Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So much for that 9th commandment

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 67 posts ] 
So much for that 9th commandment
Author Message
thenexttodie
Online
Posts: 836Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

hackenslash wrote:Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.



thenexttodie wrote:If you never existed would it still be wrong to rape a child?


Stupid question, and it tells me you didn't bother reading the linked article. You can do better than that.

Wrong? Useless term.[/quote]

I have read your article. I don't how you can say wrong is a useless term in a discussion on morality. You used it 5 times in your own article you linked to.

You define Morality as a broad agreement that we should not unnecessarily inflict harm upon one another. Ok. Not that I disagree with your definition but I was just wondering if you believe if it actually possible to fullfill this standard. That we do not unnecessarily harm each other?

Your disscussion;
hackenslash wrote:"We can agree that harm is caused when one of us kills another. We can agree that harm is caused when one of us rapes another, or steals from another.
Some of these are not set in stone (well, unless you're of a particular theological persuasion). There are many moral dilemmas littering the ethics literature that show that it isn't always easy to spot what a right action is in a given situation. For example, is it immoral to lie? Yes? Is it wrong to lie to a Gestapo officer about the Jewish family hiding under your floorboards, knowing that revealing them will lead to their deaths?


I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have heard this all before in various Christian church sermons.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1891Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

hackenslash Doesn’t even believe in free will (defining free will as the ability to make choices at least sometimes)

So under his view morality can’t even exist, but at least he is being honest and consistent

hackenslash wrote:
Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.


Others like AronRa would deny free will and affirm moral objectivity by claiming things like the bible is morally wrong because….. bla bla bla
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:56 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 187Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

leroy wrote:
So under his view morality can’t even exist, but at least he is being honest and consistent

hackenslash wrote:
Morality is not, nor can it be, objective.



Leroy, you cannot seriously believe that the statement you make about Hackenslash's stance on the existence of morality is supported by the quote you show.

:facepalm:
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:24 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 546Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Again I must apologize for my inattention to this forum of late. I promise will monitor more closely from now on.

MatthewLee wrote:
AronRa wrote: we have perilously similar concepts occurring in the oldest myths known to man, which were written by the very grandfathers of the Biblical authors, whose familiar version doesn't appear in the Bible until more than a thousand years later. If the Bible did not not borrow these concepts from all the old myths of Semitic ancestry, then where do you imagine they came from? That's a serious question deserving an answer.
I have thought on this question for most of the day because it seems to cut right to the heart of the issue. Very insightful and incisive. What differentiates these ideas from the Bible narrative? The ideas could have been plagiarized or they could have been used because they were universal and easily understood symbols which opened deep and meaningful metaphors. How do we know which it was? in other words... does the fact that "Free Willy" has a whale in it mean that it was plagiarized from "Moby Dick?"
I would have thought Free Willy had more in common with Flying Wild, Roots, or Born Free. It doesn't matter what the animal is. That one thing is the ONLY thing in common between the two you just mentioned, and your answer ignore the fact that all the elder fables already existed in Semitic mythos long before the newer versions of those same stories appeared in the Bible, adapted to the new god of the new religion.

Genesis' creation narrative isn't written for geniuses, that's for sure. It's written for bronze age sheep herders who didn't exactly speak French. Much of it was a completely metaphorical narrative meant to explain things far more complex than the mind of man even today can fully grasp and so it had to contain things that would have had meaning to them when read aloud. The modern tendency to believe it literally robs it of all the power it has because if it's literal there's no metaphor and it's ridiculous. The metaphors are meant to carry a powerful lot of information in a small space.
I get that. One of the leading evolutionary scientists for a long time was Dr Robert T Bakker, who held PhDs from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Yet he was also a Pentacostal preacher who taught that to read the Bible literally deprived it of it's true meaning. That said though, we still have to acknowledge the fact that virtually nothing in those parables is literally or even figuratively true. I mean, we could say that the fable of the Garden of Eden was a parable about men should consider women as the bringers of civilization, which was an interpretation that made sense to me, and that it reflects the idea that "you can never go home again" or return to child-like innocence of mere animal intelligence. But otherwise everything about that story has only mislead and enslaved people. There's just no justification for prettying up the text so much that there's no actual truth to be found in it anymore.

