god is a prick!

[dlb]

Bah. I had a whole reply done, and my system died; I have to try and reproduce it. On the other hand, it lets me do something that I thought of after I finished; divide this in two.

*Originally posted by Axel Wheeler *
I never said or thought you were a biblical literalist. Only that you believe that certain claims about God are indeed true, namely your own beliefs. The ones you have expressed are not literalist. They are still nonsense, because you only believe them (I think) because of their emotive power and use twisted logic to get out of demonstrating them.

But you said that I had confused fantasy and reality with respect to Genesis. What am I to infer by that? When you don’t specify just how, there aren’t that many alternatives.

If I ask “Why does a dog bark?” and you answer “That’s like asking ‘Why is a dog a dog?’” you are simply wrong about that. It isn’t like asking that at all. “Why does a dog bark?” is a real question with a real answer, undoubtedly a complex one.

So is the question “Why does this God of Love exist?”, “Why is He a God of Love?” or any of it’s other forms we have been discussing. It’s a very simple question, it demands an answer, which you do not know. That’s all I’m saying.

The problem here is the referent for “God”. When dealing with someone who has not met Him (and I assume you have not, based on the conversation), I can’t just point the way I would to a dog; you have no shared experience. I must define the term, and I do so as best I can based on my experience. I was not around during the creation of the universe, nor to meet Jesus in person; I am limited to my experience, and I must draw a simple conceptual definition from that. The conceptual definition I use is “God is Love” (it is a common one in Christianity), so asking “Why is God a God of Love” is a definitional tautology. There is now a further question (if you wish to go in that direction) of why I connect that definition with the creator of the universe (assuming one exists) or the God described in the Bible (assuming He exists). If you wish to go there, by all means do so; I will not assume it.

As for asking why God exists: sorry, the question is ill defined. “Why” implies a purpose, or a cause and effect relationship; the question makes no sense in the case of God. I think you are asking me to present evidence of existence: why do I think He exists, or to prove that He exists (which is quite a different question). If so, ask that question.

I will deal with the rest of your post in a separate response, as it is a separate subject.

[dlb]

The rest of the story…

And yes there are many artistic forms of expression that allow us to say things that cannot be stated factually, because they are not facts; they are impressions. Dali’s Persistence of Memory evokes a powerful impression of the decay of our memory that cannot be simply stated. “Our memories are not so good” can be stated, but the impression in the painting cannot. It is not a claimed fact. Reason doesn’t apply. There is nothing to Dali’s message but an impression in his brain. That, and that alone, is the reason proof isn’t relevant.

Such is not the case with religious claims, or any other claims of any kind ever. They are statements of fact. Dali’s segmented crucifix of Jesus (I forget the title) is indeed an impression, but the statement “Jesus was crucified” is a claim, and therefor can be evaluated.

Writers, artists, composers and the like are only saying what’s on their minds.

Let’s take baby steps here. If my wife says “It’s pouring cats and dogs outside,” I would be foolish to call her a liar because I don’t see canines and felines in the front yard. On the other hand, she is not “only saying what’s on her mind.” She is making a factual statement about the world, and she is using a metaphor to do so. If it is raining, and raining hard, I conclude that she is telling the truth. If it is sunny, I conclude she is lying for some reason. I apply the truth test to what is communicated, not to the bald statement. Baby steps.

This scales upward. C.S. Lewis told the story of his religious life and conversion in an allegory, “The Pilgrim’s Regress” (let’s stick to religion). It is replete with footnotes, and if you use the footnotes to make substitutions in the allegory, you come up with a series of bald statements about the events in his physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual life. These statements are true or false, and can be evaluated as such. Evaluating the truth or falsehood of the allegorical statements is foolish; you need to figure out what the allegory means, and apply a truth test to that, not to the story as it stands. Welcome to sixth grade.

This process continues to scale upward. Writers, painters, composers, and other artists make statements about God, the world, and mankind with their writings, their paintings, and their music. In some cases, these statements are simply exclamations, ecstatic, or explorations of beauty, and as such have no real truth value, any more than “Oh, how beautiful!” or, “Ouch! Damn it!” has a truth value. In other cases, the statements are descriptions of the world that have truth value as much as bald statements do, and to ignore them because they are couched in myth, metaphor, and story is to ignore a large part of the accumulated wisdom of the human race.

Anyone who makes claims about the real world outside their minds invites critical evaluation of those claims using the simple truth values “true” and “false”. Everyone. Every claim. No exceptions. (Only religions and superstitions ask for exceptions, anyway. That’s the point!)

There is nothing mature about accepting your religion as true by applying standards normally and properly used only to assess artistic power and meaning. Quite the opposite.

What is immature is to ignore moral, religious, and even factual messages because they are couched in terms that are unfamiliar to you. To say that Genesis is false because the world was not created in seven days is as foolish as it is to say my wife is a liar because the front yard is not filled with fighting cats and dogs. It is an essentially childish approach to the written word.

And it is idiotic to say that “only religions and superstitions” use myth, metaphor, and story to convey their message (I reject your silly use of the phrase “ask for exceptions”, since they do not). I have already given you one example, which you seem to have forgotten: Upton Sinclair used story and fiction in “The Jungle” to give a factual account of the misery of workers in meat packing plants. Because his statements were true (in spite of being codified in a fictional story) we now have laws against such practices. Jane Austin accurately represents the society of her class and time in her stories; they make true statements in the guise of fiction. This can even apply to engineering; when I was a kid, I built a crystal radio using the description I found in a Rick Brant story. Thousands of children were introduced to engineering, and the way of thinking as an engineer, with those stories; they were fiction, but they made true statements (that can be evaluated as truth).

And feel free to use references, but you are providing plenty of grist for my mill I want to know why you believe what you do, not why someone else does.

