neologist wrote:I can understand why one could read the bible and, without meditating on its meaning, might conclude that God is brutal, misogynistic and homophobic. But I can't for the life of me understand why one could read and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will
I am uncertain that you actually meant what you wrote. A careful and thoughtful reading of the old testament shows the god of the ancient Jews to be racist, sexist, elitist, homophobic and a murderously vicious and vengeful being. Additionally, you go on to write: ". . . and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will" You meant to assert that the god of the old testament can be limited by any necessity and does not possess free will?
This part of your response seems confused, and i suspect does not say what you had intended it to say.
Precisely the strongest reason for not believing the old testament to be anything more than the perfervid maunderings of ignorant and supersitious nomadic tribesmen is the very puerile and vicious nature of the diety described therein. When that is coupled with the rather obvious polytheism textually evident before the return from the Babylonian captivity, at which time it appears the Hebrews imbibed Aryan monothesism from the Pharsee and Meda--the Persians--it seems all too painfully obvious that the bible is a collection of superstitious tales, ill-considered and never edited. The amount of contradiction and absurdity is sufficient to indict the document as flawed, and to demolish any attempt to describe it as the inerrant revealed truth of any description of deity.
Your reference to what one might conclude having read but failed to meditate upon the meaning of the document suggests that it is not what it seems, and that one is obliged to extract from it a meaning which is not apparent on the face of the text. That is a call for obscure, particularist and idiosyncratic exegesis--which in my never humble opinion is booking a cruise down the primrose-bordered path to theological lunacy.
Quote:That being said, the next question is whether or not the text is sufficient to extend free will to his sentient creations. The very fact that the words 'choose' and 'repent' are ascribed to human activity would indicate that man and angels do, indeed, have free will.
One need accept, of course, in such a circumstance, that any such thing as an angel exists--and one need assume it absent physical evidence.
You have just discarded the entirety of Calvinist theological evolution, and therefore, Congregationalist and Presbyterian doctrine, as well as the fatalism inherent in Hindu theology, which very likely descended from the same source as the Zoarastrian monotheism with which the Hebrews slaked their theological thirst while captive in Babylon. Although for some with a theological bent--a group among whom one would be incorrect to number me--the questions of predestination and free will might engage one's fantasy engines for long ages to come--it is not germane to a discussion of whether or not the Adam and Eve scam is literal or allegorical, nor does it offer support for either concept.
Quote:If both God and man have free will and God is bound by no necessity (save that he cannot lie), then it follows that God is under no obligation to know in advance the freely decided outcome of each and every sentient being. In fact, the bible assures us that he does shield these outcomes from his purvey of knowledge.
I know of no reason to assume that a diety would or would not lie. I know of no reason to assume that an omnipotent diety were not also omniscient. You have a slim chance of asserting that there were such a thing as an omniscient deity who was not better informed about the future (although might reasonably assume she has a better grasp of statistical probability than anyone else) than the rest of us. You're going to have a lot of problem marketing such a deity, though--people have historically shown a preference for deities of unlimited powers, unless they were intent upon the soap operas implicit in pantheistic polythesism.
What you assert that the bible assures us is not actually admissable, as it is not established that said scripture is inerrant. I understand that you're working your way to the heart of the Adam and Eve dog and pony show, but i'm not gonna cut you any slack in the process.
No, that is what you believe was written by someone who may or many not have existed and who may or may not have been known as Ezekiel, and what you personally believe it to have meant. Keep in mind, the Calvinists (from whence, the Scotts Kirk, from whence the Puritans and the Presbyterians, and from the former of which, the Congregationalists) hold that our lives and actions are predestined, and by some rather contorted theology, they hold that scriptural admonition is only an example of lessons through which people are instructed to fulfill their fates as god has already decreed them. So you are here offereing your personal theology, and not statements of truth. Of course, this is to be assumed, but as the topic of the discussion is what each individual believes about the reality of the Adam and Eve swindle, these observations are germane as touching upon the character of the dance you are attempting to lead us into.
[quote[Now, if God knew in advance that Adam would sin and the consequence of that sin would be some 6000 years of human misery and wickedness, then we could only conclude that at one time all the evil that we know was at one time existing only in the mind of God and he deliberately brought this misery on the human race for some perverted reason.[/quote]
I see you're down with Bishop Ussher on the chronology again, for however much you deny it. Once again, much of whay you assert here is a theology which serves more than anything else to distinguish you from the Calvinists and the Hindus. I personally have no reason to assume a 6000 chronology, nor no of any reliable evidence of a profound change in species taking place 6000 years ago which would lead us to conclued that
homo sapiens sapiens did not previously exist, but came into existence at that time, nor espeically in some pleasant bower in the mountains to the west of the central Iranian plateau.
A great many religions eschew the concept of Satan, and jump right into a deity who incorporates all good and evil. Your insistence that the deity of whom you speak could not reasonably be such a deity simply places you firmly in the god/devil dichotomy camp. I say this, because, of course, you intend to deny the forgoing scenario.
Quote:Again, if the above were true and if he indeed created us as sentient beings, why would he include in our mental processes the qualities of love and compassion he himself lacked? It doesn't make sense if you believe the bible.
Of course, if you choose not to believe, you can just go about your life in any way you choose. You have no obligation except to your own reasoning power.
Yes, and i much prefer it that way. This does not mean that i am not open to information and persuastion from others, but i do maintain, i hope it is fair to say, a high standard of evidence which need be met.
For as interesting ast your assault on Calvinist/Hindu concepts of predestination is, you have not yet ever directly answered the titular question, and have danced even in responding to my direct questions on the subjet. However, your reference to a deity knowing that Adam would sin from which 6000 years of misery would ensue is strong inferential evidence that you choose to be a biblical literalist.
So i'll take all of that as a "Yes" in regard to the question of whether the Adam and Eve three card monte show is literal truth.