And still, Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith.

The Creation parts aside, the fall of man is a deep and significant explanation of the human condition and of free will. Free will is what differentiates us from the animals... can an animal actually do evil?
I have to adhere to rigid precise definitions within the precise context we're talking about, and I've never heard a better description of evil than the one proposed by Scott Clifton.

"A particular action or choice is moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or both."

Here we have an objective standard for what good and evil are. Have animals caused harm unnecessarily? Yes, on a few occasions, that has been shown to happen. According to the sacred stories, God has committed evil several times too.

Can an animal be held morally culpable for breaking a rule? Even smart ones are still just called "wild" animals unable to be charged with a crime... they are animals. We have 99% similar DNA to a chimpanzee but we will never try one in a court of law for murder... even the one that ripped that poor woman's face off.
The reason why we won't is because the punishment does no good if the criminal doesn't know why or even that he is being punished, which completely refutes the garden of Eden fable, since Adam and Eve were forbidden to learn right from wrong.

Have you never noticed the similarities that story has with the tale of Prometheus and Pandora? They're very nearly the same thing, but with the Christian crucifixion thrown in several centuries before the story of Jesus.

Humans on the other hand are morally culpable so what is different? That's where the tree of knowledge of good and evil comes in. We were just like everything else... walking about naked and multiplying with abandon and not really thinking about the right and the wrong until we were given a rule. Once we were given a rule we were given the choice to break it we were given the ability to learn what free will was. We made a choice and that choice had consequences...but this is the story of not just a literal man and woman it's the story of the first self-aware humans. It's a definition of free will and what makes it free... you have two choices: one is seductive and pleasurable but leads to death and the other is following the rules and living. We had God's will already and we knew the Good. We had to be tempted by an equally attractive choice to be able to actually make a meaningful choice between good and evil. Enter temptation via a serpent and a tasty fruit. Why did we need free will? Why does any father want children? Could you just buy a bunch of robots and consider them your kids or do you want a self aware being... one more... in your own image?
We had no choice, because in that story we didn't have free will until we ate the forbidden fruit. We had no knowledge of right or wrong before then. So you can't call it free will. At most we were naive enough to believe the one character in that fable who didn't lie. Not that even God lied in that story, but the serpent told the truth.

When you google temptation the first image hit... at least when I did it... is this image...
Image

The metaphor holds even today for the sign of temptation and that is because the symbols are universal. Trees bear fruit. The tree of life bore fruit that grants life and to be in the garden and enjoy the benefits of this tree, you had to follow the rules and not break them. Breaking them even once resulted in death because that's sin. If you never eat the fruit of the tree you only know good. If you break the rule and eat the fruit you know both good and evil and realize that you can do either if you choose... you become morally culpable because you understand right from wrong. God says 'they have become one like us' which means there are self-aware and non-self aware beings and we had just joined the host.

Inanna's tree conveyed none of that message to me. There was no temptation in her garden. It was just a tree which harbored some unsavory characters, one of which was a serpent who was immune to spells. The fruit was immaterial because the tree was just going to become furniture anyway, lol. The story in the poem with Gilgamesh was more of an entertaining narrative to me which perhaps would have spoken more to me if I had spoken the language and lived in the time. It was telling a story whose shades of meaning have been grayed by history. It left no metaphor or meaning with me speaking of greater truth.

External to that: The meaning of a tree is universal, it bears fruit. Jesus even talks about the fruit a tree bears... judge a tree by it's fruit for example.
Serpents are naturally shifty symbols of things we fear that mean to poison us. The serpent is not to be trusted no matter what age you live in... they mean you harm and it's in their nature. If one talks to you, you probably shouldn't trust him. And you should get medication because even in the wizarding world, hearing voices isn't good.
The garden was the temptation. She was trespassing. The other irrelevant elements were added later, and these already familiar original elements were changed to adapt to a new metaphor.

