Define God

It does seem incredible that Neo sees it that way, doesn't it, Mesquite?

Neo...

...IT IS THE POINT OF THE STORY. Why are you arguing this?

Even the god acknowledges that changes occurred in them.

At Genesis 3:22...

..."Then the Lord God said, 'See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!"

Do you think there are such things as good and evil?

If you do how did they evolve out of organic life which knew neither in the 3.6 billion years of its existence.

You didn't answer the question about a scientific explanation for the first fig leaves. And you said you answered questions. Which was a lie then as it is now.

In my view this has nothing to do with the Word of God and is some cross-cultural misunderstanding of the ignorant people at the time being (and not only then) that have made frivolous interpretations of things that they cannot understand.
If we concentrate on the Word of God and disregard the interpretations based on cross-cultural misunderstanding the things will begin to clarify.
_______
Cros-cultural misunderstanding -
Def.: Concepts and interpretations of one context (understanding of the world) are taken out and used irresponsibly into another, very much different context (other understanding of the world) as a result of which any further interpretations become invalidated due to the preset contradiction (the cross-cultural misunderstanding).
Example: If we take Heaven and Hell from the ancient Egypt religion and paste them into the Christian religion, for example, this is called cross-cultural misunderstanding.

is so full of contradictions, errors, and omissions, that it's impossible to have one interpretation of anything in the bible that matters.

"Thou shalt not kill," followed by "Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’

'Here I am,' He replied.

Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’” —Genesis 22:1&2

Thought I answered this earlier, but I don't see it. This is an approximation of what I said.




It is my opinion that some things are good...and some things are evil. They are considerations of mine.



Beats me. I've only been around for 77 years. I developed my own opinions based on all sorts of things.



Okay. Allow me to do it now.

Assuming you mean the "fig leaf" in the story, I think the "fig leaf" thing is a myth. No need for a scientific explanation for a myth.



I do.



What do you mean? I answer questions. If I fail to do so, it is probably an oversight. Just ask me again.

What questions have you asked me that I have not answered...or at least responded to?

My questions were directed at the scientific materialists Herald.

But the Word of God is a cultural manifestation.

I suppose a Catholic theologian would say your post was heretical but that word runs the risk of being another case of MYOEP.

Once Protestant dissent was institutionalised in certain places it is logical that other forms of dissent, when deployed skilfully, can apply and which eventually result in apostasy.

The idea is that it is popular to relieve people of the constraints of Christian sexual morality. The cultural misunderstandings are contemporary. There are those who fondly believe that apostasy is valid when they have their own pants down and those who know, with history as evidence, that it is invalid when everybody have their pants down. Assuming that the valid idea is keeping this show on the road. An idea not shared by Apisa who has said, quite correctly as a materialist, that it is of no consequence.

We become lost in airy dreamings as soon as we avoid the discipline of the foreseeable and calculable future.

It is all very well to say that the bedroom is private territory. That is solipsistic. All the bedrooms are certainly not.

The Catholic Church is a practical mechanism. It is nothing else. It's objective is to deliver a pleasant life for all. If it has had to crack a few heads once in a while to do it it has not been averse to doing so. That progress is not very fast is due to our organic inheritance which is not a particularly easy thing to get the better of if it is even possible at all in the long run. But the progress has not been so bad.

Veblen's "triumph of the hormones over the proprietaries" is a good example of an atheist feeling "on a roll".

What's funny about the G of E story is that God could have created an Adam who had no interest in a helpmeet or, if he had, only to do the ironing and dusting, and on whom the serpent's suggestions to Eve would have no effect no matter how much she wiggled her bottom. Something like an elderly celibate Cardinal. Thus, Satan knew of Adam's God given weakness. Perhaps from seeing him when he first woke up in the morning.

The serpent is necessary to absolve Eve of the blame.

Where Apisa's cross-cultural misunderstandings really occur is that he cannot imagine living a life, with no way out, where people were frightened to wake up every day. Life was ghastly. And had never been anything else and nobody had any idea of how to stop life continuing to be ghastly for ever and ever. And the guy who suggested a way out got strung up.

And Christianity has proved to be a way out. As Apisa's own attitude to waking up demonstrates. Irrespective of whether God exists or not or that the story "is a mess".

Like a yo-yo?



But you wear trousers I presume on the golf course. They had to start somewhere and there were no weaving sheds in the G of E.

Perhaps you have noticed the fig leaves withering in your 77 years. I certainly have.

Yeah, I guess a yo-yo would be one of them. So would all sorts of other things.




Actually, I am rather proud of my dick. I do not wear trousers to hide it.

Clothes were apparently invented to provide physical shelter.

Some societies do not use them...they apparently do not need physical shelter.

I do. It gets cold in New Jersey for most of the year.

During the hot months I am willing to take my clothes off at the drop of a hat, so to speak.



If you are asking if my thing gets as stiff as it used to...or stays as stiff as it used to when I was younger...

...well...no it doesn't. It still gets stiff but less often. And either I am getting much stronger (when it is stiff, I can almost bend it in half...and I used not to be able to do that)...or it does not get as stiff as it used to.

Not sure why you wanted all that information, Spendius...but you did insist I answer questions.

But you get hot weather as well. I have seen Fox News weather alerts.



It must be your scrotum then. Or your bottie. Anybody watching US golf tournaments can easily see it's not your knees.