I have given examples above; I am not sure they are references. You certainly don’t have to look them up to understand what I am saying.
By all means, evaluate the claims in the Bible to be true or false, using your reason and your critical thinking ability. But you must learn to read the Bible as an adult, with knowledge of the environment in which it was written, what is being conveyed, the situation in which it was written, and what you are evaluating for. You must remember which parts were written for whom, which are poetry, which are story, which are letters, which are intended as history, and what the limitations of transmission are. This is reading as an adult, and if you can’t do that, then don’t try. Read the commentaries, and depend on the people who are adults to guide you. It’s no shame, really. Biblical criticism isn’t rocket science, but it does take some effort. But if you read it at a level of “dogs don’t fall from the sky,” then don’t expect to be taken seriously by people who engage in religious debates (on the atheist or Christian side) who know what they are talking about. They have better things to do with their time.

[Axel_Wheeler]

Oh, Jeez.

You really want to believe that the reason people don’t believe nonsense is that they can’t comprehend metaphor, don’t you?

That’s not the reason. If your wife says “It’s raining cats and dogs,” she is indeed using a metaphor, but the fact that she is using a metaphor has nothing at all to do with whether it is in fact raining, as you yourself pointed out.

Authors use metaphorical techniques to communicate their ideas, but this does not make their ideas accurate. The accuracy of an idea has nothing to do with whether it was communicated with metaphor, and the accuracy of these ideas can always be tested if they are claims about the world.

“Animal Farm” uses a metaphorical method of communicating it’s message. If I say “Animal Farm is a lie” I might be saying that the events are not literally true (your style of interpretation) or I might be saying that human societies don’t really work that way. One would have to inquire further. I believe I’ve made clear that I am not failing to understand the metaphorical nature of the bible, or of some interpretations of it. But in no way can the author claim the meaning of the book is true simply because it is conveyed metaphorically.

If you now claim that I must understand your particular interpretation of the metaphor (which is a common claim) I disagree. This is where we get into the “Slippery Metaphor Defense” of religion. Yes, with metaphorical works such as Animal Farm readers must first discuss their interpretations of the metaphor and then discuss whether that interpreted message is true. Indeed, some will conclude that the intended message is false but a different message can be interpreted from the metaphor that is more valuable. This often happens with the bible, in fact. “Yes, I think they intended that, but I find it valuable for this meaning.”

Here’s an argument: If your wife says “It’s raining cats and dogs,” you can first (step 1) interpet the metaphor and then (step 2) determine whether it is true. Notice that the statement can still be evaluated as true or false. You, I think, are claiming that the bible can’t be. Why not? None of your other examples are things that cannot be evaluated as true or false once interpreters agree on a meaning.

Yes, some metaphorical meanings are ‘flavorings’ rather than ‘meat’, but there’s always meat (a ‘bald’ interpretation) at the core. If you are claiming that “God is Love” cannot be evaluated as a bald statement, then it must be a flavoring. Is God just flavorings? If not, then where’s the beef?

You need to examine the abuse of metaphor as a defense of your religion’s claims. It’s just a memetic smokescreen.

[Axel_Wheeler]

I said:

But in no way can the author claim the meaning of the book is true simply because it is conveyed metaphorically.

And of course this makes no sense, unless God comes down, assumes human form and says “I exist because of metaphor”. If He did that, we wouldn’t need the metaphor.

This was a cut-and-paste error; I meant the author of a book, or the someone interpreting the bible, etc.

[dlb]

*Originally posted by Axel Wheeler *
Here’s an argument: If your wife says “It’s raining cats and dogs,” you can first (step 1) interpet the metaphor and then (step 2) determine whether it is true. Notice that the statement can still be evaluated as true or false. You, I think, are claiming that the bible can’t be. Why not? None of your other examples are things that cannot be evaluated as true or false once interpreters agree on a meaning.

From my previous message:

By all means, evaluate the claims in the Bible to be true or false, using your reason and your critical thinking ability. But you must learn to read the Bible as an adult, with knowledge of the environment in which it was written, what is being conveyed, the situation in which it was written, and what you are evaluating for. You must remember which parts were written for whom, which are poetry, which are story, which are letters, which are intended as history, and what the limitations of transmission are. This is reading as an adult, and if you can’t do that, then don’t try. Read the commentaries, and depend on the people who are adults to guide you. It’s no shame, really. Biblical criticism isn’t rocket science, but it does take some effort. But if you read it at a level of “dogs don’t fall from the sky,” then don’t expect to be taken seriously by people who engage in religious debates (on the atheist or Christian side) who know what they are talking about. They have better things to do with their time.

As you can see, I claimed nothing of the kind; you are replying to something you imagined, not something I wrote. I explicitly invited you to evaluate the statements made in the Bible as true or false, after reading them intelligently.

Of course you must understand my interpretation of the metaphor to understand why I claim that the Bible is true or false. You can then claim that my interpreation is idiotic if you like: strained, unreasonable, stretching the fabric of the story or myth, or anything else. But even formally, to reject the assignment of a model and an interpretation between a statement and that model is to be unable to evaluate the truth value of a statement. If I am the only person in the entire world to have this particular interpretation of the myth, you can rightly claim that I am a flake and dismiss my reading as the ravings of a lunatic. If my interpretation is shared by many intelligent people reading the Bible, then it is not me who is out of step.

Writing, and particularly writing in myth and metaphor, is about communication. When the writer uses these tools, he depends on the people who reads his words understanding his images. If a large number do, he succeeds; if not, he fails.

But we are in a situation here where you cannot read an explicit statement and keep it in your head; I invite you to judge the truth or falsehood of the Bible, and you claim I have not. I’m not sure where to go with that; we may not be able to talk if we can’t even read what the other says (I may have been just as dense, but being just as dense, can’t come up with equivalent examples). Perhaps we’re done?

[Axel_Wheeler]

There are an infinity of possible metaphorical interpretations. Your implication is that I must understand yours in order to criticize it. Well, yes, I would have to understand your interpretation in detail in order to discuss it in detail. But I’m not criticizing your metaphorical interpretation of the bible, I’m criticizing what I perceive to be the common metaphorical interpretation (of Genesis) that Adam/Man is being punished for original sin, represented by the disobedient eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Most Christians, even creationists, agree on the basic premise of this. Some believe it really happened, some don’t. But I think most believe it happened at least in some metaphorical way, so the fact that it is metaphor is not a defense of the resulting beliefs.