AronRa wrote:The idea of the snake being female didn't come from this fable but rather from a Talmudic legend, which itself was adapted from this story, and then adapted again by the Jews, before being accommodated by Medieval Christians. In that story, the serpent wasn't just a companion of Lilith's but an incarnation of hers: returning to seek vengeance against the younger woman, Eve. This is why virtually every rendering by all the Christian artists of the Renaissance depict the serpent in the garden as a woman.
You are correct about the Talmudic legend, but Talmud is not really Scripture. It doesn't alter or supersede Torah, I don't think... [/quote]No, it was meant to clarify the Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament.

I was always told that if you want to understand why the Talmud was written then ask a Jew how they atone for sin now that their temple has been destroyed and they can no longer make animal sacrifices. They will start to perserverate on the Torah and how it doesn't really say what it says and then go through mental gymnastics which eventually result in a Talmud.
I'm sure you were told that, by another Christian, and that you haven't actually attempted that experiment. I learned a long time ago that if you want to know what a Mormon or a Hindu believes, don't ask a Baptist, because they don't know and will only lie to you.

No messiah, no temple: no atonement and no salvation. It's an inescapable truth of their own Scripture.
That's not the truth at all. I don't know about the rest of it, but they definitely have a messiah. They wrote the basis of your Bible, remember? They laid out the criteria for their messianic savior therein, and Jesus failed to meet any of those requirements.



To my knowledge, temporally, the Talmud was also composed at the very least 800 years after even the most pessimistic scholar might date the final compilation of the Torah.
You're talking about what was originally practiced as the oral torah, when the Tanakh (Old Testament) was called the written Torah.

There is nothing in Scripture which called the serpent Satan and nothing that calls it Lilith either, as far I have ever read.
Believers often read into their scriptures things it does not say and ignore much of what it does say. The paintings absolutely indicate what you say with female serpents. I can't say why this is, but it isn't Biblical.
It is also isn't Biblical to worship and idolize Mary or to be able to buy forgiveness of sins from the pope in scroll form but boy the Catholics sure did a lot of that. I don't always understand why people interpret things the way they do.[/quote]Yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy were the foundation of the modern Christian belief, and Christians since then have adopted another legend which you admit isn't Biblical either.

I watched the Noah's Ark video you linked by the way. Very interesting. Your conclusions were not in error and well supported given the premise you started with. I think the attempt to date the flood by the scholar was entirely in error.

I find it interesting, however, how many flood myths there are. This is another case of plagiarism vs something everyone would understand... The flood myths were in cultures all over the world that had little or no contact.
And had very little similarity because the most obvious exaggeration any child with no knowledge of scripture would likely have invented on his own.

Perhaps there was a flood.
There was never a global flood. We know that much for certain.

Perhaps we need to read more carefully. That's what I hear in a lot of your work... the implication that I need to put my nose in the Book and see for myself rather than believing the interpretation of people who believe dinosaurs walked with men. For that, all Christians should thank you.
: :)
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:12 am
leroyPosts: 1891Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:
And still, Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith.





That has been refuted by scholars, it is just a results of “creative neat picking” one can also read the gospels and use the same type of “creative neat picking” to infer that Dragon Ball (the cartoon) was based on the gospels. After all the God “Kami-sama” was born from a virgin, had 12 disciples, came to earth in form of a human, was 3 entities in 1 created food with supernatural powers, was murdered, resurrected etc.

But obviously these parallels don’t prove plagiarism, everybody understands that these are coincidences and that anyone who has seen the cartoon and read the gospels would know that the stories are completely different and independent.

But Even if Adam and Adapa where the same person, I don’t understand why would that help to falsify the bible, if the bible was reporting real events in real history, finding other independent documents reporting the same events would help verify the historicity and reliability of the bible.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:50 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3390Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

leroy wrote:That has been refuted by scholars...


Image
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:10 pm
YIM WWW
MatthewLeePosts: 83Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:Again I must apologize for my inattention to this forum of late. I promise will monitor more closely from now on.


I'm glad to continue the discussion. It is very engaging and I'm grateful for the time which I know must be busy given the schedule you must keep to make so many videos. I myself have only had time to write this very long post over several sessions but what I am getting out of it is a lot of opportunity to study and think and that's worth a lot to me. I have a quite limited schedule and I come to enjoy the time I spend in these forums. There are some really impressive brains here.