Like diving equipment? Darwin found naked natives in Tierra del Fuego as late as the mid- 19th century. And it was freezing.



Thank the Lord for fig leaves. How about the ladies? All of them I mean. Not just the body fascists who play upon your particular weaknesses which were created by the ad men.



Well-- no I wasn't actually. I was asking if you had noticed the veils being lifted in your time on the planet. But thanks for the information you have taken the opportunity to provide. I'm sure we will all bear it in mind.

More info than needed, Frank

Spendi! Why did you get him on this?

Good analogy regarding conscience here: http://able2know.org/topic/213933-2#post-5463095

Copied from other thread.

Gus doesn't go to South America, CI.
Western Washington is about it
And if farmland continues to disappear. Their future is bleak

What about our omissions?
How did we come to know that the whole Bible is the Word of God?
There maybe be left something from the Word of God there (dating back to the Tomb of the Visitor and Mother Geb and the legend of Osiris - 11 c B.C.) but it is most probably buried in the cross-cultural misunderstandings through the ages.
The very moment you read: 'After these things God tested Abraham and said to him 'Abraham, ... ... So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey ...' ... the things start to clarify.
1. God does not operate at the level of donkeys and local retards from the local pub and their fables about human sacrifices and testing. This is another level of reasoning.
2. If God has created us (from scratch or whatever) there is no way for Him to be that stupid to design an assignment that mismatches the personal instincts (with unpredictible consequences) ... let alone to assign to somebody to execute that.
3. God does not deal with persons personally (including to test them for loyalty ... and to save them from whatever). The whole story is about the human species and its strategy for survival and how to achive immortality eventually. It does not specify the things at the level of persons and donkeys ... and local pubs.
In the Ten Commandments the personal possessions and the problems with the neighbours and their donkeys are the lowest level of priority to be considered ... for whatever.
4. Believe it or not, but there is no way for the donkey of Abraham and the local retards from the local pub to be part of the Genesis (the creation and organisation of the world).
5. These things with the sacrifices (incl. human sacrifices) are vicious practicies of the pagan societies and have nothing to do with God and His teachings and new attitude to the world.
So, the whole story is most probably fabricated by some loca retards in the local pub through the ages to present themslevs as very smart and is in rough contradiction with the general idea of the Salvation and everything the Bible is all about.
BTW the Salvation suggests to get rid somehow of the local retards, especially from the ones with money and power and a lot of time to spend on disseminating fables of any kind and to mismatch the deeds of the people around them ... in order to conceal their own true intentions and interests.

No Neo, instinct doesn't cut it for this tale. I know you are fond of your supposition that Adam and Eve were created with a perfect conscience, but this tale makes it clear they were not. In this tale eating magical fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was required to give the pair a functional conscience.

This is one of the mysteries of A2K. Neo is no dummy...not by a long shot. So he has to see the absurdities and contradictions of this particular story. Perhaps the more involved ones later are open to some argument...but THE POINT of the Adam and Eve story is that the god did not want them to know the difference between right and wrong...between good and evil.

THE POINT is that the could only get that knowledge if they ate the fruit of that special tree...that the god located smack dab in the middle of the garden where they could see it every day.

The story is an absurdity as a moral lesson...unless the lesson is that the god is a being bent on delighting in punishing humans for no decent reason at all.

Neo has to see this.

Perhaps, if the Godhead is feminine. as many claim, there is nothing at all surprising in that.

What would you say the "knowledge" consisted of. It is a trifle soppy to keep going on about the "knowledge" in the abstract.

The story is placed as a jumping off point from the matriarchy which had been in operation for 2 million years or thereabouts without the slightest sign of automatic dishwashers, golf equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers, and budget deficits: the body pawnbrokers.

Have you checked out the top shelf style in 25,000 BC? The Venus of Willendorf I mean. What the talented hunter took on long trips to catch meat. Stumbling back to the cave with a reindeer over your shoulders was their equivalent of a Cadillac. A squirrel being about the same as an 18 golf handicap as measured on a course Mickelson could post a 54 on a poor putting day.

It is not all the same, for there are verification & validation tests that can be run on the hypothesis and assign credibility to it:
- verification check - Whether the hypothesis is sufficiently convincing as an explanation of the case.
- validation test - Is the hypothesis of the interpretation sound, defensible and well-grounded?
- plausibility check - Is the statement of the explanation true or valid ... with or without the base text (of the Bible in this case)?
- logically possible - Does it imply or not any logical contradictions?
- feasibility - Is it practically possible to be valid as an explanation of the situation? ... etc.
If the hypothesis passes successfully all the verification & validation tests there is great probability (above 50% in any case) for this hypothesis to be the actual case.
Saying a '100 different answers' without running any verification and validation tests makes no sense (does not assign any probability value to the hypothesis). This will only generate claims without logical (truth) value. Anyway.

Apisa is like a rich heiress. He has inherited a veritable cornucopia of conveniences from the Christian machine, he can even tee up his balls to ensure he gets at least one good lie on every hole, and feels now that the machine is in the way of him getting the most out of it. A heiress of a chemical weapons magnate. Say.

He has to talk pure, unadulterated rubbish such as claiming to know what good and evil are without any specifications, in order to avoid owning up to the real reason he adopts his extremely cliched sophistries.

And it stands out like a chapel hat peg. An antique one.

He is so proud of it that he would enjoy, weather permitting, showing it to us all. At the mere drop of a hat too.