Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

You need to read Thomas sometime. And Elaine Pagels, Angie, if you haven't already! You'd enjoy!

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

there's no evidence that Moses even existed... As for Jesus, virtually all of the story of Jesus was mythic retellings of pre-existing stories from other cultures.

Should I take your word for it? And I suppose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Saul, David, Salomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Mary, Joseph, Peter, Paul, John, James, Judas, Pilate, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, the Emperor Constantine or Gregory the Great didn't exist either?

We were talking about Biblical interpretation, and now you're moving into who you think existed or not... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

For God revealing himself, he sure made a lot of mistakes in the Bible, didn't he?

As I said: You need to read just a bit more. Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible? :wink:

Quote:

The RCC had, as I said, a particular theological point to make and chose books which supported that point.

Oh, the word "particular"... so ambiguous when ambiguously used. Once a universally valid statement is held by a particular person... does it become a "particular" statement? :wink: Assuming that the theory of relativity were the truth about the universe, the fact that it was held by a particular person (Einstein) makes it a "particular point of view"?

Quote:

Many books were rejected, not because they weren't of the same caliber...

Not true. Most of the books rejected were trivial pious writings about the life of the child Jesus, the adventures of other New Testament characters, etc. [By the way, those books that were rejected and that you're now defending did not think of Jesus as just a myth... :wink: ]

Quote:

but because they didn't match the religious dogma that they wished to include.

Absolutely. And they had the authority to do that. Some of those writings (the Gospel of Thomas, for example) included Gnostic ideas that are absolutely foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Heresies, if you will.

You need to diversify a bit your sources.

:wink:

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The Council of Nicea, in the early Fourth Century, at which The Christian Bible first was codified and the Liturgy Of The Church was formalized, was called by the Emporer Constantine...

True.

Quote:

...primarily for the purpose of establishing Christianity as a State Religion.

Not sure about "primarily", but that was certainly one of the issues.

Quote:

Quite a bit of lobbying went on...

As it usually does. Of course, "lobbying" can also be called "consultations", "conversations", etc. :wink:

Quote:

...with Constantine himself (a non-Christian at the time) having the final say in what was and was not included.

You're being a bit formalistic here. Constantine had embraced the Christian faith, but he hadn't been baptized yet. In those days, many pagans had the custom of postponing baptism until deathbed. And the structures and protocols for decision making in the Church weren't as established as they would be 4 or 5 centuries later.

Quote:

Political exigency was more the byword than theological probity.

Internal and external politicis are always and necessarily factors to consider.

:wink:

0 Replies

I must say that Maliagar just loves being able to play petty little word and parsing games. He obviously has so much fun doing that.

But the danger in that is that it becomes a habit -- and soon is little more than a refuge to sculk to when confronted by arguments that truly challenge his vaunted "beliefs."

Play your silly little childish games, Maliagar, but everyone knows you are avoiding issues that you cannot handle. You are an evader.

You fit right in with that church of yours. You both prefer denial to legitimate debate.

Hey, that doesn't make either of you all bad. But it does identify you both for what you are -- which I'd better not say anything more about or this post might get axed by a monitor.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible? :wink:

In the movie King Kong (the original 1930s RKO version), the inhabitants of Skull Island erected a wall large enough to keep King Kong from attacking the village. But in that wall they also erected a door large enough to let King Kong get through. That was, in my opinion, a significant error. After all, if you want to keep the big ape out, you don't build a door big enough to let him in.

In the same way, God dropped Adam and Eve off in Eden, but he also placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil right in their midst.

See a parallel here?

0 Replies

It was obviously entrapment. A judge would likely throw it out of court.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

if you want to keep the big ape out, you don't build a door big enough to let him in.

In the same way, God dropped Adam and Eve off in Eden, but he also placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil right in their midst.

See a parallel here?

No parallel.

The ape would do whatever his nature led him to do (and humans did not shape the ape's nature; they could only hope to protect themselves from it). Hence, it was certainly a "mistake" to have such a door.

Adam and Eve were free to choose, and this freedom was given to them by the One who shaped them "in his image and likeness": God. It wasn't a "mistake" but a "risk". The very same type of risk we run when we place our trust in somebody else.

:wink:

0 Replies

Ape nature exists while human nature doesn't? Apes have no free will while humans do?

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

No parallel.

The ape would do whatever his nature led him to do (and humans did not shape the ape's nature; they could only hope to protect themselves from it). Hence, it was certainly a "mistake" to have such a door.

Adam and Eve were free to choose, and this freedom was given to them by the One who shaped them "in his image and likeness": God. It wasn't a "mistake" but a "risk". The very same type of risk we run when we place our trust in somebody else.

:wink:

You fail to see the relevant parallel here. It's not between King Kong and Adam & Eve: it's between the villagers and God. The villagers were aware of King Kong's propensities, and sought to control the environment in such a way as to yield the best result (i.e. not being eaten/trampeled by Kong).