AronRa wrote: I would have thought Free Willy had more in common with Flying Wild, Roots, or Born Free. It doesn't matter what the animal is. That one thing is the ONLY thing in common between the two you just mentioned, and your answer ignore the fact that all the elder fables already existed in Semitic mythos long before the newer versions of those same stories appeared in the Bible, adapted to the new god of the new religion.


That is really funny... :lol: I would never have thought to tie Roots to Free Willy but now I kind of see it. That's pretty awesome. I wouldn't say it on national TV but it's really, really funny.

Some of the elder legends absolutely shared details with the Bible. Like the Utnapishtim story is absolutely a completely similar parallel to Noah's ark with uncanny likeness. It could indicate that Israel had absolutely made contact with the nations who knew this myth, perhaps. It definitely could be plagiarized and that is one hypothesis. It could also be multiple cultures reexplaining the same events from their worldview which is really what you and I do.

For example I concede something else to you in a limited way... When you say Magic and Miracles mean the same thing you are correct. In an atheistic, purely metaphysical naturalist worldview don't supernatural phenomena all fall under the same umbrella of either charlatanry or outright deception explainable by more reasonable means? The definition of magic and miracles must be the same when an atheist says them because in a world with no God or gods there are no miracles or magic (excluding the kind that Houdini did)... there's just what's there... that's if I understand some of your worldview.

When a Christian says Miracle they mean something else because by definition we believe there is a God and therefore Miracles are exclusively His Domain. I realize that part of the problem in this discussion is that we use many of the same words and both us have wildly different ideas of what they mean... and both of us are completely right... only from within our respective worldviews. For either of us to be proven objectively right there would have to be an objective observer above our level of existence to validate one or even neither of us. That word objective also means two completely different things when seen from different worldviews. The way a Christian uses objective is not the way an atheist would use it for much the same reasons magic and miracles seem so different. There isn't even an objective definition of objective. Philosophers have been debating what objectivity even is for hundreds if not thousands of years. In a world without a higher dimensional intelligence to express objective truth it is impossible for the subject, the person, to remove themselves from their own subjective perceptions and see the object... the thing as it really is.

For a very crude example... when Neo was in the office in the beginning of the Matrix he did not perceive the threat coming his way because from his small cubicle he only saw walls. The observer with the better, higher perspective... the people on the Nebuchadnezzar viewing him in the Matrix.... were capable of perceiving things his immediate circumstances and their physcial properties restricted him from perceiving. Their distance from the situation provided a metaphorical objectivity he did not have. A being with a higher dimensional reality than ours... perhaps even ultimate dimensional reality... should therefore be able to perceive things that we can't and therefore be ultimately objective.

Without a higher dimensional observer, therefore, all we have is the subject observing, and that's us. All we have is our perceptions which therefore are from the subject... hence subjective.

To a Christian worldview the objective point of view only exists if there is a God. We believe that we are not really what you see so it is impossible for us to perceive reality objectively. It seems to me that to an Atheist worldview objectivity only exists because, in their epistemology there is no God or confusing and unverifiable externalization to reality. I take this to mean that Metaphysical Naturalists believe that sensation and perception may be trusted as long as they are verifiable externally in a repeatable, demonstrable way.

The same story told from different worldviews can mean very different things.


AronRa wrote:I get that. One of the leading evolutionary scientists for a long time was Dr Robert T Bakker, who held PhDs from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Yet he was also a Pentacostal preacher who taught that to read the Bible literally deprived it of it's true meaning. That said though, we still have to acknowledge the fact that virtually nothing in those parables is literally or even figuratively true. I mean, we could say that the fable of the Garden of Eden was a parable about men should consider women as the bringers of civilization, which was an interpretation that made sense to me, and that it reflects the idea that "you can never go home again" or return to child-like innocence of mere animal intelligence. But otherwise everything about that story has only mislead and enslaved people. There's just no justification for prettying up the text so much that there's no actual truth to be found in it anymore."