You can say that my interpretation is wrong, that most Christians don’t perceive it that way, but you’re not doing that, are you?

Now, I also think most Christians take the good/evil dichotomy to be essentially equivalent to right/wrong, that is, obedience & acceptance of God vs. disobedience & rejection.

The unfortunately-named but insightful fecal-nugget is saying that if “Adam” (we) didn’t learn the difference between right and wrong until “he” “ate the fruit” (disobeyed God), then how could “he” sin BY “eating the fruit?”

Even if this is just a metaphor, it’s still a problem for religion:

If in any interpretation humans didn’t know right from wrong until we rejected God, then how did we know it was wrong TO reject God?

Either God is holding us accountable for what we couldn’t have known was wrong (and God is a prick) or we DID know it was wrong, and that leads to two possibilities (as I see it):

1. There is only one kind of good/evil, and we didn’t get it from disobeying God. God created us with it.

2. There are levels of good/evil, or perhaps good/evil is different from right/wrong. We are punished for doing what we already knew was wrong, and in so doing learned about the higher levels of good/evil.

Either way this means the notion of right and wrong is inherent in being human, and Genesis isn’t the story of how we learned right from wrong, but just how we pissed off God the first time.

We expressed our innate Wrongness by disobeying God. But then God created us this way, eh? We didn’t steal the knowledge of good and evil at all. This reduces the Tree of Knowledge to just “a tree”

The bottom line is, the story is trying to excuse the punishment of humans for simply being human, exactly the way He made us. But there is no excuse for this act. Either we didn’t know it was wrong to reject God (and we are not culpable) or He made us knowing it was wrong but likely to do it anyway (and we are still not culpable.)

Notice that when you remove the metaphor, the problem remains.

And since when is it admirable to be “in step” with other thinkers?

[Axel_Wheeler]

And I shouldn’t have to say this, but I will: … And this suggests that the story is false. That is, the common metaphorical interpretations discussed above are false, and are likely to have been made up by religious organizations justifying why we should obey them, rather than the actual word of God.

[dlb]

*Originally posted by Axel Wheeler *
There are an infinity of possible metaphorical interpretations. Your implication is that I must understand yours in order to criticize it. Well, yes, I would have to understand your interpretation in detail in order to discuss it in detail. But I’m not criticizing your metaphorical interpretation of the bible, I’m criticizing what I perceive to be the common metaphorical interpretation (of Genesis) that Adam/Man is being punished for original sin, represented by the disobedient eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Most Christians, even creationists, agree on the basic premise of this. Some believe it really happened, some don’t. But I think most believe it happened at least in some metaphorical way, so the fact that it is metaphor is not a defense of the resulting beliefs.

You can say that my interpretation is wrong, that most Christians don’t perceive it that way, but you’re not doing that, are you?

We’re getting closer. Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. We had to clear away the dead wood first. I am saying that your interpretation of the metaphor is a strawman, which does not match the mainline Christian one; that very few Christians believe this, and that if Christians did indeed believe this you would be perfectly correct to scorn them, as it does indeed make no sense.

Now, I also think most Christians take the good/evil dichotomy to be essentially equivalent to right/wrong, that is, obedience & acceptance of God vs. disobedience & rejection.

Good so far.

The unfortunately-named but insightful fecal-nugget is saying that if “Adam” (we) didn’t learn the difference between right and wrong until “he” “ate the fruit” (disobeyed God), then how could “he” sin BY “eating the fruit?”

Even if this is just a metaphor, it’s still a problem for religion:

If in any interpretation humans didn’t know right from wrong until we rejected God, then how did we know it was wrong TO reject God?

And I am saying that here your interpretation of the myth is faulty, that you are holding a temporal cause and effect relationship to the eating of the fruit and the learning of evil that no theologian that I know of holds. You are off in the ether.

Either God is holding us accountable for what we couldn’t have known was wrong (and God is a prick) or we DID know it was wrong, and that leads to two possibilities (as I see it):

1. There is only one kind of good/evil, and we didn’t get it from disobeying God. God created us with it.

2. There are levels of good/evil, or perhaps good/evil is different from right/wrong. We are punished for doing what we already knew was wrong, and in so doing learned about the higher levels of good/evil.

No. God created us with the capacity for choice, not with the necessity of choosing evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor of the existence of that choice. By choosing against God, all other evil follows (including shame, the nature of hard work to earn our bread, natural disasters, etc.) That is the meaning of the myth, that everything follows from our choice to follow things other than God, which is the “Original Sin”.

Either way this means the notion of right and wrong is inherent in being human, and Genesis isn’t the story of how we learned right from wrong, but just how we pissed off God the first time.

We expressed our innate Wrongness by disobeying God. But then God created us this way, eh? We didn’t steal the knowledge of good and evil at all. This reduces the Tree of Knowledge to just “a tree”

The bottom line is, the story is trying to excuse the punishment of humans for simply being human, exactly the way He made us. But there is no excuse for this act. Either we didn’t know it was wrong to reject God (and we are not culpable) or He made us knowing it was wrong but likely to do it anyway (and we are still not culpable.)

As above. Your interpretation of the myth is at odds with every commentary on Genesis that I have read, and with my own reading. Of course you would have problems with such a God. Such a God is a prick; the problem is, few people who read the Bible critically come up with such an interpretation of what it says.

Notice that when you remove the metaphor, the problem remains.

Only by a strange interpretation of the metaphor.

And since when is it admirable to be “in step” with other thinkers?

There are two steps to “thinking critically”: understanding what is written and thinking about it. To understand what is written you have to understand the use of the myths and metaphors involved. In this understanding, being “out of step” will simply lead to strange interpretations of what is clear to everyone else reading the text (as you have so aptly proved). Communication has to take place first. After that, be as original as you please; new ideas, new angles, even new heresies would be eagerly welcomed by the theological world (do you really think you are the first to bring up these thoughts, even these rather outre interpretations?). “In step” is a virtue only for understanding what is written; after that, your originality can take flight. Be my guest. But you haven’t yet gotten that far; you need a base for take-off.

