Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

truth
Well, I refuse to be hooked into one of your endless debates--that's Frank's thing, not mine-- but I will note that your reference to Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's commandment regarding one tree as opposed to others--as compared to a lesson about some universal human failings--is an non-interpretation: it fails to go beyond the object of interpretation. It seems to learn nothing from the myth, only to advocate it as a statement of literal truth. The only lesson learned is that one shouldn't disobey God.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

joefromchicago 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".

I'm thinking, but maybe you could provide an explanation of what you mean by "communion."

maliagar wrote:

Actually, the story of Adam and Eve can be approached from a variety of points of view. In any case, I don't think you're being careful in your interpretation: The DID know the difference between right and wrong. God gave them a commandment. They had a standard right there.

No, this is fundamentally mistaken. Adam & Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A&E's sin wasn't in choosing evil over good (since they had no knowledge of the difference) but rather in disobeying God; "In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned Him."

maliagar wrote:

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

I never said that God predicted Adam & Eve's actions -- at least in the sense that their actions were preordained. Instead, I said that God acted in anticipation that this might happen, in the same sense that the villagers could predict, with some certainty, that King Kong would rampage through the village and took precautions to guard against this eventuality. A weather forecaster can predict rain without causing or guaranteeing the rain, and the forecaster can advise others to take precautions in line with that prediction. That's what I meant by "prediction."

And in that respect, maliagar, you clearly agree with me, since you said that God took a risk that Adam & Eve would eat of the fruit of the tree. And that is plainly set forth in Gen. 2:16-17 -- "The LORD God gave man this order: 'You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.'" Without question, God anticipated the possibility that A&E would eat of the fruit of the tree: if He hadn't, He wouldn't have felt it necessary to issue the warning.

maliagar wrote:

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.

And Adam & Eve, as far as we know, were not 50-foot tall apes either. But that fact doesn't count against the analogy. In the same respect, the idea that King Kong posed a kind of "threat" that A&E didn't is completely immaterial: the parallel isn't the kind of threat posed by Kong/A&E, it's the kind of plan devised by the villagers/God.

More to the point, the notion of "testing" Adam & Eve vitiates the notion that God took a "risk" in placing the tree in Eden. If there was a test, then there was no risk. Which was it?

maliagar wrote:

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

And you assume that I am not a professional exegete?

maliagar wrote:

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

What view of Adam & Eve's propensities should I adopt?

maliagar wrote:

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

You are the one who said that God "took a risk." So what did you mean when you said that?

maliagar wrote:

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.

That is simplifying things beyond recognition. You yourself said that God "took a risk" in placing the tree in Eden -- that's quite different from saying that God took a risk in creating A&E in the first place. All actions have consequences, but some have predictable, direct consequences. God didn't act like the father who accidentally leaves a door open -- He intentionally placed the tree in the middle of Eden, in much the same way that the villagers intentionally placed a Kong-sized door in their Kong-sized wall (something that you've admitted was a mistake).

maliagar wrote:

Get it now?

Get what? Your point? You haven't made one yet.

0 Replies

My conclusions are certainly not based upon the writings of one author. I was already aware of the kinds of things Pagels seems to be noting. If you read my post again, I did not state or imply that this one author had just now made me aware of the "agenda".

BTW, the agenda to which I was referring is the effort on the part of some men throughout history to diminish the role of women in, among other things, organized religions. So, are you and I referencing and acknowledging the same agenda ? Just curious.

0 Replies

Besides paradise being moved to Hawaii in modern times (from Iraq!), the constriction of the Biblical tales to just the known world of the time signifies that God was reluctant to let any human being who was writing the stories that the Earth was round.
This is but one of the shackles that took hundreds of years before it was removed. That fruit from the Tree of Knowledge has advanced mankind far beyond anything the God of the Old Testament could possibly imagine. For an all seeing, all knowing God, he's in need of a new pair of glasses.
I once saw a parody of Michaelangelo's (a respectable homosexual) Sistine Chapel God where he was wearing glasses and a hearing aid.

0 Replies

Free will? How can anything be free will, if the consequence is eternity in hellfire? It's true that the "sin" committed by A&E were no earth shattering events in of itself; when does eating a apple hurt the rest of humanity? As a matter of fact, we have learned that eating a apple a day keeps the doctor away. I say the benefits far outweigh the harms. It seems from 'my' vantage point, that this man-created god wanted subserviance of the worst kind; not free will. Do as I say, or you'll burn in hell forever. Ofcoarse "hell' is a creation of man too. But, what the hay, it seems to be working with a whole bunch of religious folks. c.i.

0 Replies

I definitely consider releasing Bill Kurtis on the world a sin of A&E, c.i.

0 Replies

Re: truth

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
I like the insightful question: how can Adam and Eve be held accountable for an action taken BEFORE they knew of right and wrong and good and bad?

Actually, the story of Adam and Eve can be approached from a variety of points of view. In any case, I don't think you're being careful in your interpretation: The DID know the difference between right and wrong. God gave them a commandment. They had a standard right there.

Ahhh...it can be viewed from a variety of points.

And one of them is to be in denial and to disregard the very facts the myth places before you.

You continue to assert that they DID know the difference between right and wrong -- although the point of the story is that the god is ordering them NOT TO EAT of the fruit of the tree that would give them that knowledge.

This is extraordinary denial even for you, Maliagar.

Quote:

Not when they differentiated (they already knew that that particular tree was different from all the others). When they disobeyed, they broke with the Creator.

How were they to know that disobedience is wrong or evil and obedience is right or good -- when the knowledge of that sort of differentiation was specifically denied them?

0 Replies

By the way, I realize that Maliagar is still to frightened of me to reply to my responses, but I am continuing to address remarks to him, because that is normally the way I would respond to anyone -- even someone without guts.

And because I am getting such a kick out of his avoiding me.

0 Replies

Re: truth
:wink:

I wouldn't want to "hook" you against your will, JLNobody. But I hope you don't take that as a free pass to say whatever you want about others without explaining or grounding your views.

That wouldn't be "adult", you know.

I'm sure you understand that any interpretation has to start with the literal meaning of a story. Then we can move, carefully, beyond the literal meaning into deeper layers of meaning. But we have to be and remain faithful to the story, and stay rooted in it. Otherwise, we can interpret anything from any story, to advance any agendas. That's why exegesis has a proper method and rules.

Now, literalISM is quite another thing. LiteralISM claims that the literal meaning is the only possible and/or honest interpretation of a text, and that any effort to go beyond this literal meaning betrays the original intent of a text.

You're confusing the necessary literal approach with which we begin interpretation (which I took) with advocating literalism (which I never did).

Unless, of course, you can show that I advocated literalISM somewhere. If you can't, then you just put your foot in your mouth.

:wink:

JLNobody wrote:

Well, I refuse to be hooked into one of your endless debates--that's Frank's thing, not mine-- but I will note that your reference to Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's commandment regarding one tree as opposed to others--as compared to a lesson about some universal human failings--is an non-interpretation: it fails to go beyond the object of interpretation. It seems to learn nothing from the myth, only to advocate it as a statement of literal truth. The only lesson learned is that one shouldn't disobey God.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

maliagar wrote:

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

I'm thinking, but maybe you could provide an explanation of what you mean by "communion."

I could, but it's not necessary now. It is sufficient to know that there is a third possibility that you didn't consider: Being free, and choosing to obey. And what I'm saying is that the separation between the villagers and King Kong was radical. In the Genesis account, God and Adam & Eve are not separated. They communicated. [Remember: We were discussing your "parallel"...]

joefromchicago wrote:

maliagar wrote:
They DID know the difference between right and wrong. God gave them a commandment. They had a standard right there.

No, this is fundamentally mistaken. Adam & Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"He says, she says"?

joefromchicago wrote:

A&E's sin wasn't in choosing evil over good (since they had no knowledge of the difference) but rather in disobeying God...

You're getting stuck in the words "evil" and "good". The Genesis story is straightforward: They knew that (1) they shouldn't eat from that tree, and (2) they shouldn't disobey God. They did both.

"The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." ...
"The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"
The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'" (Gen 2:16-17; 3:1-3)

Quote:

I never said that God predicted Adam & Eve's actions...

You mentioned omniscience, which is a theological notion that has nothing to do with the Genesis story.

Quote:

I said that God acted in anticipation that this might happen...

In what part of the Genesis story would you ground this assertion?

Quote:

...in the same sense that the villagers could predict, with some certainty, that King Kong would rampage through the village and took precautions to guard against this eventuality.

You're begging the question: You're assuming that there is a parallel... which is precisely what you need to prove here (based on the text, of course).

Quote:

And in that respect, maliagar, you clearly agree with me, since you said that God took a risk that Adam & Eve would eat of the fruit of the tree.

You really liked the word "risk", eh? A father takes millions of risks when he decides to have a son. Is it a mistake to have a son? No (you could probably say that it was a "mistake" in some sense if the son happened unintentionally). Does a father think: "It was a mistake to have a son" the very first time the son is disrespectful? No. Risk and mistake are not synonyms. When you take a conscious risk, you know what you are doing. When you unintentionally design a door that doesn't work as it should, that is not just a risk: That is a mistake.

joefromchicago wrote:

Without question, God anticipated the possibility that A&E would eat of the fruit of the tree: if He hadn't, He wouldn't have felt it necessary to issue the warning.