What frees and enslaves a man are also polar opposites in our worldviews. I am free in Christ. An atheist, a sincere Metaphysical Naturalist might believe reason, empiricism, and logic make one free from the illusions which enslave me... A Christian believes slavery is the condition of bondage to sin. Just like your interpretation of Genesis comes from the symbols you cherish, the way you interpret them from your worldview, and the way the story resonates (or fails to) with truth as you understand it. Truth as I understand it is informed almost entirely by the Bible... It's my set of symbols and I translate everything based on the language of Christian theology.

AronRa wrote:And still, Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith.


There are a lot of stories like Adapa that you could cite as parallel but again it's hard to say if the Bible is derivative or if it is just a common use of symbols which the intended audience would know. The Greeks, Jews, and Sumerians all understood fruit and trees as metaphors, just like in Persephone's tale, Adapa's or Adam's. The symbols and how they interact with the worldview of the people using them to tell a story is what's relevant here.

It is interesting you see Eve as a the amalgamation of a goddess and a demon. Having been married for many years this makes sense to me. Eve was just a woman, though, and I have always thought that was a big part of the tale. That Adam and Eve were just people, humans, and they had tried to be like God and failed.

Ninti is not a similar character at all and here is why I think this:

Ninti healed the rib, Eve was the rib after it was ripped out.

Ninti was one of eight goddesses spawned to heal all kinds of hurts from the jaw to the limbs. Rib also meant something different to the authors of this document. The word for rib they used was 'ti' I have read which means life. The Hebrew word for rib means literally rib. It's even used to mean the beams that support a house, it's a literal rib of a man, a house or a ship. It isn't generally used metaphorically.

After all the new deities are created to heal Enki, he and Ninhursag share an uncomfortably close moment in which Ninti is not mentioned. She's a minor part of the story who just got written in because of what seems like clever word play with the word they used which we translate as 'rib'.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/ ... ninhur.htm

In fact, in this translation of the story she only appears once that I can find.

AronRa wrote:I have to adhere to rigid precise definitions within the precise context we're talking about, and I've never heard a better description of evil than the one proposed by Scott Clifton.

"A particular action or choice is moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or both."

Here we have an objective standard for what good and evil are. Have animals caused harm unnecessarily? Yes, on a few occasions, that has been shown to happen. According to the sacred stories, God has committed evil several times too.


This is a good definition to start from and it the basis of the questions which inform moral philosophy but it actually shows how tough the idea of moral reasoning from a subjective standpoint can be. The terms happiness, well-being, health, harm, and suffering are about as subjective as one can get. You can name numerous cases of each which many people would agree seemed universal but an exception can always readily be found. The goalpost on what is or is not happiness, well-being, health, harm and suffering shifts dramatically by worldview. The Spartans felt that allowing weak infants to live would detract from their well-being and the overall health of their nation resulting in less happiness and harm to the nation as it was. They also felt that compulsory homosexual relations between grown men and young boys was the surest was to increase their happiness. It was how they initiated them into the martial tradition and bonded them to their fellow soldiers. They caused immense harm and suffering in the name of what they believed was the greater good. It wasn't harm and suffering to them, though, it was just their way of trying to make the world a better place given their strongly held moral values. They represented one of the most powerful, meaningful nations in history. No one could dare say the Ancient Greek nations didn't have some concept of ethical philosophy and these people chose to live like this. The story of the 300 still resonates and we cheer and celebrate the victory of 300 men who had all likely had forced intercourse with preadolescent boys to 'make them better soldiers'. Ancient Hebrew morals are positively anachronistic when compared to Roman and Greek.

This definition you post reminds me of the idea of the hedonic calculus.
""(Gr.hedone pleasure) a method of working out the sum total of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total value of its consequences; also called the felicific calculus; sketched by Bentham in chapter 4 of his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). When determining what action is right in a given situation, we should consider the pleasures and pains resulting from it, in respect of their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains), purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa), and extent (the number of persons affected). We should next consider the alternative courses of action: ideally, this method will determine which act has the best tendency, and therefore is right"
https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedcalc.htm

The problem is again that all of the indices of the calculus are subjective and mean something entirely different to different cultures. This is why for God to have committed evil one would have to have a perfect, objective standard from which to gauge whether or not God's actions were evil and no such standard exists. You'd have be a bigger God to judge God. Did God cause harm or did He minimize it? You have to look at the four dimensional case to really decide. If you look at what was going on in the rest of the ancient Near East and what was going on in Israel they were anachronistically moral. Maybe not by the way we judge morals today but certainly against the standard of the time they were moral. They offered the Lex Talionis to those in servitude (Ex 21:26,27). That was pretty advanced. The American South didn't even do that.