In the same way, God was aware of Adam & Eve's propensities (how could He not be?) and sought to control the environment in such a way as to yield the best result (creating Eden, putting all plants and animals under the initial couple's dominion, etc.).

Yet, in both instances, the villagers and God deliberately introduced something into the scheme that was directly contrary to their overall goals, and they both knew (or should have known) that this door/tree could be used by Kong/Adam & Eve to thwart all the villagers'/God's carefully constructed plans.

Now, I maintain that putting a Kong-sized door in a Kong-sized wall is a mistake -- it was, literally, a design-flaw of monstrous proportions. The flaw is not in misunderstanding the nature of large apes (indeed, the villagers seem to have been well aware of that), but in designing into a system the very means by which the system could be destroyed. Thus, when God designed Eden for the benefit of Adam & Eve, it was a design flaw, i.e. a mistake, to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of it.

Now, if you say that God intended Adam & Eve to taste of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then planting the tree in Eden wasn't a mistake. If, on the other hand, you say that God merely took the risk that the ur-pair would partake of the fruit, then that's a kind of risk that is indistinguishable from the risk that the villagers took in designing a Kong-sized wall with a Kong-sized door in it. And if the villagers made a mistake, then so did God.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
if you want to keep the big ape out, you don't build a door big enough to let him in.

In the same way, God dropped Adam and Eve off in Eden, but he also placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil right in their midst.

See a parallel here?

No parallel.

The ape would do whatever his nature led him to do (and humans did not shape the ape's nature; they could only hope to protect themselves from it). Hence, it was certainly a "mistake" to have such a door.

Adam and Eve were free to choose, and this freedom was given to them by the One who shaped them "in his image and likeness": God. It wasn't a "mistake" but a "risk". The very same type of risk we run when we place our trust in somebody else.

:wink:

There is another significant problem with the Adam and Eve story.

The god of the Bible specifically denied them the knowledge they needed to make an informed decision in the garden -- and incidentially, the god placed the Tempter of all Tempters in the garden with them to work against them.

But that first part is very significant.

Adam and Eve DID NOT KNOW right from wrong -- good from evil.

Why did the god of the Bible suppose they would be able to use this "free will" you are talking about?

Why were they punished for something that they did not know was wrong -- and "did not know was wrong" because the god denied them that knowledge?

0 Replies

Here I was thinking that the meek inherited the earth....then Hubris the Conqueror shows up, book-smart but completely stubborn....the apes revolt...

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

You fail to see the relevant parallel here.

I don't think so. But we'll see...

Quote:

It's not between King Kong and Adam & Eve: it's between the villagers and God.

I took care of both in my response.

Quote:

In the same way, God was aware of Adam & Eve's propensities (how could He not be?)...

That's not in the Biblical story. You're introducing commonsensical expectations that are grounded in a "fallen" nature. If we follow the story, those "propensities" are the result of the distortion introduced by sin. They were not there before the fall... no element in the Biblical story prior to the fall points to them.

In fact, Adam and Eve, created in the "image and likeness" of God, enjoyed direct experience of the Creator (according to the Biblical story). There was no tendency away from God. There was no wall between God and man. So the first disobedience was the source of all those propensities, not the effect.

Quote:

in both instances, the villagers and God deliberately introduced something into the scheme that was directly contrary to their overall goals...

The villagers had every reason to believe that King Kong would go wherever he could go. He was totally independent from them. The wall symbolizes that separation. To them, King Kong was like a force of nature. The villagers couldn't communicate with him. They did not share a language, and the ape was not "the image and likeness" of the villagers. They hadn't created the ape, and they were in no position of giving commandments to King Kong.

The relationship between God and Adam and Eve is totally different. No wall there. No need for doors opened or closed. They talk to each other. They have a most intimate relationship (God created them free). He gave them a commandment, which they understood and accepted. They were free to stay close to God, or wander away. And the outcome was not predictable (as King Kong's behaviour might be).

Quote:

Now, I maintain that putting a Kong-sized door in a Kong-sized wall is a mistake...

And I agree with this.

Quote:

The flaw is not in misunderstanding the nature of large apes..., but in designing into a system the very means by which the system could be destroyed.

Agree.

Quote:

Thus, when God designed Eden for the benefit of Adam & Eve, it was a design flaw, i.e. a mistake, to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of it.

Non sequitur.

(1) The nature of King Kong and the nature of Adam and Eve (especially before the fall) are different. King Kong is bound to go wherever he can; Adam and Eve have an intimate relationship with God, and are free to keep it or break it.
(2) The villagers made a mistake because they became the victims of King Kong. God was not the victim of a mistake of his: Adam and Eve became the victims of their own disobedience.