A cardinal sin in any field is ignorance of the literature. There really are intelligent atheist arguments, you know. People adept at Biblical criticism, who know how to grapple with the metaphors and myths involved, who have spent some time looking at the Bible and who wrote it and how it came to be, have come out the other end confirmed atheists and can explain why. Many spend their time (unfortunately) swinging away at fundamentalist strawmen; however, some really do take mainstream theological arguments and pick away at them, exposing flaws and grappling with the issues. And when they do it is something to see; it really does require a re-examination of belief and faith.

[Freyr]

**Alessan wrote:

You give me a being whose thoughts are impossible for me to comprehend, and then you ask me to second-guess him? How would I know?

Freyr, just because I don’t understand something, that doesn’t make it impossible.**

Sorry, I didn’t do a good job of explaining this. I was trying to point out that if there’s only one God, why is the msg. he gives to the various poeples on the planet so different? Many eastern faiths don’t have the idea of salvation and redemption (which appears to be central to the J/C/I faith). Likewise, many Native American faiths also lack this. If there’s only one God, wouldn’t He want to get at least that central msg. across.

Agreed, there are many things we don’t understand but our lack of understanding doesn’t mean they’re impossible.

As for the rest - yes, I agree, your view of the universe may be correct and I wrote as much earlier on. Most likely we’re both wrong. Still, sooner or later we’ll both find out, right? If you’re right, I’ll buy you a flagon of mead in Valhalla; if I’m right, the wine’s on you in Heaven. Deal?

Deal! Man, are you going to be so suprised! Now I just have to find a way to sneak you into Valhalla. How well can you swing a broadsword?

**Axel Wheeler wrote:

OK, so no reality silos. Too bad, really; it sounded interesting.**

Well, I wouldn’t rule it out completely, but it sounds like something plagarized out of Marvel Comics.

**But I’ll keep picking on you: Are all these gods real because people believe them? Thus, our worship alters physical reality, and what is worshipped comes true. (I hope you’re not burying this in a reality-is-subjective dodge, because that’s boring and pointless: Nothing is provable, everything is true, we can’t prove we’re not dreaming, blah, blah, blah.)

Or are you saying that these Gods already existed, and people came to believe in them because they were real? Did they divide up the turf first, or what? And why do these Gods exist? Is it all unknowable? Or knowable “as myth” a la dlb?**

I wish I knew the answers to these questions. I don’t. I can guess and theorize, but who knows. The best I’ve come up with is that the Gods give us examples to live up to and the occasional miracle or two and we give them “worship” which They seem to need. Beyond that… shrug I dunno.

I do think that reality is plastic, to a degree. It can be altered and depending on how fast you want this to happen depends on which method you use.

And why do you believe it’s true? In theorizing, do you arrive at internal consistency (“It could be true”, “It would make sense”, etc.) and conclude based on that?

My personal encounters with them have lead me to believe that something is there that fits a description of “a God” I don’t have any physical proof, just my own experience. For me, that’s good enough. If you want to believe, go have your own personal experience. This is mine, you can’t have it… nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!

**jab1 wrote:

Just how many gods are there supposed to be?**

I don’t know. How many people are there suppose to be?

Here’s an intersting tale; in the upper midwest, where I used to live, the local Pagans would call up on Squat, Goddess of parking space and pizze delivery boys when they wanted to find a good parking space. The invocation went thusly:

Oh Great Squat! Find Us a Spot! The Three Nones are in the Mail!

The spell works best when done BEFORE arriving at your destination. Hey, even a Goddess needs time to work! More often as not, there’s a parking space waiting for you when you get there.

Friends from the west coast relate that there, She’s known as Gladys and invoked thusly: Oh Great Gladys, full of grace; help us find a parking space. Same qualifications apply.

Christopher Stasheff, in his “Warlock” books, has created the character of St. Vidicon of Cathode. He’s a Catholic priest who gave his life so that a msg by the Pope might be broadcast around the world. The character is wholly from the mind of the author, yet I’ve run into dozens of techie type people who regularly light candles to him. They say he gives results.

[tracer]

Alessan wrote:

Pop quiz. What exists?

A. My God.
B. Your Gods.
C. Both A and B are correct.
D. None of the above.

<cue singing commercial jingle>

My God’s better than your God,
My God’s better than yours,
My God’s better 'cause He eats Ken-l-ration[TM],
My God’s better than yours.

[Axel_Wheeler]

You can say that my interpretation is wrong, that most Christians don’t perceive it that way, but you’re not doing that, are you?

We’re getting closer. Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. We had to clear away the dead wood first. I am saying that your interpretation of the metaphor is a strawman, which does not match the mainline Christian one; that very few Christians believe this, and that if Christians did indeed believe this you would be perfectly correct to scorn them, as it does indeed make no sense.

Uh, hmm. Now that we’ve “cleared away the dead wood” we see that your original answer to f_n’s question could have been “It’s a metaphor; it didn’t really happen sequentially.” But no matter, it has been a pleasant ride.

It may be that as you suggest most theologians don’t believe that the events metaphorically expressed in Genesis are sequential, but it’s absurd to claim that most people in general don’t. What I originally said was “Most Christians, even creationists, agree on the basic premise of this.” You respond by claiming that most theologians (a small subset of humanity) don’t see it that way. Even if true, so what? I think that every religious person I’ve ever discussed this with believed at least that there was a sequence of events thusly:

• God creates man with new miracle ingredient “Free Will”
• Man rejects God
• God holds Man responsible
• We all should worship God

But in any event, who said chronology matters? The claim is that God holds us responsible for using our free will to reject his love. Even if this obviously abusive nonsense were all happening at once, or many separate times in each of our hearts, or whatever, it is the very idea that is untenable, not the sequence of events.

If the God of Love creates a being and imbues it with free will, and the being chooses not to love the god, SO WHAT?! Big nuggies on God! Tough luck. Better luck next time? I have a tip for Him: If you don’t want your creations to reject you, don’t give them free will.

And yes, lots of specialists in the rationization of nonsense have much to say to drive this fundamental error into the ground of confusion, but it won’t go away. The free will would be a better gift than the love. Good for us for making the right choice… It certainly isn’t an unreasonable choice in any event.

He’s going to punish us? Yes, that’s the real reason to worship; the only one that makes sense when all is said and done. The threat. Not by any real god, but made by the preachers and excused by the theologians.

Thomas Jefferson said it well, if not best: “Question with boldness even the existence of God, for if there be one he must approve the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear” (quoted from memory)

Is it shocking to suggest that even if Genesis were true (indeed, even if literally true) Adam did the right thing? Why is rejecting God’s love wrong? Of course, the God defines it as wrong, but why should WE define it that way?

Now that I think about it, you at one point spoke of your concern about the devil. Do you see these two choices as equivalent to the two states of living in God’s love and wallowing in the devil’s squalor of evil and sin? So we are not just choosing to live our lives, we are choosing selfishness, crime, hurtfulness, etc. etc. instead of love, beauty, and so on.

Ok, whatever; I’ll wait for you to give your version of this choice. But it isn’t that way, you know. Non-believers don’t tend to be criminals and miscreants. Social scientists have debunked the notion that religion positively correlates with moral behavior just as surely as life scientists have Debunked creationism. The media is rather quiet about this, however. See you!

[dlb]

*Originally posted by Axel Wheeler *
Uh, hmm. Now that we’ve “cleared away the dead wood” we see that your original answer to f_n’s question could have been “It’s a metaphor; it didn’t really happen sequentially.” But no matter, it has been a pleasant ride.

So it has. And if you look back, you’ll see I said something close to that (although not in quite those terms; the “dead wood” was setting up the terminology of the discussion). But on to the free will discussion.

It may be that as you suggest most theologians don’t believe that the events metaphorically expressed in Genesis are sequential, but it’s absurd to claim that most people in general don’t. What I originally said was “Most Christians, even creationists, agree on the basic premise of this.” You respond by claiming that most theologians (a small subset of humanity) don’t see it that way. Even if true, so what? I think that every religious person I’ve ever discussed this with believed at least that there was a sequence of events thusly:

• God creates man with new miracle ingredient “Free Will”
• Man rejects God
• God holds Man responsible
• We all should worship God

Stripped of the sarcasm and the chronology, I think that these four facts are pretty much agreed to. The “sequence” part is a bit problematic; we should always worship God, not because of the first three, but simply as a response to what God is. Certainly Man could not make a choice before being created; that part of the sequence is OK. And I think that God does not hold us to a choice we haven’t made; that part is OK. But overemphasizing the chronology is ignoring the fact that this process goes on constantly, on a daily basis. We constantly make the choice to accept or reject God, and we constantly are facing the consequences of that choice.

It also misstates the action of the relationship. The Christian notion of God is that of a forgiving God, so forgiving that He is willing to send His own Son to mend the relationship between us. The “responsibility” for the choice is there; God is not rejecting us because of our choice, but we are choosing to reject God in spite of His continual entreaties. I will grant you (immediately, and unconditionally) that this does not come through in the Genesis story; however, you must take this in context of the entire Bible, and for Christians in the context of the New Testament as well.

But in any event, who said chronology matters? The claim is that God holds us responsible for using our free will to reject his love. Even if this obviously abusive nonsense were all happening at once, or many separate times in each of our hearts, or whatever, it is the very idea that is untenable, not the sequence of events.

If the God of Love creates a being and imbues it with free will, and the being chooses not to love the god, SO WHAT?! Big nuggies on God! Tough luck. Better luck next time? I have a tip for Him: If you don’t want your creations to reject you, don’t give them free will.

Tough luck indeed, but not on God. That is the entire secret of the game, you see. We are the ones that lose, not Him.

And yes, lots of specialists in the rationization of nonsense have much to say to drive this fundamental error into the ground of confusion, but it won’t go away. The free will would be a better gift than the love. Good for us for making the right choice… It certainly isn’t an unreasonable choice in any event.

He’s going to punish us? Yes, that’s the real reason to worship; the only one that makes sense when all is said and done. The threat. Not by any real god, but made by the preachers and excused by the theologians.

Thomas Jefferson said it well, if not best: “Question with boldness even the existence of God, for if there be one he must approve the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear” (quoted from memory)

Is it shocking to suggest that even if Genesis were true (indeed, even if literally true) Adam did the right thing? Why is rejecting God’s love wrong? Of course, the God defines it as wrong, but why should WE define it that way?

Well, if you wish to define it otherwise, then do; your choice. But definition does not make it so. Remember the old joke about how many legs a cow has if you define a tail to be a leg? Four; defining a tail to be a leg does not make it a leg. We may be made with free will, but we are also made in a certain way, so that we are fulfilled when we are exchanging love. For the moment, I offer this without proof (that is, I think, another thread); however, I do note that it is a view held by the majority of philosophers and wise men, of a majority of religions (including non-Christian ones), throughout a majority of times. It is therefore a viewpoint you should look at long and hard before dismissing it out of hand.

Now that I think about it, you at one point spoke of your concern about the devil. Do you see these two choices as equivalent to the two states of living in God’s love and wallowing in the devil’s squalor of evil and sin? So we are not just choosing to live our lives, we are choosing selfishness, crime, hurtfulness, etc. etc. instead of love, beauty, and so on.

Ok, whatever; I’ll wait for you to give your version of this choice. But it isn’t that way, you know. Non-believers don’t tend to be criminals and miscreants. Social scientists have debunked the notion that religion positively correlates with moral behavior just as surely as life scientists have Debunked creationism. The media is rather quiet about this, however. See you!

I think you are thinking of someone else; I have not mentioned the devil in this thread, and rarely do. Old Scratch is not a big part of my theology. And I am the last person to be dictating to anyone; in all this, I have not been attempting to convert you, but to respond to the canard that a view you disagree with is automatically illogical and absurd. You to your Truth; me to mine. I am not wise enough to be anyone’s spiritual teacher. If you have a world view that suits you, then I wish you well.

On the other hand, mine suits me just fine, and your attacks have not come anywhere near to dislodging it. I am not trying to make you a Christian; I am responding to your constant demands to “Come on, admit it, your beliefs are illogical and you are huddling against the cold, real world.” I don’t believe that is true, and I have resisted the contrary accusation: that you are closing your ears against the call of Lord of the Universe, simply because it would be inconvenient and threaten your self-image to respond honestly. I choose to believe you are acting with integrity, and wish you would accord Christians (including myself) the same courtesy.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Freyr *
**jab1 wrote:

Just how many gods are there supposed to be?**

I don’t know. How many people are there suppose to be?

A little over six billion.

Are you saying there is a god for every person? Where do all these gods come from? We know where the people come from.

The “parking-lot” goddess stories were jokes, right?

Christopher Stasheff, in his “Warlock” books, has created the character of St. Vidicon of Cathode. He’s a Catholic priest who gave his life so that a msg by the Pope might be broadcast around the world. **The character is wholly from the mind of the author, yet I’ve run into dozens of techie type people who regularly light candles to him. They say he gives results. **

Either they were pulling your leg or you’re pulling ours. (I refuse to believe that they or you are being serious.)

[Freyr]

jab1 asked: Just how many gods are there supposed to be?

Freyr responded: I don’t know. How many people are there suppose to be?

jab1 then said: A little over six billion. Are you saying there is a god for every person? Where do all these gods come from? We know where the people come from.

Jab1, you’re mixing up the issue here a bit. The operative word here is supposed. That implies a pre-set limit on the number. You asked How many gods are theres supposed to be?. “I don’t know” was my reply. How many people are there supposed to be?

Yes, there are a little over 6 billion people on the planet, but are the SUPPOSED to be that many? If so, who set the limit? How many Gods are there supposed to be? shrug I dunno.

Either they were pulling your leg or you’re pulling ours. (I refuse to believe that they or you are being serious.)

You need to read Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits to really understand this. To explain it here would take up too much time and space and simply repeat the arguments he sets up. Try it, you might have your mind opened a bit.

[Axel_Wheeler]

(My chronology):

• God creates man with new miracle ingredient “Free Will”
• Man rejects God
• God holds Man responsible
• We all should worship God

… we should always worship God, not because of the first three, but simply as a response to what God is …

But you can’t get an ought from an is. If you are claiming that God is an exception to this basic axiom of critical thinking, state why. If I am misunderstanding, say why also.

And as to the chronology, here’s a revised one, based on your input:

• God creates man with new miracle ingredient “Free Will”
• We all should worship God
• Man rejects God
• We all should worship God
• God holds Man responsible
• We all should worship God

Again, we are getting to should without any reason why.

and we constantly are facing the consequences of that choice.

And these are? A. God being (boom mode) DISAPPOINTED IN US (boom mode off)? B. God punishing us?

Neither A nor B is a good enough reason. A: So what. B: Oh well.

It seems to me that these messages rely on emotional weight rather than common sense. “we constantly are facing the consequences of that choice.” Yeah, so? Emotionally forboding, suggesting an impending disaster for the non-believer. But not demonstrating it with evidence. The choice is being made on the basis of emotions, not common sense. Which is more sensible, that such a reality would exist, or that people would say so? I think the latter. We are looking at the achilles heel of a well-developed hierarchical social system based on human authority.

The Christian notion of God is that of a forgiving God, so forgiving that He is willing to send His own Son to mend the relationship between us. The “responsibility” for the choice is there; God is not rejecting us because of our choice, but we are choosing to reject God in spite of His continual entreaties.

We see here that between the OT and NT the skillful abuse of powerful emotional symbolism to control minds has proceeded apace. Just a few issues here:

1. God shouldn’t need to do this at all. He can communicate plainly with any of us anytime. The whole thing is completely absurd on the face of it.
2. Jesus whould be able to come and go as He pleases, so crucifixion ought to present no real problem. Thus, no sacrifice was made.
3. It amounts to: “Jesus chose to be wracked with searing pain just so you could have the chance to accept God’s love. Look! He’s hold the door to heaven open with his spleen! Quick, run through!” It works on kids, but it shouldn’t work on anyone else.

I imagine this conversation just before Jesus’ birth:

JESUS: Jesus Christ! They are so gullible! But there are still a few doubters. Ten bucks says you can’t get the rest of them.

GOD: You’re on! Go down there are let them crucify you.

JESUS: What? Why?

GOD: Tell them that I am giving them another chance at salvation by letting them kill you.

JESUS: (pause) … But that makes no sense.

GOD: Trust me. Making Sense doesn’t top their list of mental processes. They will focus on your blood, your stricken face and anguish, and teach their kids that you did it for all for them. The less sense it makes, the better, actually.

JESUS: Wow. You are the MAN!

I have a tip for Him: If you don’t want your creations to reject you, don’t give them free will.

Tough luck indeed, but not on God. That is the entire secret of the game, you see. We are the ones that lose, not Him.

Yeah, yeah. Same problem, though. Style without substance. Foreboding. But why should we believe that we actually lose something? What is it that we lose? God’s love? So? If it were true, what makes that worth altering our philosophy, our worldview? Are you actually saying that what we accept as true is more important than developing our own (and possibly non-believing) worldview?

Why is rejecting God’s love wrong? Of course, the God defines it as wrong, but why should WE define it that way?

Well, if you wish to define it otherwise, then do; your choice. But definition does not make it so. Remember the old joke about how many legs a cow has if you define a tail to be a leg? Four; defining a tail to be a leg does not make it a leg. We may be made with free will, but we are also made in a certain way, so that we are fulfilled when we are exchanging love. For the moment, I offer this without proof (that is, I think, another thread); however, I do note that it is a view held by the majority of philosophers and wise men, of a majority of religions (including non-Christian ones), throughout a majority of times. It is therefore a viewpoint you should look at long and hard before dismissing it out of hand.

Yowza. You have two points here, both vulnerable.

1. Subjective vs. objective morality: You are saying, I think, that it IS wrong not to accept God’s love, regardless of our subjective assessment of it. My response is to ask why we should believe in OR obey objective moral standards? We are subjective creatures, not objective ones. We have the ability to form shared moral standards, like laws, basic principles of decency, integrity and so on. Why should we believe in objective (obedience-based) morality, let alone obey it?

The point I am making is not that we should believe in and then reject God’s love, but rather that simply claiming this objective moral standard does not logically lead to the acceptance of God’s love. You are asserting a particular objective moral standard, when the existence of any objective moral standards have not been established.

To put it another way, a cow’s tail is not a leg because we humans say so. We define it that way. If you wish to assert that God has defined rejecting his love as objectively wrong, demonstrate this assertion or acknowedge it as an act of faith.

2. Exchanging love as necessary for fulfillment. I agree completely. This is indeed a core of my criticism of religion! We do need to exchange love to be fulfilled. But that love can be exchanged with other humans, and in many different ways. We evolved as a tribal species, inherently community-centered. Our caring about each other is our great strength. We care, not because we obey a master’s order to do so but because we are not happy otherwise. Preachers love to point out that we are born selfish and must learn good behavior, but the same is true of language, and we don’t need ‘higher powers’ for that. We are animals, and language and love are two of our evolved behaviors that are produced by the interactions of simpler, instinctive behaviors in children, parents and others (drive for acceptance, teaching the young, etc.). We are a basically good species, not a basically selfish and sinning one. Our inherent bad points are outweighed by our good ones.

Here is proof of this, dlb: If mothers aren’t moral without accepting God, why do they still care for their children? Why do people in all cultures, believers and non, love and nurture their children? Do non-believers abandon their children shortly after birth? No? We are animals of love, and of other things, both good and bad. But the reason we are here, the reason pre-isrealites survived, the reason non J-C’s still thrive in their blasphemous cultures is precisely that the good outweighs the bad in us. We don’t need to worship gods of love to be good. We can just be ourselves.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Freyr *
Jab1, you’re mixing up the issue here a bit. The operative word here is supposed.

Webster’s says that suppose can be a synonym for believe. That’s how I was using it. So, to re-state: “How many gods are there believed to be?”

** You need to read Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits to really understand this. To explain it here would take up too much time and space and simply repeat the arguments he sets up. Try it, you might have your mind opened a bit.**

You mean you WEREN’T joking? :eek:

I’m sorry, Freyr, but there is no good evidence for the existence of magic of any kind.

[dlb]

Been away for a bit, and I’m really not at all sure that this is worth continuing.

*Originally posted by Axel Wheeler *
But you can’t get an ought from an is. If you are claiming that God is an exception to this basic axiom of critical thinking, state why. If I am misunderstanding, say why also.

Nonsense. An “is” of a murder being done before me creates an “ought” of stopping it. Existence often requires a response.

And as to the chronology, here’s a revised one, based on your input:

• God creates man with new miracle ingredient “Free Will”
• We all should worship God
• Man rejects God
• We all should worship God
• God holds Man responsible
• We all should worship God

If a chronology is necessary to your argument, assume it and continue. My main complaint is that it ignores the “constant condition”; that this is played out continually, again and again, by each one of us.

Again, we are getting to should without any reason why.

and we constantly are facing the consequences of that choice.

And these are? A. God being (boom mode) DISAPPOINTED IN US (boom mode off)? B. God punishing us?

Neither A nor B is a good enough reason. A: So what. B: Oh well.

It seems to me that these messages rely on emotional weight rather than common sense. “we constantly are facing the consequences of that choice.” Yeah, so? Emotionally forboding, suggesting an impending disaster for the non-believer. But not demonstrating it with evidence. The choice is being made on the basis of emotions, not common sense. Which is more sensible, that such a reality would exist, or that people would say so? I think the latter. We are looking at the achilles heel of a well-developed hierarchical social system based on human authority.

If you don’t care, then don’t worry about it. The Christian view of sin is relationship based, not law based. The consequences are to the relationship between the individual and God, and if you do not wish to have that relationship, that is your choice (free will, remember?). The Christian definition of Hell is existence without God; fire and punishments are metaphors of what that is like, not literal descriptions.

The Christian notion of God is that of a forgiving God, so forgiving that He is willing to send His own Son to mend the relationship between us. The “responsibility” for the choice is there; God is not rejecting us because of our choice, but we are choosing to reject God in spite of His continual entreaties.

We see here that between the OT and NT the skillful abuse of powerful emotional symbolism to control minds has proceeded apace. Just a few issues here:

Which I will omit, as it really does get way beyond the OP and I just don’t have time. Suffice it to say that you treat the entire subject as legalism, not as relationship. It is certainly easy to mock the idea of an infinitely powerful being “sacrificing” Himself; however, when examined in the light of repairing a relationship which has gone awry by putting Himself in our place, it not only makes sense, redeems us. It brings us back to Him.

Why is rejecting God’s love wrong? Of course, the God defines it as wrong, but why should WE define it that way?

Well, if you wish to define it otherwise, then do; your choice. But definition does not make it so. Remember the old joke about how many legs a cow has if you define a tail to be a leg? Four; defining a tail to be a leg does not make it a leg. We may be made with free will, but we are also made in a certain way, so that we are fulfilled when we are exchanging love. For the moment, I offer this without proof (that is, I think, another thread); however, I do note that it is a view held by the majority of philosophers and wise men, of a majority of religions (including non-Christian ones), throughout a majority of times. It is therefore a viewpoint you should look at long and hard before dismissing it out of hand.

Yowza. You have two points here, both vulnerable.

1. Subjective vs. objective morality: You are saying, I think, that it IS wrong not to accept God’s love, regardless of our subjective assessment of it. My response is to ask why we should believe in OR obey objective moral standards? We are subjective creatures, not objective ones. We have the ability to form shared moral standards, like laws, basic principles of decency, integrity and so on. Why should we believe in objective (obedience-based) morality, let alone obey it?

Where on earth did you get this? I am suggesting you examine a viewpoint that I offer without proof, and I am saying that it is probably worth examination because a bunch of wise people have believed it. I explicitly stated that I am offering it (for the moment) without proof; I am not an apologist, and am frankly tiring of this little sport. I have better things to do with my time.