Possibility, of course. Possibilities do not lead to prediction. "Propensities" (which was your word), no. Nothing in the story speaks of "propensities" which are indeed "predictable".

joefromchicago wrote:

maliagar wrote:
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.

And Adam & Eve, as far as we know, were not 50-foot tall apes either. But that fact doesn't count against the analogy.

Of course it does. It breaks the parallel completely. The relationship between elements A and B in each story are COMPLETELY different, as I have proved extensively.

Quote:

the parallel isn't the kind of threat posed by Kong/A&E, it's the kind of plan devised by the villagers/God.

You're deciding it right now (which is still wrong). But you had claimed that both stories were parallel, and I've proven that they are not. Once again:

A (God, villagers) plan for B (King Kong, Adam and Eve) depended on the relationship between A and B. And there is absolutely no parallel in the way the villagers related to King Kong, and the way God related to A&E. The simbol of that relationship was, in one case, a wall with a poorly designed door. In the other case, it was intimacy, communication, sharing. Hence, the tree of knowledge is NOT parallel to the poorly designed door.

Quote:

the notion of "testing" Adam & Eve vitiates the notion that God took a "risk" in placing the tree in Eden. If there was a test, then there was no risk.

Why? The risk is that they might fail the test right? (once again, God was never to be a victim of Adam and Eve, which also goes against your parallel - they became the victims of themselves.).

Quote:

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

And you assume that I am not a professional exegete?

Sorry! Sometimes professional exegetes make mistakes that are common among amateurs... :wink: Feel better?

Quote:

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

What view of Adam & Eve's propensities should I adopt?

None whatsoever. The text doesn't authorize you to do that. Unless, of course, you want to start doing theology... in which case you need to introduce a whole range of other elements.

Quote:

All actions have consequences, but some have predictable, direct consequences.

You're getting philosophical on me (perhaps some other time...). The text does not authorize you to introduce "propensities" and "predictions" into the equation. That can be part of the King Kong story, but not of the Adam and Eve story. According to the story itself, this are humans BEFORE the fall.

Quote:

God didn't act like the father who accidentally leaves a door open...

That would be the analogy with the villagers.

Quote:

He intentionally placed the tree in the middle of Eden...

Exactly, as a father who intentionally has a son which is by definition free to disobey.

Quote:

...in much the same way that the villagers intentionally placed a Kong-sized door in their Kong-sized wall (something that you've admitted was a mistake).

Did the villagers intentionally place a Kong-size door in the Kong-sized wall so that Kong would be able to come and join them for dinner??? I don't think so. His was an unintentional mistake. They just didn't think. Poor planning, they call it.

Nothing like that is found in the Genesis story.

Quote:

maliagar wrote:
Get it now?

Get what? Your point? You haven't made one yet.

I've made several (hat's why you're so interested in writing back...). In fact, I've proven that there is no parallel between both stories... (perhaps in a very loose, amateurish, tabloid-like type of way... but professional exegetes don't do that.)

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar,

You demand answers and taunt people when they don't respond to you. So don't take it as indicative of having made a good point when they reply.

0 Replies

I can't decide what's more annoying, the rambling dogma or the plethora of emoticons....

0 Replies

To me it's the "I can last longer by ignoring arguments and posting diatribes as replies" thing.

Maliagar claimed that homosexuality was wrong based on a naturalistic fallacy and when confronted with this he simply types a lot and pretends like the argument was addressed. Through volume he wishes to mask the fact that his text does not address any of the scathing rebuttals he is often handed and to top it off he creates victories where there are none.

He'll go so far as ranking the people who have debated with him but won't go so far as to address direct pointed replies about his fallacious arguments.

Wanna try again maliagar?

Simple question:

Do you assert that homosexuality is wrong based on the premise that it is 'not natural'?

Yes or no will do for an answer. You can explain and type away but please try to include the yes or no clearly somewhere.

If yes, please explian why you think homosexuality is unatural as it occurs in nature.

After that please address the fact that were it unatural it would still be a naturalistic fallacy without a logical defense of it being wrong.

Please try to avoid the other favorite fallacy you have in this topic witch is the argumentum ad antiquitatem mixed with a fallacious appeal to authority.

Your debating has centered on an act in which you pretend to not have been soundly refuted. When will you address the fallacious nature of your arguments?

