saying at a personal level instead of a general one.

Sorry I'm not going to get into a personal back-and-forth, or at least I'd rather not.

Why do you take it in that direction?

Do you like discussions where posts degenerate into "you. . .!" statements and rude language?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Why and how does knowledge kill us?

It says:

Quote:

16And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

So it sounds like it is saying that if he only ate from all the other trees, he would know only good; but if he eats from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil, then he will surely die.

In other words, it's saying that there are lots of good choices, but also bad choices; so if you don't avoid the bad, it's going to cause you problems, regardless of how much good you do as well.

Ever heard the expression it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bushel?

You forget that Adam and Eve could not know that the other trees were good as they did not have any knowledge of good and evil.

Christianity, as shown by the tree of good and evil, is a dualistic thinking religion.

Here you are trying to take the Yin out of Yin and Yang.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
If a god has to lie to anyone, then his plan is already off the rails.

To think that god is good while ignoring his evil liar side is not possible in a dualistic world.

Place no ones name above Yahweh for evil.

Go logos and not mythos for a better view.

Regards
DL

Please clarify. You mean logos as in letter of the word? i.e., 'Thou shall not lie' and therefore any lie is 'evil', QED - God is evil?

I can understand such absolutism, but never personally had the desire or need to go there. If that is where you are, I’d like to know how you got there. If not, back to first question.

You describe literalism, not logos.

Logos is using logic and reason while mythos is using faith and supernatural speculations which are all nonsense.

Some lies, of the white lie type, are quite permissible as they are not really lies with any harm intended or said for evil reasons.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's a Gnostic argument, "God" is the Demiurge.

Most Gnostics don't see the Demiurge as evil, merely misguided and an essential part to the plan.

The OP claims to be Gnostic but acts more like a cult leader.

Thanks for the compliment.

We actually do see Yahweh as an evil genocidal prick because of all his crimes against humanity.

Who do you think is more likely to use genocide, Satan or a good god?

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

That wasn’t a compliment.

You’re not interested in talking, just proseletyzing.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

That is what I’m trying to figure out about DL's encounter with 'God'.
I can see how it might affect anyone that way if they are determined to get close.
My impression is that it can go either way, the 'fear of God' either leaves you awestruck or terrified at that hideous strength. I still don’t know which way he went. Some people are awestruck by raw power, even if it is evil.

He does sound pretty certain of himself, and cults are usually led by such.

I am sure of all I speak of.

I see your description of power lovers as fitting Christians.

That is why they idol worship a powerful genocidal god and are immorally calling that satanic prick good.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

[q "not one (sparrow) will fall to the ground outside your Father's care" (Matthew 10:29)

Is there no hell in the Christian theology to you?

Are we all bound for heaven or will some be outside of the Fathers loving care?

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I know, there’s far more reputable sources onGnosticism out there.

Really? Modern ones who know how to interpret the old holy books into modern language?

Where?

Link me up please. I will not hold my breath.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Greatest I am wrote:

You forget that Adam and Eve could not know that the other trees were good as they did not have any knowledge of good and evil.

Christianity, as shown by the tree of good and evil, is a dualistic thinking religion.

Here you are trying to take the Yin out of Yin and Yang.

The story is basically saying that there are plenty of good choices, and those good choices don't cause bad consequences and ultimately harm/destruction/death.

Then the story says that there is also a path where you can make BOTH good AND bad choices, but the bad choices will still have negative consequences no matter how much good you choose/do.

Yin and Yang, I would say, are inherent in the temptation to sin. The story of A&E explains how original sin factors into the creation, and so sin is always present in one form or another.

We can and should strive to resist temptation and avoid sin, but sin is still going to happen in one form or another. Isn't that basically what YinYang philosophy says? I.e. that yin and yang are part and parcel of the same existence and that you can't have one without the other?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The easiest way to think about the 'fear of God,' is to pick some natural occurrence that humans have no control over, such as a storm or flood, and then think about how to respond to that

Transferring that fear to something else misses the point for me. The only earthly equivalent that comes to mind is how I approached my first race car or airplane as a student. I had a kind of love and reverence for them but also a fear knowing that if I failed to understand what I was dealing with, it could be fatal.

The other kind of fear of God I have is knowing the extreme lengths he will go to in letting me find my own way. It’s both scary and humbling that He would have that much respect for me.

That last is belied by the scriptures. You do not have the free will to choose to believe or not. Read on my friend and see the appropriate verses.

Are non-believers doomed by Divine Design?

Scriptures say that God decides if a person will be a believer or non-believer. Those scriptures are shown in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byHYeHN4ZUQ

Those quotes seems to really screw up the free will notion that Christians say God gives us.

The free will that God offers is kind of a joke anyway given the number of people whose free will to live is ignored in the billions of adults, children and babies that God is shown to torture and murder in scriptures.

If the bible and Yahweh are to be believed, and as a non-believer, I, of course, cannot believe it, thanks to God, by God’s design and will against me, then why did God deny me belief or faith?

Even more important to believers, might be to answer the question of; did God make you a believer in things that you can only hope exists and can never confirm?

Are you happy with God ignoring or negating your free will to think as you please?

I have assumed that God’s work of creating both believers and non-believers is working. If that is so, and you believers must think it so, just as I as a non-believer cannot think it is working, --- and Jesus said that those with faith could do all he did and more, --- then there is not even one believer or person of faith that has ever existed.

Either the bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.

What is your choice of those two options?

Is the bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, --- which would make all Christians who say they have faith, --- liars.

I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.

What do you think is the truth?

Is it just for God to create people doomed to hell even if they wanted to believe?

Regards
DL

1 Reply

Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh? Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know