AronRa wrote:The reason why we won't is because the punishment does no good if the criminal doesn't know why or even that he is being punished, which completely refutes the garden of Eden fable, since Adam and Eve were forbidden to learn right from wrong.


Moral reasoning has to start from somewhere. They could only know right or wrong after doing something wrong. All they knew was right. That's like trying to know hot from cold when you live in fire. It's like Paul says in Romans 7:7

"7What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? By no means! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the Law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the Law had not said, “Do not covet.”"

You can tell an animal all day not eat the fruit or it dies and all you get is bruised apples with a bite out of them and dead animals. There's something different about humans. There is a capability to act beyond the inclinations of our instincts in unpredictable ways that relate to abstracts not seen anywhere else in the animal world.

AronRa wrote:Have you never noticed the similarities that story has with the tale of Prometheus and Pandora? They're very nearly the same thing, but with the Christian crucifixion thrown in several centuries before the story of Jesus.


The tale of Prometheus occupies only a few lines in Works and Days and I think just a scant paragraph in Theogony, it starts at around 520 and reads like this

He bound 520
the changeful-planning Prometheus with unbreakable fetters,
painful bonds, and drove them through the middle of a pillar.
And he sent a long-winged eagle upon him. Further, it ate
his deathless liver, but there grew back all over during the night
as much as the bird of long wings had eaten during the whole 525
whole day.

I cannot overlay that on Jesus in good conscience.

I could see Pandora from her stint in Works and Days being perhaps derivative of Eve since Genesis was written before Hesiod wrote Pandora which would mean the Greeks borrowed from the Jews instead. Pandora is original sin in a jar if you read her right. Even scholars believe that Genesis was around the tenth century BC so if we are going by order of precedence wouldn't we think the Greeks were the plagiarists?

AronRa wrote:We had no choice, because in that story we didn't have free will until we ate the forbidden fruit. We had no knowledge of right or wrong before then. So you can't call it free will. At most we were naive enough to believe the one character in that fable who didn't lie. Not that even God lied in that story, but the serpent told the truth.


Gen 3
"3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”


Eve was given a command and knew that she had the choice to obey or disobey. She was made aware her will could alter the natural world as she wished it. She demonstrates in this passage that she was fully aware of the rule, and that she had the power to break it but had chosen not to thus far as an act of will out of fear of consequences.

4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves [b]loin coverings."

He lied. He said that they would not die and they both died. The serpent lied to them and because of the lie they both tasted death, fear, pain and suffering. One of their sons slew the other. If anyone can be said to have literally tasted death its Adam and Eve.

AronRa wrote:I'm sure you were told that, by another Christian, and that you haven't actually attempted that experiment. I learned a long time ago that if you want to know what a Mormon or a Hindu believes, don't ask a Baptist, because they don't know and will only lie to you.


I have debated many people on this subject. Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and others. I sat down for an hours long conversation with a Rabbi once for a college project where I asked members of six or seven different religious views (including an atheist) ten questions. It was a take on the ten questions with the Dalai Lama I did for a world religions course. Wow did he teach me a lot. When I asked him if he could ask God one question, what would it be... he said,
"Why I can't have cheese on my burger."

AronRa wrote:That's not the truth at all. I don't know about the rest of it, but they definitely have a messiah. They wrote the basis of your Bible, remember? They laid out the criteria for their messianic savior therein, and Jesus failed to meet any of those requirements.



I watched this video and it is a lot of what I debate Jews on all the time. There are things we may never agree on but the one question they cannot answer is how they can atone for sin without a temple. The only account for sin made in the last Covenant God had with the Jews was that they offer burnt offerings and animal sacrifices to atone for their sin. The sacrifices were not meant to be the ultimate end of the process but rather to show them that even with clear, easy to follow guidelines they would never willingly find their way home to God... they couldn't. The Hebrew failures constantly happening in the OT tell one that no matter how willing God was to forgive and start over they couldn't ever justify themselves by their own works. When the temple was destroyed there was no Scriptural remedy for sin if Messiah had not come. If the Jews are right and Christ was not Messiah then by their own Scripture they have been dying and going to hell since 70 AD.