If you address just one please address the naturalistic fallacy you proposed. You have never defended that and have only launched large bodies of text that you claim addresses the issue. "I did answer, read back.."

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I can't decide what's more annoying, the rambling dogma or the plethora of emoticons....

Hey, cavfancier: The Webster's dictionary can enlighten you on the difference between dogma and argument.

:wink:

0 Replies

It probably already has, still doesn't make your dogma arguments.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

You're getting stuck in the words "evil" and "good". The Genesis story is straightforward: They knew that (1) they shouldn't eat from that tree, and (2) they shouldn't disobey God. They did both.

Absolutely incorrect.

They definitely did not know that "they shouldn't eat from that tree" -- they only knew that the god told them they should not eat from that tree.

For all they knew, they could do anything they wanted to do -- including some of the things the god might tell them not to do. They had no knowledge of the difference between things good and evil -- right or wrong. That information was withheld from them on purpose -- and the god who then punished them for choosing door "A" instead of door "B" -- was the one who withheld that information.

They did not know "that they shouldn't disobey the god."

They had absolutely no way of knowing that disobeying the god was wrong, evil, incorrect, unsightly, or any of the other things you might want to call it.

This is the problem with having religious people like you -- or the church you suppose should explain the Bible to us -- actually doing that.

You don't explain -- and you don't even do a good job of pretending you are explaining it.

You rationalize it -- or disregard what you cannot explain.

Your "explanation" on this issue, Maliagar, is a fraud -- and it looks as though almost everyone but you realizes it is a fraud.

By the way, Maliagar, don't bother to reply to this response if you don't want to.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Even Jesus, if there was a real kernel at the center of the myth...

The problem for historians is: where does the historical fact end, and where does the moral tale begin (I'm sure your favorite scholars acknowledge this). But the moral tale is not to be dismissed just because... The Bible is much more than a historical-literary collection of books.

But you, recklessly, preach that there is no historical "kernel" (for everything is invented or copied). As a result, you assume that the moral element is, ipso facto, false. Too much to claim.

*yawn* Interesting how you utterly ignored everything I had to say. I suppose that demonstrates the inherent weakness of your position, you'd much rather engage in logical fallacy than actually debate the facts.

As for the above, perhaps you need to learn to read what's written, rather than what you would like to be there. I said that *IF* there was a real kernel at the center of the myth. *IF*. To be honest, it's not all that important that there was a real Jesus, although I'd say there was a man around whom all of the thological trappings have been draped. The fact is, there was never a Jesus who did what the Bible reports him as doing.

I never mentioned moral elements, I mentioned factual ones. Was Jesus actually, factually, historically born of a virgin? Did wise men show up bearing gifts? Was Jesus actually resurrected from the dead? Are these historically accurate and valid facts or are they simply mythic elements meant to tell a moral story? If you examine the Bible objectively, you find that there is no rational way you can declare any of them to be any more than myths. 14 messiahs were born of virgin Marys. Quite a few of them had wise men show up with myrrh, frankinsense and gold. Many of them were crucified and rose from the dead. Virtually every element in the supposed life of Jesus appears in earlier mythologies. Either Jesus didn't really do any of these things or he was the biggest copycat in history.

Quote:

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

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

You have a youthful spirit... Again: Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible?

Obviously you don't know your Bible, since God admits that he was wrong in Genesis 6:6, among other places. Your own Bible proves you wrong.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

They definitely did not know that "they shouldn't eat from that tree" -- they only knew that the god told them they should not eat from that tree.

Actually, because they didn't know the difference between good and evil, they didn't know that disobeying God was wrong. All they knew was that God said "Don't do X", they had no moral compass and no understanding of why they should listen to God or why they shouldn't simply ignore him and eat the tasty fruit.

God, of course, knew they would do this before they were even created, so Adam and Eve were simply scapegoats in the whole debacle. God wanted to create sin, pain and suffering, so he created Adam and Eve to take the blame for it.

God is a sick, sadistic bastard.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, I realize that Maliagar is still to frightened of me to reply to my responses, but I am continuing to address remarks to him, because that is normally the way I would respond to anyone -- even someone without guts.

And because I am getting such a kick out of his avoiding me.

He seems to take that tack with everyone. There is another similar Catholic-fundie that posts on another forum I'm on. He ignores anything that anyone says to him, he simply continues to post Catholic dogma over and over again, even after being repeatedly proven wrong.

I guess honesty and truth don't mean much to these folks.

0 Replies

Cephus, not only do I like your arguments, I totally dig the dancing Jesus avatar. Laughing

What's that yellow thing on top, a note from Luther?

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know