:wink:

0 Replies

Don't let him get away with this guys.

He is taking the easy path again.

The significant problem with the Adam and Eve story is that they DID NOT KNOW the difference between right and wrong -- good and evil -- obedience and disobedience.

An essential element of the story has the god of the Bible denying them that knowledge -- in fact, forbidding them to eat of the tree that would give them that knowledge -- knowing full well that they did not have the knowlege to use their "free will" reasonably.

Let him argue about the size of doors in the wall across Skull Island -- and he is going to make this issue a joke.

0 Replies

The god of the Bible:

(standing in front of Adam and Eve with his arms outstretched and both fists clenched, palms dow)

"Choose one, go'head, choose one."

Adam and Eve:

"Okay, that one!"

The god of the Bible:

"Oh, bad choice. I'm gonna have to punish you and everyone else who ever lives for that!

0 Replies

God was all-knowing, Adam and Eve were jealous, not to mention curious about all sorts of things, the snake was made up after the fact in the attempt at a "cover-up", and so we get the human condition. End of story. As for King Kong, he showed real passion, real emotion for his goal, and was martyred for his cause. Poor Kong...

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
In the same way, God was aware of Adam & Eve's propensities (how could He not be?)...

That's not in the Biblical story. You're introducing commonsensical expectations that are grounded in a "fallen" nature. If we follow the story, those "propensities" are the result of the distortion introduced by sin. They were not there before the fall... no element in the Biblical story prior to the fall points to them.

In fact, Adam and Eve, created in the "image and likeness" of God, enjoyed direct experience of the Creator (according to the Biblical story). There was no tendency away from God. There was no wall between God and man. So the first disobedience was the source of all those propensities, not the effect.

Are you suggesting that God was unaware of Adam & Eve's propensities? Are you implying that God isn't omniscient? Are you that irreligious?

Moreover, you cannot reconcile the notion of Adam & Eve's free will with the notion that "there was no wall between God and man." Either Adam & Eve had free will (in which case their will was distinct from God's, and they were able thus to disobey God) or they didn't (in which case they enjoyed direct experience of the Creator but were incapable of "disobedience"). Which is it?

maliagar wrote:

The villagers had every reason to believe that King Kong would go wherever he could go. He was totally independent from them. . . . The relationship between God and Adam and Eve is totally different. No wall there. No need for doors opened or closed. They talk to each other. They have a most intimate relationship (God created them free). He gave them a commandment, which they understood and accepted. They were free to stay close to God, or wander away. And the outcome was not predictable (as King Kong's behaviour might be).

Nonsense. The villagers could predict Kong's actions with some confidence -- after all, they correctly anticipated that, without a wall, King Kong would rampage through the village, and built the wall to prevent such an event (albeit a wall with a Kong-sized door). In the same fashion, God could predict with equal confidence the actions of Adam & Eve -- so much so that God explicitly warned them not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Thus, in their predictability and their free will, Adam & Eve were in the same relation to God as King Kong was to the villagers. The villagers took precautions against a predictable, free being, and so did God. Yet both were mistaken in that they designed their precautions with serious inherent flaws that led to clearly predictable failures.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Thus, when God designed Eden for the benefit of Adam & Eve, it was a design flaw, i.e. a mistake, to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of it.

Non sequitur.

(1) The nature of King Kong and the nature of Adam and Eve (especially before the fall) are different. King Kong is bound to go wherever he can; Adam and Eve have an intimate relationship with God, and are free to keep it or break it.
(2) The villagers made a mistake because they became the victims of King Kong. God was not the victim of a mistake of his: Adam and Eve became the victims of their own disobedience.

:wink:

(1) First: After the fall is irrelevant to any examination of Adam & Eve before the fall. Second: your distinction between King Kong's freedom and Adam & Eve's freedom is spurious: they are both free in the same fundamental sense. On the other hand, if you're suggesting that Adam & Eve were not imbued with free will, and that God, in some fashion, controlled Adam & Eve's actions, then you should make that point explicit.

(2) Your initial syllogism is backwards here: the villagers did not make a mistake because they became victims, they became victims because they made a mistake. Furthermore, whether or not Adam & Eve made a mistake is largely irrelevant to the question of God's mistake in placing the tree in Eden.

As you pointed out above, God took a risk that Adam & Eve would partake of the fruit of the tree. Had Adam & Eve not partaken of the fruit, then things would have been just dandy for them, but that would not have mitigated the mistake of placing the tree in the middle of Eden in the first place, just as placing a Kong-sized door in a Kong-sized wall is a design-flaw -- a mistake regardless of King Kong's subsequent actions (a point that you've already conceded, maliagar).

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you suggesting that God was unaware of Adam & Eve's propensities? Are you implying that God isn't omniscient? Are you that irreligious?

You're mixing three different things here: The interpretation of the Biblical story (to see if it fits with your King Kong story), a theological understanding of the attributes of God (which goes beyond the story we are interpreting here), and my own religiosity (of which you have no information). :wink:

Let me repeat:

maliagar wrote:

You're introducing commonsensical expectations that are grounded in a "fallen" nature. If we follow the story, those "propensities" are the result of the distortion introduced by sin. They were not there before the fall... no element in the Biblical story prior to the fall points to them... So the first disobedience was the source of all those propensities, not the effect.

To look for parallels between stories, you have to stick to them... That's a key rule in the interpretation of texts... Rolling Eyes

maliagar wrote:

Moreover, you cannot reconcile the notion of Adam & Eve's free will with the notion that "there was no wall between God and man."

I can't?

maliagar wrote:

Either Adam & Eve had free will (in which case their will was distinct from God's, and they were able thus to disobey God) or they didn't (in which case they enjoyed direct experience of the Creator but were incapable of "disobedience"). Which is it?

None of the above. :wink: There is a third possibility: Being free, and choosing to obey. Think of the word "communion".

Quote:

The villagers could predict Kong's actions with some confidence...

What in the Genesis story leads you to believe that God predicted Adam and Eve's actions?

For the villagers, King Kong was a threat. Hence the need for a wall. For God, Adam and Eve were no threat. No parallel to a wall here. The forbidden fruit was not a wall or a flawed door. It was a test for Adam and Eve's freedom. The wall or the door were no tests for King Kong's freedom. The ape's actions were predictable: sooner or later he would attempt to come in. You find nothing of that sort on the Genesis story.

Quote:

God could predict with equal confidence the actions of Adam & Eve -- so much so that God explicitly warned them not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

When you talk prediction, you're mixing theology with exegesis. A common mistake among amateurs. :wink:

Quote:

After the fall is irrelevant to any examination of Adam & Eve before the fall.

Then do not project your commonsensical views on "propensities" into Adam and Eve.

Quote:

distinction between King Kong's freedom and Adam & Eve's freedom is spurious: they are both free in the same fundamental sense.

Which is (following the Genesis story...)?

Quote:

the villagers did not make a mistake because they became victims, they became victims because they made a mistake.

They were always potential victims of King Kong. God was not a potential victim of Adam and Eve. No mistake, no parallel.

Simplifying things:

- A father makes a mistake when he accidentally (not intentionally) leaves a door open for thieves to come in.

- A father does not make a mistake when he decides to have a son--even though one day this son will be free to disrespect and disobey him. The possibility of disrespect is a known and accepted part of the "package". In the end, disrespect may or may not take place.

Get it now?

Cool

0 Replies

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

"I don't live in a glass house, and I was not throwing stones I was just being hypocritical, there is no parallel"

0 Replies

angie wrote:

Cephus wrote: " Many books were rejected, not because they weren't of the same caliber, but because they didn't match the religious dogma that they wished to include."

A friend of mine told me about the existence of a 5th gospel, the gospel of Thomas (I think) in which some women were appointed by Jesus as apostles. Gee, wonder why THAT gospel wasn't included.

Actually, there are quite a few books like that. Some were taken as semi-reliable by the RCC under the Apocrypha, most others were simply thrown out because they disagreed with either church policy or the other books of the Bible.

You have to remember that the Council of Nicea was a policy making body, called by the Emperor to produce a political work that would place Christians under his political and theological control. It wasn't about finding truth, it was about supporting a particular theological view, right or wrong.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Cephus wrote:
there's no evidence that Moses even existed... As for Jesus, virtually all of the story of Jesus was mythic retellings of pre-existing stories from other cultures.

Should I take your word for it? And I suppose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Saul, David, Salomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Mary, Joseph, Peter, Paul, John, James, Judas, Pilate, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, the Emperor Constantine or Gregory the Great didn't exist either?

No, you should go and do your own research, just as I have. Unfortunately, the church doesn't want you thinking on your own, they have a vested interest in keeping you hoodwinked and lied to.

Even Jewish scholars don't accept that anyone in the Torah prior to Abraham was real. They are all stories, fables taken from other cultures, intended to explain the Hebrew world view. Adam and Eve came from the Babylonian Adamah and Heve. Moses is simply a retelling of the Syrian Mises, complete with the staff that turns into a snake and calls forth water from rocks when struck. Noah was a fantasy, taken from Middle Eastern flood myths. Heck, there's even a passage in the Satapatha Bramana which is virtually word for word for Genesis 9: 18-27. Even Jesus, if there was a real kernel at the center of the myth, starts off as just one of 14 Middle Eastern saviors born of a virgin named Mary, each and every one of them living long before Jesus was ever born.

Quote:

As I said: You need to read just a bit more. Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible? :wink:

If the Bible is supposedly God-inspired... all of them. Smile

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know