Note, by the way, that I said nothing whatever about morality, right or wrong, or objective moral standards. I spoke of fulfillment.

The point I am making is not that we should believe in and then reject God’s love, but rather that simply claiming this objective moral standard does not logically lead to the acceptance of God’s love. You are asserting a particular objective moral standard, when the existence of any objective moral standards have not been established.

To put it another way, a cow’s tail is not a leg because we humans say so. We define it that way. If you wish to assert that God has defined rejecting his love as objectively wrong, demonstrate this assertion or acknowedge it as an act of faith.

2. Exchanging love as necessary for fulfillment. I agree completely. This is indeed a core of my criticism of religion! We do need to exchange love to be fulfilled. But that love can be exchanged with other humans, and in many different ways. We evolved as a tribal species, inherently community-centered. Our caring about each other is our great strength. We care, not because we obey a master’s order to do so but because we are not happy otherwise. Preachers love to point out that we are born selfish and must learn good behavior, but the same is true of language, and we don’t need ‘higher powers’ for that. We are animals, and language and love are two of our evolved behaviors that are produced by the interactions of simpler, instinctive behaviors in children, parents and others (drive for acceptance, teaching the young, etc.). We are a basically good species, not a basically selfish and sinning one. Our inherent bad points are outweighed by our good ones.

Here is proof of this, dlb: If mothers aren’t moral without accepting God, why do they still care for their children? Why do people in all cultures, believers and non, love and nurture their children? Do non-believers abandon their children shortly after birth? No? We are animals of love, and of other things, both good and bad. But the reason we are here, the reason pre-isrealites survived, the reason non J-C’s still thrive in their blasphemous cultures is precisely that the good outweighs the bad in us. We don’t need to worship gods of love to be good. We can just be ourselves.

To the extent that love predominates, God wins; remember my definition. “Original sin” in this sense is thus selfishness more than anything else (in religion, it tends to come up as “pride”). To say that love, and God, only work in people in the presence of religion is foolish; it negates the belief of every religion that I know of, and certainly Christianity. Of course mothers are moral without accepting God. Morality does not require acceptance of God, and no Christian I know of says that it does. What nonsense.

I’m done here; this stopped being fun a while ago, and stopped serving any kind of purpose well before that. I feel rather like a parent whose two year old keeps on asking “Why?” no matter what the answer is; the questions are no where near the OP any more (which was about Genesis), and I don’t have the time to reproduce Kreeft or Lewis in their full glory. We left the Genesis “prickness” of God a while ago, and I rest there.

[Axel_Wheeler]

I’ve been hugely wrapped up in finals, and I didn’t want to just stop here, so:

It has been fun, and perhaps it has deviated a bit from the original topic, but not much, really.

Nonsense. An “is” of a murder being done before me creates an “ought” of stopping it. Existence often requires a response.

No. An “is” of a murder being committed PLUS an “ought” of murder being wrong, creates an ought of stopping it. Morality is subjective. You were saying the we “ought” to worship God simply because of what God “is”. I disagree.
The human claim that God is love does not require us to worship Him. Still the same two problems: 1. It’s obviously just humans making convincing, but not proven, assertions, and 2. Even if it were proven that God is Love, it still doesn’t follow that we should worship Him (although it would at least be a reasonable choice).

If a chronology is necessary to your argument, assume it and continue. My main complaint is that it ignores the “constant condition”; that this is played out continually, again and again, by each one of us.

Obviously I am not saying chronology is necessary; I am saying precisely that it is not necessary. Even without any chronology, the christian view is that we are guilty of rejecting God using our free will. At most this should cause God to say “Oh, well”. What is the basis of our punishment?

The Christian definition of Hell is existence without God; fire and punishments are metaphors of what that is like, not literal descriptions.

You are severely over-metaphorized. It’s your magic want to blink away the inconsistencies.

A Zen Buddhist might ask "What is the difference between being cast into a lake of fire and being cast into a metaphor of a lake of fire? Mu. " So might an English teacher (exept for the Mu part.) If you are trying to soften the image of Hell by saying it’s metaphorical, then I wonder why you think so. Maybe it’s even worse than the metaphor.

Dlb, of course it’s a metaphor! The question is: Why would existence without God be like being in a lake of fire in any way? When you are asleep at night, is it like being in a lake of fire? Death is probably a lot like that; no experience of anything ever again. Time stops, you stop. It’s not so bad, and it’s certainly not literally or metaphorically any kind of Hell. Before you were born did you experience a metaphorical lake of fire for all of prior eternity? No? That’s all I ask for after death, a return to that state. Non-existence.

If you argue that death without God is like a lake of fire in any way, it suggests that you have some reason for thinking so. What is it?

I exist now, and I will try to accomplish what I can with this life, care about others, find happiness through the happiness of others, find fulfillment through the fulfillment of others, raise a family, run and play, work hard to learn and achieve goals. And I bet at the end of it I’ll just cease to exist; a return to nothing. I ask for no more. Why do you want more? Who or what convinced you that you should want more?

{exchange about relationship vs. right/wrong deleted)

Where on earth did you get this? I am suggesting you examine a viewpoint that I offer without proof, and I am saying that it is probably worth examination because a bunch of wise people have believed it.

Ok, I’ll accept this. You did say that you weren’t trying to prove anything, and I did respond with a counter-argument. Sorry about that. But I would say the same to you; you should examine it as well; 100,000 theologians can indeed be wrong. I am not a complete stranger to theology and I don’t really think your points are that different than the ones I’ve read and heard over and over (although you express them much better than most!)
But I admit I’m no expert.

Can you conclude (if we’re concluding) by posting some good books? (references, I mean, don’t post the whole books! )

[Axel_Wheeler]

I just happened to see this quote and thought I’d post it:

Man is forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He acts against God’s command… From the standpoint of the Church, which represents authority, this is essentially sin. From the standpoint of man, however, this is the beginning of human freedom.
-Erich Fromm (1900-1980)