If I am wrong on this matter and can be shown to be so in Old Testament I will gladly change my tune but as far as I know it, there is not a Scriptural remedy for sin that is given beyond Temple practice that withstands exegesis.

MatthewLee wrote:To my knowledge, temporally, the Talmud was also composed at the very least 800 years after even the most pessimistic scholar might date the final compilation of the Torah.

AronRa wrote:You're talking about what was originally practiced as the oral torah, when the Tanakh (Old Testament) was called the written Torah.


I'm sure you know all this so I just want to clarify with respect. Torah is the first five books of the Bible, Tanakh "Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh." I don't recall ever hearing that Torah was ever called Tanakh but rather I believe it is only a part of the Tanakh. If the written Torah coexisted with the Oral Torah it would indicate that they could have written it down and just chose not to. This is not really in keeping with the nature of a people who so carefully maintain their records that we can read the written Torah from before the turn of the first millennium BC. It seems convenient that they didn't write down the 'oral torah', which seemingly exculpates them without the need for Temple Sacrifices, until after the Temple was burned down. It's also funny that this is exactly the kind of thing Jesus explicitly chastised them for in Mark 7:8. He warns them not to substitute the traditions of men for Scripture... which if he was talking about the Oral Torah... meant it was written by men and not God.

AronRa wrote:Yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy were the foundation of the modern Christian belief, and Christians since then have adopted another legend which you admit isn't Biblical either."


Catholicism and Orthodoxy were the foundation, and only central authority, of modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Bible is the authority of modern Christianity. Sola Scriptura, my friend, or you are only following the traditions of men and you get the Inquisition and the Crusades. Jesus would be so mad. I can see Him thumbing through the Bible frantically and asking,
"Where did I say torturing Muslim men and women would get you into Heaven!?! How did they get that out of this?!?"
I'd love to hear the phone call between him and the Pope. Who am I kidding? The Pope would never take Jesus' call. He never has anyway.

AronRa wrote:There was never a global flood. We know that much for certain.


In really researching this I believe that the evidence would overwhelmingly suggest you are correct. In my faith in a global flood I have been incorrect. I do not believe in a Global Flood anymore, I believe the Bible interpretation which you label Noah's Flood to be in grave error at this point in my studies. We have substituted the traditions of men for Scripture.

First of all the linguistics prove that it doesn't say that from a common sense standpoint. Hebrew in 1000 BC can't really have a word for global can it? That would be so glaringly anachronistic seeing that they didn't know about the world beyond the Ancient Near East. Their cosmology would not have even allowed their language to contain the barest shade of the meaning of the word global. The word "earth" has a little 'e' in most Bible translations because it's not Earth...
The Bible predates the idea of global anything such that a global flood cannot even be a universal interpretation because it didn't teach Christians in 500 AD to go looking for North America. It sounds like a modern overlay which enthusiastic people try and prove and really just fail at. This is like when we assumed the Hebrews were the slaves that built the pyramids but nobody talks about that one anymore. Thanks, Dr. Hawass.

There are so many physical problems with the idea of a global flood why... well... I probably don't have to go on too far on that one with you especially. You are an authority on the subject.

A local flood would have made much more sense and is supported by the presence of multiple local legends like Gilgamesh which all share details. I believe that there is some evidence for a local flood as well. For example:

"Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries lays out the parameters:

The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements.

First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. The source of the waters is not in question. The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.

Neyman calculates that Noah, standing on the deck of the ark, would have been able to see a mountain 95 miles away. That gives us a ballpark estimate of how much area the flood would have to include to cover the highest mountains.

The final requirement is this: Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account? It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind. We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area. However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden.
"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 102813115/

Have a good Weekend. Thanks for the challenge. Just putting together this response was great fun and the best kind of workout for the brain. My dayjob rarely makes me read Theogony or study Gilgamesh.
Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:03 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 67 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest