atheists

[*zeo]

Hmm, I believe you are taking a very narrow view on those events V Guyver. In fact I think it's bordering on being historically revisionist in my opinion.

You're ignoring other factors like the existence of the Nephilim, in short the world god had created had become corrupted by factors that were not intended.

Imagine if you will if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, would the world we know have ever existed? Were there no other great floods that had nothing to do with us but just a fact of the nature of the world we live in?

The problem is people tend to think of the events of the bible in only the aspect that it effects us directly. This despite the teachings that pride and vanity had long been shown to be sins and generally wrong, yet continuously the people who wrote the stories of the bible always place the reasons for god's actions squarely on ourselves. Yet there are other stories we rarely ever consider, such as the existence of Nephilim and other creatures that clearly were not intended to co-exist with us.

There is also the point that just like a parent, only if the child listens can the parent warn their child of the penalty their actions may cause. Again I put to you that your argument only seeks to separate the responsibility of free will from the choices made. Sure god could do lots more but not without interfering with free will.

1) You can't make people listen if they do not wish to listen.

2) You can't force someone to do the right thing, it must be their choice.

You're analysis also belies that there were other warnings, Noah wasn't the only one warned and not the only one who made preparations. Noah was just the one who built the ship we all know about but we can easily point out many other cultures around the world also have the same flood myth and their own methods of surviving it.

But even putting the reason squarely on us belies that just like any law there comes a time when you have little choice but to enforce the law. Otherwise there is no point to the law and no authority to back it up to convince people to follow that law.

Even if god presents himself to every single person that would not change anything. Because unless we can be trusted to make the choice freely then it isn't a choice and god ultimately has to give us that choice in order to give us free will.

It's like blaming a police officer for not being around when you commit a crime and then throwing you in jail for the crime. Having to constantly police you is not free will. Consequently, just like with the law, there is little to do except show everyone what penalties there are for doing the wrong thing and letting them decide whether or not to follow those rules. So examples are made of some so the rest can better realize that their actions have consequences.

The good of the many ultimately outweighs the good of the one or the few. We each have choices on how we live our life and ultimately the responsibility for those choices are our own.

That's how I see it anyway. I don't blame god for my mistakes, and I know we have done far worse to ourselves than god has ever been blamed for.

Mind you I believe in god but not in religion, I'm more of an agnostic. So I tend to look at everything and try to piece together the big picture. So I know that from a strictly Christian point of view you don't really have that many ways to view god. But I think you should look at it from the point of an enlightended clergyman and study the message more than the perceived event. Much like legends the stories are based on some facts but they were written to give a specific moral message and I think is what many confuse with the actual message.

Which was the point I tried to get across by refering to other myths like the greek legends of Hercules, intended as a hero but through the moral viewpoint of the people who wrote the story. Similarly the stories of the bible were written by people who considered such extreme punishments as good. It's only when you look at how the same stories are reflected in other cultures and religions that you can get a better and less biased sense of the story.

Back on topic though, from an atheist point of view many would just dismiss the stories of the bible as just stories and only refer to them in arguments with the religious. But this belies that much of the bible, though colored by the opinions and intent of those who wrote those stories, is based around actual events. Additionally it doesn't change the moral of those stories and then it just becomes a question if you think the morals of those stories are revelant or not. To this end we may agree or disagree but like any form of wisdom I think it has the right to be considered just like any other.

[*V Guyver]

I understand what you're getting at. But it conflicts with what I know about parenting and my ideas of free will. And I'm narrow in my view for good reason, I've focusing on Gods flaws, and I have yet to hear a response that works for me, in this case logical reasoning. For a super being to know everything, everyone, to be capable of changing everything as he feels fit, he sure fails a lot. Besides, I like being the bad guy in this conversation because though I'm no Atheist, I may learn something.

For one, if he is a parent who looks over his children as some claim, then why does he not with us as a parent. You could say he's with us spiritually, but that's not really parenting. Sending some messengers to earth who can be confused as insane goofballs doesn't help in his parenting either.

Also killing your offspring isn't at all that nice, even if their souls will come back up to you, life is precious as he claims, and yet he takes it when he wants. Even if he gave us life, it was a gift, it doesn't means he has the right to take it back unnaturally. Also, his actions can be called genocide in some ways... So if he were before us, should we put him on trial, because if it were anyone else, he'd be on death row by now. I have yet to hear an answer that justifies his destruction of most life on earth instead of just killing humans alone, or killing humans in general (even if they were wicked). If he chose he could of just killed all the humans by sending down an angel, no animals would of had to suffer. And I again I bring about my point in him possibility dealing with humanity in reforming them with proper guidance with prophets, or simply whisking away all the children and having them taught kindness and respect by Noah.

Let's say he's set up earth as a great work or experiment. Then how can we allow this world to get corrupted by his other creations outside our plain of existence. Angels and entities not meant to be here still came. As a being of with eyes unclouded, he sure didn't seem to mind allowing this. So he should be held accountable for not stopping what he could of stopped if he truly is the all mighty being unequaled. If he couldn't foresee this problem, then he really isn't almighty. He's claimed to be able to see the future too, so murder, floods, wickedness, Satan. All of that could of been prevented with some effort, and he wouldn't of had to interfere so much later. Seriously, he could of told Cain "Oh, and make sure your sacrifice is more then just some hard grown crops, since it won't appease me." Cain could of then found a better tribute for him, like trading for one of Abel's cattle for the sacrifice.

All this talk about Free will, if he wanted to truly let us go about without worry of free will, he wouldn't of interfered with humanity in the first place, just observe us. Free will means being able to choose what you will do, good or evil, and even which gods you worship, and how you live. Yet there should be a limit, as to prevent chaos and respect each others free will. However, he constantly interferes throughout history when it comes to matters about worshipping him, but never about preventing us from harming other people of different faith, he's so jealous of other God's that he'd have his followers wage war to kill and then supplement those people. So even if those different people were at peace and not harming anyone, he would grow angry with them and hold the in contempt for not worshiping him.

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..."

I also find God Pretty mean and almost taunting of humans in his tests. He asks Abraham to kill his son, beats up Israel, Paul and his persecutions at the hands of others, and so forth. Then he decided to test all Hebrew's with hundreds of years of invasions, war, pagan gods, and suffering... wait, he did that as a test to us all? Sounds like a pretty crappy test to me. He can look at our souls but that's not enough for him, he wants us to suffer a bit just to see if we are any good as his servants. So much for a God who accepts all.

"I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the LORD and walk in it as their forefathers did"

Hebrew's claim the Babylonians were his servants, come to punish the israelites and Jews for their lack of faith... So he handed the Jews to the hands of slave masters again to punish them. Harsh dude, God's a pretty harsh being.

If he could look into men's hearts, wouldn't he know just how great there resolve is, and predict their actions as well? So why bother with the tests to begin with?

[Aether]

I've kept checking back on this thread and been tempted to say stuff but thought it best to keep my mouth shut...so i will to a certain extent but i do feel compelled to say a few things......... they could be construed as paradigm shifting or in my opinion common sense....

this isnt directly to Vguyver but in general it seem as if people are refering to God as if he was a big dude on some clouds or an astral plane where he just sits and figures out things to test and punish people, im sorry but i dont think its like that, we are rationalising god to be the same as us humans, with human emotions and faults. i dont think a perfect spiritual being would be capable of these things, and if he felt them he would not act upon them.....spirituality ( NOT RELIGION) on earth points to being closer to the all spirit off the universe... these spiritual people lean towards being calm peacefull beings - because they are closer to - for want of a better word - god, more so than a priest who recites chapter and verse from a book then goes and bums some alterboys ( sorry to be so blunt but it s the most extreme example of hypocrasy that can exsist in religious circles )... my point is being closer to god is being closer to peace.

lets not forget that religion was not religion as we know it today it was more pagan, worshipping nature, god as a dude is a relatively modern invention. how old is the old testament/ period of time does it actually cover ? 4 - 5 thousand years ( or maybe a couple of hundred thousand with events in in books like enoch depending on whah timeline you subscribe to) that is really not that old in terms of civilization on earth.... when its stated that 'god' said dont do this or dont do that because x,y or z will happen then think about what is happening, people die through cataclysms, at that time a way to ratioanlise it -gods will. a different tribe wants to attack a different tribe who inspired it - gods will, etc. etc. remember back then priests were the ones who advised leaders if they wernt priest kings themselves, and if a political agenda needed to be carried out whos going to argue if you say , ''well god told me to , so we'd better do it''...or if people wanted to worship a god other than the one everyone else was ( ie not being part of the herd- of sheep) then you were branded as wrong, evil or even better condemded to death- what better public message to deter free will!.... it was made as a way to control the masses and a way to unite the masses - wether you see that as good or bad is subjective for you...

also lets not forget that there was a world apart from africa and the middle east back then!! what happens to all of them or did god forget about them!?!

im sorry but to rationalize the all being spirit or god to that in terms of a human is to insult the very nature of exsistance, i think as humans ( or beings in this plane of reality) we are unique because of choice and the power to be good or evil, i say power because who in their right mind would choose to be evil? where as if you are evil you have the power available within yourself ( that spark of love from the all being spirit) to become good, through your own actions thoughts and feelings not just because jesus died for our sins so if you say oh im sorry just b4 you die then everything will be ok , as i personally dont think that s neccessairly true , i think karma exsists and it comes in immediate bursts in life aswell as a stored up one when you die, that is the true malevolance of god- an equal and opposite reaction , if you do wrong to someone else you are really hurting yourself, think about it its true. maybe not physically but spirtrually aswell- it may not get you when you are alive even, but it may happen to some one you care about, or might have helped you, or it might come to harm your soul when you pass from this life experience, but all thats beside the point because it raises questions that arent to do with any of this...

sorry but i had to get this off my chest

Edited November 23, 2008 by Eether

[*zeo]

No problem Eether, I understand fully but consider V Guyver is playing devil's advocate a bit here and mainly puting up the questions for us to consider. So am I to an extent as we're debating the nature of the message given by religion as to the intent and nature of god.

Well V Guyver, if we're really debating the religious aspect then I should point out not every religion has painted god in the same light. But I'll play along with the Christian take on things though of course this will require a long reply...

I understand what you're getting at. But it conflicts with what I know about parenting and my ideas of free will. And I'm narrow in my view for good reason, I've focusing on Gods flaws, and I have yet to hear a response that works for me, in this case logical reasoning. For a super being to know everything, everyone, to be capable of changing everything as he feels fit, he sure fails a lot.

Interesting, can you point to a single failure that wouldn't have conflicted with free will and the very nature of creation?

Cause you haven't so far and really, god can't change everything he feels fit without taking away free will.

You claim logical reasoning but your statements are one of opinions. God's perceived flaws are just that, perceived. Your ideals not withstanding, but I can only logically assume you're arguing against free will. At least not free will in any absolute way because your arguments all lead to excusing the responsibility for free will.

Let's take responsibility, is a parent responsible for all the actions of the child throughout the child's life? If that is the case then we can never be adults, we can never have responsibility for our own actions and choices. What you are saying is that god should continuously preach to us and never punish us for doing wrong but just keep on preaching to us regardless of how many times we don't listen and no matter how bad our crimes become.

Sure, let's tell a seriel killer that killing is bad and let's just assume they will eventually listen and not kill anymore. Ever heard of punishment to fit the crime? Or the rights of the victims?

If logic is truly your criteria then I don't see how you can say that penalty can't ever be a result of making bad choices unless you ignore the responsibility of people making their own choices?

We aren't god but we can logically see that a serial killer will kill again if given the opportunity. Do we allow that to happen or do we stop the killer?

Another way to look at it is you may call god's actions extreme but what would have been the result if he hadn't taken those actions? Would we not have ultimately destroyed ourselves?

Again and again you have taken the stance of reform, but you can't reform people who don't want to be reformed. If god forced or tried to change our natures then that would have interfered with free will and taken the choice away from us. So what choice does that leave god?

For one, if he is a parent who looks over his children as some claim, then why does he not with us as a parent. You could say he's with us spiritually, but that's not really parenting. Sending some messengers to earth who can be confused as insane goofballs doesn't help in his parenting either.

Why has his interactions been limited to spiritual? Who knows, could be perhaps because we would die instantly in his presense perhaps?

Just looking at him through an avatar, like a burning bush, can turn us gray and hearing his voice directly is said to cause our heads to explode. Yeah, I can see why you would complain he isn't around enough but then again who could say they ever had and not be speaking to us from the other side?

Of course we would have to ignore the thousands of times god is mentioned giving signs, warnings, helping out with miracles, and speaking to countless prophets before we can say he never tried. Sure, god spends thousands of years telling us right from wrong and because some of us didn't listen we should blame god. . . Sounds a lot like you're blaming the police instead of the criminals who commited the crimes, what of the rights of the victims? What of responsibility for one's own choices?

Really, if you think modern wars are bloody we should illustrate how horrible they use to be and then imagine how cruelly people use to treat each other once upon a time. How much do you think god should tolerate before enough is enough?

Again it should be noted things like the great flood were not god's only way of reacting, in many cases it was indeed the last resort.

Another way of looking at it is that god spoke to Noah because Noah was one of the few who would listen, if everyone listened then everyone would have been safe. The choice and responsibility for that choice was ours.

You might as well argue that sending people to jail for commiting crime is too harsh as well. Yeah, let's try to reform a rapist or child molester. Despite the fact studies show they can't be reformed, let's do so regardless of how many times they commit the crime and never punish them. Sorry but your argument doesn't seem very logical or practical to me.

Also killing your offspring isn't at all that nice, even if their souls will come back up to you, life is precious as he claims, and yet he takes it when he wants. Even if he gave us life, it was a gift, it doesn't means he has the right to take it back unnaturally. Also, his actions can be called genocide in some ways... So if he were before us, should we put him on trial, because if it were anyone else, he'd be on death row by now.

Then you would have to put on trial every judge that ever lived and everyone who has ever enforced a law. I'm sure the dinosaurs could plead a good case of genocide but then if they weren't killed off then we wouldn't have ever been here to complain either. Never mind many of them just evolved into smaller animals.

God's actions are always equated with the greater good, your only grounds of argument is good for who. But it is also a fact that death is part of life. God never promised us long lives! Death is death regardless of how it happens or when. And many can easily argue that death is what makes life precious, and like any gift it can be taken away if you neither appreciate it or want it.

Again the story of the flood shows that the choice was ours, people could either listen to the message and save themselves or ignore the message and let themselves die.

You might as well blame people who put up warning signs that you got hurt because you ignored the warning. Indeed god may not have even caused the flood, it may have been natural and he just warned those that would listen of its coming. Natural disasters are neither good nor evil and the only thing we know for sure is Noah was warned and told not only to save himself but the animals as well. Also, since Noah wasn't the new Adam, he clearly saved other people as well...

Let's say he's set up earth as a great work or experiment. Then how can we allow this world to get corrupted by his other creations outside our plain of existence. Angels and entities not meant to be here still came. As a being of with eyes unclouded, he sure didn't seem to mind allowing this. So he should be held accountable for not stopping what he could of stopped if he truly is the all mighty being unequaled. If he couldn't foresee this problem, then he really isn't almighty. He's claimed to be able to see the future too, so murder, floods, wickedness, Satan. All of that could of been prevented with some effort, and he wouldn't of had to interfere so much later. Seriously, he could of told Cain "Oh, and make sure your sacrifice is more then just some hard grown crops, since it won't appease me." Cain could of then found a better tribute for him, like trading for one of Abel's cattle for the sacrifice.

Sorry but everything is part of creation, life doesn't just spring forth whole and in its final form. From the moment of creation to now the universe has been in constant change. Death is just part of the cycle of life and change. And we are the sum of all that came before us, if god had excluded anything then we wouldn't be what we are now. (unless you want to argue creationism versus evolution)

Even innocents often necessarily pay for the sins of others, because in this world our lives are inextricably intertwined. What one does will, more often than not, in some way effect others and even the world. I may for example pollute the air, but you'll then breathe the pollution. If a mother smokes crack, her baby will likely be born addicted, etc.

For all things there was a time and place, and all of what you have said ignores free will. It doesn't matter what god could foresee, it still had to be our choice if we were to have free will. If god had changed anything then we would not have free will and only then could you blame him for everything. But no, we have free will and thus the choices and the consequences of those choices are ours and ours alone.

The problem with Cain wasn't the worthiness of the sacrifice but what it represented. Abel's sacrifice was from the heart, Cain's was just a token and it was their choice on what the sacrifice was. Cain's complaint is much like yours that the act itself should be enough and not the intent. God had told them both what was expected of them but only Abel listened. If god had done any of the things you suggest then it wouldn't have been a choice.

Another problem is even with the ability to foresee doesn't mean you know what will happen in a situation involving free will. The choices we make shape the future, just because Cain was unhappy with god's reaction doesn't mean he had to kill his brother. Even that was a choice and it wouldn't be a choice if it was pre-ordained.

We aren't robots, even god has to deal with our choices. Since that is the nature of free will. Even if god knew what Cain's response would be doesn't change the fact that the only way for god to not allow events to take place was to take away the choice and thus free will.

All this talk about Free will, if he wanted to truly let us go about without worry of free will, he wouldn't of interfered with humanity in the first place, just observe us.

Mostly in fact that's exactly what god does, but like a parent free will doesn't stop him from telling you what he expects from you. A parent never stops caring just because they let their children live their lives and make their own choices. But just like a parent god can't force you to listen, ultimately it's your choice.

Also before you can have free will, you must first know that you have a choice. Letting us go about in ignorance isn't giving us a choice either. Remember one of the things a parent does is teach their children and lessens often have their price. Not all of us can learn by example alone, many of us have to experience the mistake for ourselves before we accept it.

It is also true that we aren't always ready to accept things in life until we have reached a certain stage in our life that we can accept things we would not otherwise accept. Wisdom is one of the hardest things for us to acquire but often times it does require us to experience a great many unpleasant things before we acquire that wisdom.

he's so jealous of other God's that he'd have his followers wage war to kill and then supplement those people. So even if those different people were at peace and not harming anyone, he would grow angry with them and hold the in contempt for not worshiping him.

Really, that is one way to look at it but ignores the fact he let us pretty much do whatever we wanted for thousand of years. Consider the centuries of human sacrifices, marrying animals, etc. and yet you claim god showed no tolerance before he interfered?

Which is another point about free will, god didn't make us suffer all those ills. We did it to ourselves!

Though I should also point out pretty much everything you have quoted were all the words of people and not god. Very few things have actually been claimed to be the direct words of god, like the ten commandments. Most of everything stated in the bible was written by People who sought to see everything in their life as a test or some hidden meaning. Of couse I know you point it out because the bible is your primary reference in this debate for the faults you perceive with god is from the viewpoint of the Christian the bible, which is often referred to as the word of god.

But mind you as I already pointed out god can't talk directly to anyone without killing them. So he has to talk to us through signs or prophets, but that leaves the message to be interpreted and not the direct words of god.

Moses himself only spoke to god once, through a burning bush, and it turned his hair gray. Every other time it was through signs which he interpreted. While many other parts of the bible were added centuries after the death of Christ, who really is the only one with any direct claim to having heard the words of god.

As many a scholar will point out the religious text should not be read as a book of law, doing so is what religious extremist do and ultimately they blind people to the message those texts were intended to convey.

Another way to look at it is that if you accept God is 100% holy then why should He ever be expected to put up with any sin or nonsense whatsoever from His creation? Instead of being amazed that He periodically calls for judgment in the Old Testament, we should be amazed that he ever shows mercy and patience. I mean, think of it, if God was not merciful, even you and I would be zapped the very instant that we'd rebel or sin in any way today.

If god did not try to reform us then why give us signs, why have prophets? Why tolerate any sin or misdeed? Why offer forgiveness even on our death beds? Why even have a purgatory and not just send everyone to hell?

So instead of just looking at who god punished, you should instead be asking why god didn't punish a lot more because frankly if we look at the history of sin then god should have caused great floods practically every ten minutes.

The bible is imperfect because we are imperfect, but if we were perfect then we wouldn't have any choice. Yin and yang, light and dark, good and evil, the universe is full of balance but balance does not mean perfection but instead is compromise.

I would say more but I think I wrote more than enough for now.

[Aether]

Fair enough Zeo, i havent read the rest of your post as im just adressing your inital comment to me as im staying out of this niw...... but i think my arguement does just show that on this thread we are creating a microcosm of the problem that exsists on the world today which in the macrocosm is responsible for a lot of drenn in the world...and that is basically because of arugeing over nothing!!! going in circles and argueing over pointless illogical nothing...........

Edited November 23, 2008 by Eether

[*V Guyver]

You are suggesting we are arguing over a being that may not exist. I guess you can call that a waste of time, but this topic does serve other ends. Even if God and religions are false, they still serve people by providing emotional security, as well goal.

My ideas are opinions, true. Your beliefs opinions too Zeo. No point to either, maybe some merit to both. I see not a point, so giggity giggity goo! Let's continue on.

God can take plenty away without free will. He could take away disease, take away hunger by having food grow everywhere, he can take away fear by teaching us about the unknown, and he can certainly help take away or lessen war by eliminating the above... and he can take away fictional characters like Jar Jar Binks who's sole goal is to torture star wars fans, what no go... who right, we're talking about God, not George Lucas, sorry... None of that has to do with free will, just management of resources (via control of the nature which he has) and knowledge involving understanding of things. There are some things that can't and shouldn't be taken away like Death, limit in living space, and the ability hate. But at the same time there are things he can do that would help prevent any suffering and conflicts, he just doesn't seem to concern himself with it, if not actually advocate some war according to some teachings.

There is a difference between our parents and God, God is apparently around all the time, and a parent on earth eventually has to let go of that child. God never let goes, but neither does he act as a parent. Thus he's not fulfilling the role people claim him too.

You said you can't reform people who don't want to reform. What I was arguing is that there are better ways to convince people to reform... such as through example. I have no problem with policing, but if God is out there, then he can certainly help prevent the need for it. Also, killing every human on the planet should not be compared with arresting people, if you were to compare, then we'd simply have to kill every criminal on the planet, then then we can start comparisons. What I wanted was god to not have to resort to mass killing, which goes against the teachings related to him. Okay, so let's just say it's not gods fault for them dying, because they ignored his messengers (who I must remind you could of been confused for loonies) or couldn't hear him, then how is it hat different from a cop who shot a suspect that he knew was deaf and unable to hurt the cop as well (since God himself wasn't in harm's way) to stop a crime? Was it completely justified since the cop could of apprehended the criminal and just shot him because it was easier? IF you ask me, God took the easy way out by killing, and killing usually is the easiest way of removing something unwanted.

As for hearing God, many people have heard them and not had their heads explode. Then there is the possibility these people were madmen, but then again Abraham is the father of the religion, so his head should of blown up, and if not, then he could of faked the entire religion thus wasting our time here and now. I find the idea that God lacks the ability to talk to people without blowing their heads up, seriously, he has other means of doing it like the burning bush, so why not use the unplugged speakerphone? Besides, I don't recall any of the texts stating that you'd suffer from such a fate, I think it's just an absurd excuse. Now there is something written about why all people can't hear God, and that is a hardened heart. Which apparently, you gain from lack of faith, but there are and have been people with tons of faith, and not a peep has been heard...

There's some merit to the Cain argument, he had possibly not of given his best crops to God. Some say he had instead given God his least viable grown patch. That is why he is displeased, Very Good Zeo. But you failed to answer the question in the former of that paragraph I wrote. God knew what Cain would of done, and thus new Cain would kill, so why allow that. He could of re-declared or reminded them of this. By not doing so he allowed a murder by factor oh his "all knowing" factor.

Yes there are those people who can't be reformed, but that's a very few in number, and those that can't are considered to have a mental illness. So what happens to the rest of the human population that would've been reformed. Or did God consider everyone to sick to save, which I again have to point out, that he had the power to whisk away children... don't say he can't, the guy floods the earth. makes talking bush's, and created this known universe (or the very least this solar system.)

I don't see your point in the words of people when it comes to the bible, the entire thing was written by people with the possible exception of the ten commandments. If you use that arguement, then almost any teachings within the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and the several other jewish literature are thus hogwash that we shouldn't bother with. To suggest the passages I chose shouldn't hold merit any more or any less then other passages, then it doesn't work for you either. Though I am in total agreement with you in not taking anything from the bible into heart since God himself never wrote a book for us to follow. I'm not even using the New Testament much because we can actually disprove what's written in it more then the old testament.

If you really want ot detract and have fun with the texts of the bible and it's horrible teachings, then please follow this old letter I read a while back.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to

people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an

observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to

Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The

following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast

resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as

informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I

have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that

knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend

the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of

debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of

the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.

They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair

price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her

period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is,

how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A

friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not

Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2

clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to

kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than

homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have

a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.

Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair

around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.

19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me

unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different

crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of

two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends

to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to

all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -

Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family

affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.

20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident

you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is

eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

Jim

[*Jess♥]

eether i agree with everything you said.

I just phrase it in a way that is similar to the christian bible because i have grown accustomed to communicating with christians.

[soul science]

God can take plenty away without free will. He could take away disease, take away hunger by having food grow everywhere, he can take away fear by teaching us about the unknown, and he can certainly help take away or lessen war by eliminating the above.

I would consider these blessings or miracles. Free will has nothing to do with God giving or taking something. After he does so its still up to us to believe whether he did or not.

[*Jess♥]

your soul can control your body. anxiety and depression are the most oustanding examples of this. if you don't believe god can cure you with a miracle, your body will not heal.

that is part of free will.

of course it works the other way around. if you can be positive and have faith you can make yourself very healthy.

of course it take a real leap of faith to believe miracles like cancer disappearing by itself.. but ya know if you don't believe those extremes, that's fine but even on hte small scale such as general health it makes sense.

actually I think that god can do anything but only with the aid of human belief.

I thik that god wants humanity to prosper but in order to do so, humanity must believe it. if people do not believe that things can get better, then it won't happen. if you watch "the secret" this is echoed there.

becaue god is in everyone.. perhap if we think of it this way.. if we deny that part of ourselves, we are suppressing gods ability to help others.

actually, even though it is not exactly on topic, I believe very strongly that i have met god. because god is within everyone but i thik that it takes true love for us to see god. i once met a person and i could tell that they were working with a truer purpose. their manner was that of.. they saw me and they knew i needed help and they gave me exactly what i needed. but i had to be searching for it first. because if i were not searching for it, i would not have paid any heed to these persons.

miracles don't happen because people can't accept it. think of harry potter. also bettlejuice. first example, muggles won't normally see magic things because it doesn'tmake sense to them.

i guess they shrug it off in thiking they have had a temporary moment of madness. or they blame it on conspiracy theories.

and he second example

* Barbara: She can't see you right? In the book, chapter two, it say the living won't usually see the dead.

* Adam: Won't or can't?

* Barbara: It just says won't. God this book is so stupid I can't understand anything in it.

* Adam: Barb, honey, we're dead. I don't think we have very much to worry about any more.

[durendal]

My apologies for currently having a short attention span as I did not read all of the long post that Zeo and Vguyver made.

But there is one thing I would like to say about free will and the relationship of this to God.

You say that we humans have free will, but what affects the decisions that we make in life but the environment that we are in. And who is the architect of our environment? Being as all powerful as God is, would he not be able to control our environment, thus be able to control our decisions as well? We claim to have free will, but are we not blinded by our way of thinking that our own decisions were actually decided by an invisible force that is unknown to us? Thus we are forced to believe that the decision was ours but in fact, we are influenced into that decision by an outside factor. Think about your last decision and what made you decide that. They say that God is the Architect of Life.

[*zeo]

Environment only changes what choices are available, it doesn't change that you always have a choice. And in most cases we control our own environment and even when we don't we control ourselves. Like the example Ryuki pointed out. Besides the occassional natural disasters are hardly every day events and most of them are just a kick in pants type event to remind us we aren't god.

For example two people can grow up in bad homes, get beaten everyday, etc. But they don't become the same person when they grow up. Not everyone had a bad life becomes bad themselves. The choice was still theirs to make! Even when we are given very little choice we still have a choice. And in the same token two people can grow up in caring homes and be given everything and still choose to be different people.

Just like a game of cards, we always have the choice to deal the hand we are given.

Just like with the insane though, good and evil only matter if we had a choice. Without choice there is no good or evil, there is no thought at all. Just existence and I for one don't want to believe we simply exist.

Really good response Ryuki, sums it up nicely. Unfortunately it doesn't address everything V Guyver covered so...

Aaaaaaah, you're making me write too much V Guyver Make it stop

God can take plenty away without free will. He could take away disease, take away hunger by having food grow everywhere, he can take away fear by teaching us about the unknown, and he can certainly help take away or lessen war by eliminating the above...

Nope, that would all be taking away free will because it takes away choice. Besides, taking away disease belies the fact everything is connected and also belies the fact everything changes. From the smallest organism to the largest. Our body isn't just us, it's a whole bunch of things all living together. And giving us food removes motivation, never mind we got kicked out of Eden for a reason. You might as well ask god to give us back Eden because we had no disease or need of food in Eden. We sure as hell did a good job taking care of the rest of the planet now didn't we?

But in Eden we also had no change, no desire to seek knowledge and better ourselves. A place of no change in a universe that we know is filled with nothing but change might as well be death.

and he can take away fictional characters like Jar Jar Binks who's sole goal is to torture star wars fans, what no go... who right, we're talking about God, not George Lucas, sorry...

Yeah, I know confusing god with someone with a god complex

But at the same time there are things he can do that would help prevent any suffering and conflicts, he just doesn't seem to concern himself with it, if not actually advocate some war according to some teachings.

Uh, none of those can be changed or taken away without taking away free will. We have conflicts because we disagree, if god steps in and takes away the ability to disagree then we don't have free will. . . We make ourselves suffer, if god steps in and prevents us from making ourselves suffer then he takes away free will. Etc, etc. etc.

Apparently your argument is we should have all the benefits but none of the penalties of free will. But that defeats the purpose of free will and the ability to learn from our mistakes. We wouldn't need to be sentient if god made the world perfect. And really, no one has the same idea of a perfect world so whose idea of perfection do we go by?

One of the things a wise person will tell you is there is no such thing as complete perfection, only the desire to seek perfection. Any form of perfection you may find will only fit a certain criteria but never all criterias.

Reminds me of an old twilight zone episode where this criminal guy thought he had gone to heaven because he was being given everything he ever wanted, but then realized it was boring as hell and then his host told him, "Whatever made you think you were in heaven?" You know, the old be careful what you wish for because there is always a price.

There is a difference between our parents and God, God is apparently around all the time, and a parent on earth eventually has to let go of that child. God never let goes, but neither does he act as a parent. Thus he's not fulfilling the role people claim him too.

Sorry but ask any parent and they will tell you they never fully let go. A parent will always try to help their child until they are no longer able to do so. And kicking us out of Eden is just like kicking your kid out of the house to live on their own, doesn't mean you don't call, etc. Just because you don't live with your parent(s) anymore doesn't mean they stop being part of your life.

The moment god gave us free will he had to let us go just like a parent, he couldn't give us free will otherwise. But that doesn't mean he can't nag us just like a parent.

You said you can't reform people who don't want to reform. What I was arguing is that there are better ways to convince people to reform... such as through example. I have no problem with policing, but if God is out there, then he can certainly help prevent the need for it.

As long as we have free will, absolutely not. Show me one place in the world that is crime free? There is no such thing as a perfect system where free will is involved, this is pretty much a universal truth. And most people I believe realize it.

Hell, even in off the wall sci-fi's like the movie Matrix, choice is the problem when it comes to dealing with humans. The one variable that not even perfect minded machines could ever solve accept to give us the very same world we live in. Or the movie Bruce Almighty, the one thing Bruce couldn't do even with the power of god at his command was affect free will. At the very least this shows how common that idea is that free will is unsurmountable through the power of choice.

Really philosophers and the like have thought long and hard on the problem of human nature and free will and even after thousands of years we have no clear solution. And being all powerful doesn't change that fact unless you interfere with free will. It's the ultimate catch 22.

Never mind, even ignoring free will, even pain is part of who and what we are, take away pain and suffering and you change the human condition and our very nature.

Our memories are a part of what makes us who we are, take anything away and we become different people. Who also lose our uniqueness and individuality. Never mind we lose technology and everything else we associates with being human. For example without suffering there would be no need, and without need there would be no invention.

Remember, Eden was heaven on Earth but Adam and Eve lived there for centuries with only one thing apparent... Nothing Ever Changed!!!

Also, killing every human on the planet should not be compared with arresting people, if you were to compare, then we'd simply have to kill every criminal on the planet, then then we can start comparisons.

Uh, if he killed every human on the planet then we wouldn't be having this conversation. So no we can't compare it because that never happened. People survived all over, it wasn't even just Noah and the people on the Ark. Otherwise we would all look like Noah and his people, but we don't. There is also plants and animals we clearly know weren't native to where Noah lived and yet they are still around as well.

As for mass killing, I don't believe god caused the flood as much as just warned about it but since we're arguing the bible let's use some real world example of dealing with evil that we can all agree was evil. . . So what would you call going to war with Nazi Germany and bombing the hell out of them? Should we have just ignored their aggression and let them take over the world or was it right to fight them? Mind you God never said self defense was wrong, only murder. And for the good of the many, the wicked sometimes have to be put down. And again, even with the punishment god still gave warning and a last chance. Like offering a defeated enemy a last chance to surrender, it was their choice whether or not to accept the offer at salvation. If god had no mercy then there would have been no warning. So I think god is covered as far as that goes.

Okay, so let's just say it's not gods fault for them dying, because they ignored his messengers (who I must remind you could of been confused for loonies) or couldn't hear him, then how is it hat different from a cop who shot a suspect that he knew was deaf and unable to hurt the cop as well (since God himself wasn't in harm's way) to stop a crime? Was it completely justified since the cop could of apprehended the criminal and just shot him because it was easier? IF you ask me, God took the easy way out by killing, and killing usually is the easiest way of removing something unwanted.

Really bad comparison,

1) It took centuries of ever increasing sin and misdeeds before the flood happened. Tell me one law enforcement in the world with that much patients?

2) God is can look into our very soul. A cop is only human and can only make judgments on what he/she can perceive, but even a cop only has to think that someone is in danger. God however wait's till the crime is commited, because free will allows us to make both the right and wrong choice and so we can't be condemned until the choice is made. But even then god waited till the evil was spreading out of control before he was ever said to have taken action.

3) Just like a cop God didn't do anything before the sin was committed. The actions weren't pre-emptive any more than a cop shooting an armed suspect that is already known for having killed someone else is pre-emptive.

4) God is the ultimate judge, the one being that knows everything and can thus be the only one who can judge fairly all the time. But unlike a human judge god has to consider all of creation in the balance of his decisions, while human judges often only have to deal with the fate of a single individual at a single time. So the weight of responsibility god has to endure is far greater and has a lot more to be concerned about than just us individuals.

5) If solutions for individuals could work for the masses then we would never have wars, as long as free will is a factor there comes a time when there is only one action that can be taken against those who refuse to reason or change their ways. Like the saying evil happens because good people do nothing, we are responsible not only for our own choices but those of others and god has only been said to step in when we do nothing and thus give god no other choice.

Suggesting there is always another option belies that people make choices and you can't force or convince someone not to make the wrong choice if they don't want to listen. Even god has to allow this as otherwise he would have to take away our free will and with it the reason we exist.

As for hearing God, many people have heard them and not had their heads explode.

No, no one living has ever heard god's voice and lived. They only got mental impressions. At best you could only say telepathic communications but that could be from anyone, like angels who are after all god's messengers. If god had actually spoken then everyone would have heard. But just like the prophets, only those who would listen could perceive the message.

Really, the only thing you hear in your head is thoughts, if it was actual sound then everyone in your area would also hear it and it wouldn't require faith, only ears and the ability to hear.

And let's remember people back then were a hell of a lot more religious than we are now. Unless you're living in a religious controled nation like Iran there is no modern comparison. Having prophets and seers was pretty much normal back in the periods the bible covers. Hell, even wars had to get approval from seers in some cultures. So I'm skeptical on your "they may have thought he was nuts" possibility. But again, it wouldn't matter because god can't force people to listen, just like not everyone listen to their parent's advice as adults but unlike parents we can't see, hear, or touch god. We can only choose to listen to the messages and/or signs. In fact, before Christ God never had a real physical representation of any kind.

I find the idea that God lacks the ability to talk to people without blowing their heads up, seriously, he has other means of doing it like the burning bush, so why not use the unplugged speakerphone?

Even the burning bush turned Moses hair gray, and that was a short conversation. A whole sermons, which could take hours, would have surely killed Moses and is hardly something that could ever be called practical.

Besides, I don't recall any of the texts stating that you'd suffer from such a fate, I think it's just an absurd excuse. Now there is something written about why all people can't hear God, and that is a hardened heart. Which apparently, you gain from lack of faith, but there are and have been people with tons of faith, and not a peep has been heard...

Helps if there is something to tell them, people with faith generally don't live sinful lives and it has been a very long time since there have been any prophets. Christ's sacrifice pretty much negated the need for them as he gave us the whole message and it generally takes saints to actually be close enough to hear anything anymore.

As for an excuse, really? Why do you think god needs angels then when their primary purpose is to be god's messengers?

And we are talking about god, a being of infinite power. Just his breath alone can split the sea, etc.

Read Psalm 104 or 147. Or this: “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: . . . The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. . . . The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness . . .” (Psalm 29, KJV).

Try putting that much power next to your head and see what happens. Or just rent the movie "Dogma" if you can't really imagine it, there was six people who met that fate in that movie. May just be a satirical movie but made some interesting points.

But you failed to answer the question in the former of that paragraph I wrote. God knew what Cain would of done, and thus new Cain would kill, so why allow that.

Sorry but I did answer that, god had no choice. Anything he could have done would have taken the choice away from Cain. God allows all things related to free will, we wouldn't have free will otherwise. You can't have it both ways, god either gives free will and let's us make our own choices or he takes it away. There is no in between, we either have free will or we don't.

Everything you are suggesting would go against giving us free will, we would never be able to think for ourselves. We could never sin but neither could we ever do good of our own free will because what you suggest would take that choice away from us. Just like the law god can only tell us what is wrong and what is right, the rest is up to us. It was never god's choice on how Cain would react!

Like Ryuki said, god only requires our belief. Cain just blamed others for having a weaker belief than his brother, but that was his choice and not god's. Cain could just as easily have realized his mistake and change his actions accordingly. That's the nature of free will, you have the choice at all times to do either good or bad. And god couldn't even tell him anything he didn't want to hear.

Another way to look at it is thus Abel heard god's message but Cain only heard the part he wanted to hear. Really, god could have drawn diagrams and blue prints for Cain to know exactly what he wanted but it would still have been Cain's choice. God told him what he wanted, it was Cain's choice to interpret it the way he did and again his choice to respond the way he did. Cain knew the rules, he knew murder was wrong, he knew wraith was a sin, yet he commited those sins anyway. So ultimately the responsibility of those choices goes with the person who made those choices.

Even Einstein never liked the idea that God didn't control every single aspect of reality, which is why he never liked quantum physics even though he was ultimately forced to accept it.

Yes there are those people who can't be reformed, but that's a very few in number, and those that can't are considered to have a mental illness.

Sorry but that is opinion, we wouldn't have wars at all if everyone could be reasonable and you can't blame mental illness on everyone who has ever committed a crime.

Only god really knows who can and can't be reformed, what you're suggesting is he killed the innocent along with the guilty without any regard or mercy but if that was the case then why did he warn Noah and all those others all around the world who also received warning of the flood? Why did he ask Noah to save the animals?

You're second guessing god with no idea who actually died during the flood.

And let's separate what some versions of the bible may say versus others, the evangelist version for example says most were saved. Not all versions of the bible agree that the great flood killed everyone. In actual archeological history it didn't even kill most people. The last time the human race was nearly wiped out was like 75,000 years ago when a Caldera exploded. But the Great Flood was not a mass extinction event. So let's stop with the killing of everyone references. There was a great flood, there is archeological evidence of this, besides the over 270 ancient cultures that have stories of a great flood there is also evidence that a great flood occured about 8000 years ago when the ice sheets from the last ice age was melting, but it never put the whole planet underwater. Really, even if god melted the ice caps completely it still wouldn't flood every square inch of the world.

Really, if that would have happened then no one would have survived, even after the flood ended because then all the soil would have been destroyed by the sea water, so no fresh water plants would have been able to grow anywhere. All the water would have been contanimated with sea water, etc.

And then there was also historical good that came out of the flood, since the people who had to evacuate the coastal areas (who were already developing farming) had to move to where the hunter gatherers lived and thus allowed for the rapid spread of agriculture and made the world better for everyone. Hardly the near end of the world image dipicted in some versions of the Bible.

I don't see your point in the words of people when it comes to the bible, the entire thing was written by people with the possible exception of the ten commandments. If you use that arguement, then almost any teachings within the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and the several other jewish literature are thus hogwash that we shouldn't bother with.

I never said that, you're taking the extreme interpretation. No, I just pointed out it wasn't the word for word transcripte from god. So like any story there is coloring from the people who wrote the story down.

Really, look at the news. Do reporters always report the news word for word with the actual events that happened? Is no one ever misquoted?

Does that make the news hogwash? No, it just means we have to think when we read the news. Similarly we should think when reading the bible.

So quotes are fine but you have to put them into context. Like many of the stories of armageddon were based on Jews and later Christians being oppressed and they wrote of righteous retribution in the form of religious stories that made it into the bible.

Armageddon (Greek Αρμαγεδων; [armagedôn] also spelled Har-Magedon, or, in some modern English translations; the Mount of Megiddo)

A little history checking shows that Megiddo was the crossroads for the old world and of course any final confrontation between the Jews/Christians and their enemies would have taken place there..

"This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six." (13:18).

In order to understand this text, one must know that ancient Hebrew (like Greek and other ancient languages) did not have a separate set of characters to indicate numbers, but simply used the letters of its alphabet to represent numbers. This fact provides the basis for the ancient practice of "gematria," in which numerical equivalents of words and names are calculated (still a popular game today!).

So if you run the numbers then 666 is the numerical representation of Emporer Nero, the beast enemy of the first Christian Century.

In other words the practice of comparing an oppressive government leader to Satan is nothing new and puts some of what is in the bible into context. Remember many of those stories were written by people while they were being oppressed.

So that is one way the bible is colored by the writers, aside from there being more than one version of the bible with minor but sometimes significant differences between them. Another is that these same people sought to give greater meaning to the major events in their lives. All natural disasters were thus god's will, which is one reason why I don't believe god sent the flood so much as just warned us about it since we now know natural disasters are just part of nature. And why many of the faults you may see with god is just perceived faults. The only constant you can count on is human nature.

You for example from the beginning of this debate wanted to seek some truth, this is what I've always seeked.

The Bible does describe events that actually happened, archeologist have found many things that were previously only mentioned in the bible and were later revealed to be real places and real events. Just like the city of Troy was once thought a myth before someone actually found it. So there is some truth to what is shown in the bible but unless we put what is said into context of the intended moral message via understanding the mindset of those who wrote it then our interpretations would only be more colored by our own personal biases and judgments on top of their's.

This is what I was trying to get across with examples like Hercules, a hero written according to the morals and values of the time period the story was written. To them murder and redemption often went hand in hand, but to us this would be horrible. The difference being to them death was a much bigger part of everyday life, so to them it was as much a story motivator as having a bad hair day is for us.

Similarly our values are not the same as the people who wrote the bible, things like slavery are no longer accepted, mostly because we don't need slaves while many ancient cultures did in order to have anything like the free time we enjoy. We also no longer stone people to death, etc. Much of that we can thank Christ for, since he changed many of those old beliefs. Like let he with no sin toss the first stone, etc. And unlike the bible he was the only authority on god's will. After all it's called Christianity for a reason. The Bible wasn't even written until centuries after his death and resurrection. And we know many other stories were not included. This is why many have disagreed with the Church because the church ultimately changed the message of Christ.

Like there is some evidence that Mary Magdalen was one of Christ apostles, a sect existed even after his death based around her. But ultimately the male dominated Church changed that and ever since women have had a lesser role. The Church even had the gull to charge for god's forgiveness at one point, which along with other falterings from the path is why we have so many branches of Christianity today.

This however shouldn't change anyone's belief in Christ himself, only realize we should follow our hearts instead of every single word in the bible. Cause that way only leads to extremism like the Crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc.

Ultimately Christianity is based on Christ, everything else is just references. God is depicted in both the old and new testaments according to how the people of the time interpreted the world. But we should know every event has more than one interpretation. Just like the same story can mean different things to different people.

Of course I'm probably getting my own beliefs mixed up in this debate, since like I said before I'm not a believer in religion, just in god. So excuse me if the message I'm giving isn't always consistently the same.

[*Jess♥]

thanks zeo, well i didn't want to answer every point because that would be feeding the machine. I just wanted to offer some new perspectives.

I feel that the nature of Vguyvers questions are such that will never be fully satisfied since it is based on countless stories that i have not read and are likely made up by humans and subject to contradicting factors.

I can only comment on my own feeling and what i have figured out during many discussion with many different people.

durendal, I notice what you say as being quite a fatalistic point of view. that our choices are already made and we only have an illusion of choice? the matrix touched on the same concept. it's is a difficult thing to think about and is one of those quandaries that can send you mad. because you get stuck in a loop. did i just decide to do that or not? can i make a different choice? if i make a different choice is it because i deny fate or were i fated to deny what i think to be teh destined choice?

you can believe whichever you want, and i would say that is free choice.. but to thik about wether we have free will or not, is also something to drive you mad.

consider, do i have free will or not, which will i believe. i can believe that i have free will but you never know, i may already be destined to make that choice.

actually i think this is one of those things where you can't know one way or teh other. siilar to hte question if there is life after death. you can only know if you die. but then you will be dead so you won't know anything. it's a type of question that i view as completely useless and only made to send you mad.

[*YoungGuyver]

Ok, first, I'm not so sure that Jesus was real. We can only believe in Jesus on faith. We have no solid evidence that Jesus was a real person, let alone the son of god. When the bible was translated into Greek, the Greeks didn't understand a lot of things, and translated Messiah into the closest equivalent they had-Christus, which meant 'anointed one', which is a title that any god such as even Hurcules and Zeus could have. So three historians simply saying the word during the lifetime of Jesus doesn't count for me (especially since a real follower wouldn't call him a Christ at that point). Then we have Josephus, who mentioned Jesus twice-a paragraph in one version of a writing in which he describes Jesus' family, a brother, and his father Joseph, but with a different family name (stating that Joseph didn't come from Nazarene); and ironically there are two versions of this writing, the Russion version doesn't include the Jesus paragraph at all. In 'the war of the Jews' there was a single sentence amidst the the description of the war that took place before Jesus time. And the paragraph gets along just fine without that Jesus sentence, much better actually as Jesus there is off topic. And ironically, if Josephus actually did write about Jesus in the original versions of his works, you would think that the early Christians a hundred years later that were trying to prove he was real would have brought it up as evidence in some of their essays, but that didn't happen for another couple hundred years.

Either way, the new testament has some good values in it. Kinda like Aesop's fables.

god knew. it was his plan how we would turn out. that's why he put the tree of knowledge in hte garden of eden. if he didn't want us to turn out this way, why would he put it there? it would be an exercise in futility. and by the way, there are no 'right choices' there are simply different ones. right and wrong is all relative. or is the word i am looking for 'subjective', well i hope you know what i mean anyway.

Um, didn't he command us NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge? To quote from the bible:

Genesis 3: 22

Then Yaweh (the LORD) god said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand ant take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"- 23 therefore Yaweh (the LORD) god sent him forth from the garden of Eden.....

There was a rather BIG blurb before all that, where he punished the serpent for tricking the woman, and made the woman experience pain during child birth, and forced man to manual labor to survive. Eating from the tree of knowledge was called the first sin. This was its punishment. Are you implying that god wanted us to sin?

I don't think free will has anything to do with it. Just take a look at Exodus. God said the he 'hardened the heart' of the Pharoh. God told Mosheh (Moses) to ask the Pharoh to free the Isrialites. God told Moses that he hardened the heart of the Pharoh to make the Pharoh say no. Then he cast a plague upon the Egyptions, the Pharoh begged Moses to make god relent, then God hardened his heart again to make him refuse to free the Isrialites. This repeated eight times. And then, at the parting of the reed sea, god hardened the hearts of the Pharoh and his soldiers to make them go in after them-at which point God killed them with the water. This doesn't sound like free will to me. This sounds like they were manipulated. That their will was manipulated. What was gods excuse? He said he wanted to world to see the Egyptians as fools.

And this wasn't the last time he 'hardened the hearts' of people. He allowed Isreal to be conquered, and to let them win battles.

But changing topics, then there is the part about god being omnipotent. I don't buy it. The old testament definitely points out that Yaweh is really powerful. No doubt about it. But it DOES NOT say he is omnipotent. It points out that he needed to rest on the seventh day after the creation of the universe. He was thwarted by Moses while attempting to inflict a plague on the unruly Isrealites in Exudos (Moses told his brother Aaron to make a sacrifice among the field of those being plagued, and the plague suddenly stopped), and God punished Aaron and Moses for this by forbidding them from entering their new land-both Aaron and Moses had successors.

Honestly I doubt the morality of this version of god. Oh, I think he might be real, and definitely powerful. But also possibly mortal. But that's a whole other conversation. In the end, I think that little pic makes some very good points. It makes us question some of the mythology that has grown around Christianity and such over the last couple thousand years.

[*Jess♥]

Ok, first, I'm not so sure that Jesus was real. We can only believe in Jesus on faith. We have no solid evidence that Jesus was a real person, let alone the son of god. When the bible was translated into Greek, the Greeks didn't understand a lot of things, and translated..............................

even if jesus wasn't real, I believe the concept is relevant.

Um, didn't he command us NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge? To quote from the bible:

then why was the tree there?

i don't know if you have seen the following clip but if not, firstly it is very illuminating and secondly it is also a very entertaining clip.

curiosity and the quest for knowledge is one of our defining features.

[*zeo]

Hmm, just my opinion but it could be YoungGuyver that you glossed over my point of the perceptions and sensibilities of those who wrote the stories in the first place?

And a simple point to consider, if god had forbidden eating from the tree of Knowledge and Evil then how could Eve and then Adam have eaten from it if they did not have free will?

Conversely, the tree had to be there to give them the choice, otherwise there would be no point to the rule and the ability of free will without being given a choice. Like Ryuki was trying to say, god was giving us the choice and just told us the ground rules if we decided to make that choice.

Very much like a parent throwing their kid out of the house once they reached the age and will to not listen to their parents anymore. In other words, you're all grown up now so welcome to the real world.

As for Exodus, true there are many examples of god apparently overriding free will but in each of these cases it was to serve a purpose to either demonstrate gods power to those who would question it or to either test or teach a lessen. All of which again goes back to my point of the mindset of the people who wrote these stories and the point that all of them are to teach some moral message.

Many wise and reputable commentators propose that when the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, what it really means is that God simply facilitated a process that Pharaoh himself initiated. After all, the Bible repeatedly also states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, i.e. Exodus 8:15 and 32.

Consider, like I pointed out with Hercules, the writers of the story wanted to emphasis the main point of the story which was the power of god. How they did so reflects the mindset of the time, which is why the same stories can have very different meaning to us now.

But one way to look at it would be that it would help explain to the faithful why any man would be crazy enough to stand against the will of god to the point he had to have his whole army wiped out, etc.

Another is the death of the Pharoah's first born is what hardened his heart, even though it was just god throwing the Pharoah's own decree right back at him. It could be another reason why they would have said god hardened his heart even if ultimately it was his own decisions that led that to happen.

The biggest difference between the old and new testaments is the direction the intended message went. Like in the old testament god was the source of all things both good and evil. Satan himself was but a servant of god (like his chief prosecutor). But in the new testament that all changed as evil was heaped onto Satan and god was only good. Despite the contradition of a being with both the power of creation and destruction at his command.

This is similar to what happened with the modern view on other religions, like both Anubis and Hades are now seen as evil even though they were simply the rulers of the afterlife and their kingdom contained both heaven and hell. Anubis and Hades were just your final judge in the after life, but like Satan they are now seen as just evil. And even then the view on Satan's role has changed over time. Just look at Dante's Inferno for example and compare it to the modern vision of hell.

But what the new and old testaments had in common was they were all intended to give a message, the absense of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures from Genesis can be argued to show that it is not a literal story. There is even evidence that the story of genesis was essentially created along with the Bible from many different but related stories.

Analysis

The first eleven chapters of Genesis tell an authoritative story about the beginnings of the world that contains many contradictions. Scholars believe that the account is not the work of one author, but of a later editor or “redactor” who collected stories from various traditional sources into one volume. For instance, the author of the story of Cain and Abel shows a knowledge of Jewish sacrificial law that only a later writer would possess. Also, the narrator's introduction of stories with phrases such as “This is the list of the descendants of Adam” (5:1) or “These are the descendants of Noah.” (6:9) suggests these tales existed before the current writer or redactor collected them into their present form.

The major thematic link of the first eleven chapters is the structuring of the world around a system of parallels and contrasts. Light breaks into the darkness, land separates water, and “the greater light” of the sun opposes “the lesser light” of the moon (1:16). A more complex occurrence of parallel and contrast occurs with the account of man's creation. Man is not only made in the image of God, paralleling him, but woman, made from the man's rib, contrasts with man. The Genesis writer uses the poetic device of antistrophe, or the repetition of a line in reverse order, to highlight the parallels and contrasts in the creation of man:

So God created humankind in his image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them. 1:27–29

The antistrophe suggests that the world is logically organized around binary opposites, or basic opposing forces. Positive and negative, work and rest, and day and night are among the many binary opposites that the first chapters of Genesis describe. Good and evil is probably the most consistently explored binary opposite in the Old Testament, and the story of Cain and Abel initiates a long analysis of the difference between good and evil. Cain's deception and murder of Abel, as well as his evasive response to God's questioning, describe his evil as inherent in his character and unmitigated by other good traits. God's punishment, however, demonstrates both justice and mercy, establishing God as the absolute good that opposes Cain's absolute evil. God exiles Cain from God's presence, but marks Cain to protect him from the wrath of other people.

Images of the ground and of the earth recur in these chapters. In Genesis, mankind's relationship with the ground is often a measure of the quality and fullness of human life. God creates Adam from dust, and Adam's fate is connected to the earth when God curses him:

cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it. . . .

you are dust,

and to dust you shall return. 3:17, 19

Cain is similarly cursed to the ground, for he is exiled from his home and sent to wander in a strange land. The ground is the object of God's rage when God sends the flood and, in some respects, when he destroys the Tower at Babel. However, the ground is also the symbol of God's blessing to Noah, for God's promise of fertility to Noah's family mirrors the green and plentiful quality of the earth.

In the account of Noah, God himself uses symbols as much as the authors of the story. God explicitly calls the rainbow a “sign,” or symbol, of his covenant with humanity after the flood (9:12–13). God frequently uses physical objects to show his spiritual -purposes. But unlike the Greek gods of Homer or other Near-Eastern deities, the Hebrew God is never depicted as limited or defined by these objects. Rather, the authors of Genesis suggest that God is telling an elaborate allegorical story through the act of creation and that as God manages the affairs of the earth, symbolic -meaning is one of the primary ways in which he communicates with his creations.

The central purpose of these introductory chapters is to construct a detailed etiology, or explanation of the origins of the world. The author is trying to account for the way that certain unfavorable elements of everyday human life came into being. The etiological concerns are clear enough in these chapters. The writers and the redactors have collected stories that explain how evil and separate nations entered the world, why women must live in a society characterized by male standards, why we as humans must work to survive, and why our daily labor is always so hard.

So it's like listening to Zen stories, if you try to interpret the words instead of the meaning of the story then you learn nothing and only confuse yourself. Unless you can understand the perspective of the story teller then you won't get the story.

So YoungGuyver, your modern sensibilities can read those stories and come away with the conclusion you have stated but do you really think that was the original intended message?

[*V Guyver]

that's one of the problems. Not everything is clear in the bible, so some people try to read the words. Sometimes that's good, if you didn't read the words you wouldn't be able to understand some of the terms, or passing of events. For example, they mentioned. Cain's weapon when the killed Abel isn't a common word anymore, so I looked it up. Turns out it was a pole with a metal hooked end to pull apples and other fruits off a tree, and it could be turned into a makeshift weapon (and often was in ancient times) by hammering the metal at the end into a crude makeshift spear.

On the other hand, reading the stories often is pretty clear, but then there are some points that just confuse you. In any case, most people come up with their own understanding of the bible that differs a bit from others. Heck, people used to use the bible as a justification for slavery, while others say it does otherwise. To each his own.

[*YoungGuyver]

Hmm, just my opinion but it could be YoungGuyver that you glossed over my point of the perceptions and sensibilities of those who wrote the stories in the first place?

Sorry, I had missed the second page when I replied. Just finished reading it. But still, I think you are REALLY putting too much into the perceptions argument when talking about free will.

I made my post because people on the first page (and later the second page after I read it) had mentioned the free will as if it were an iron clad rule. Um, no. Modern philosophy dictates that free will is important. But from the religious standpoint, the new testament adds to the old, and we must also consider what is included in the old.

And a simple point to consider, if god had forbidden eating from the tree of Knowledge and Evil then how could Eve and then Adam have eaten from it if they did not have free will?

sigh

As for Exodus, true there are many examples of god apparently overriding free will but in each of these cases it was to serve a purpose to either demonstrate gods power to those who would question it or to either test or teach a lessen. All of which again goes back to my point of the mindset of the people who wrote these stories and the point that all of them are to teach some moral message.

Which is what I was saying. That free will can and does get over ridden. I did not say that it does not exist, but was arguing that it is not the end all be all.

And to address Ryuki. If the tree of knowledge was put in there to manipulate us into eating from it, why were we punished for it? Why was the snake punished for convincing us to eat from it?

To add a few things, you said some things that I don't see supported Zeo. For instance, you said that Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden for hundreds of years before being kicked out. How is that supported? It is not written in the bible at all. What source could make that claim with any amount of credence?

And it is true that the bible does point out that being in the direct presence of god can kill you, (as can being unclean). But the bible does make reference to various angels speaking on gods behalf, speaking as if they were god. So I am curious how you can say that Moses went with his instincts for most of everything to dictate to the masses what god was instructing. (Sorry, sifting through all this to directly quote you is really time consuming). There are also the stories of god walking among mortal men, and being visable to more than just his current favorite pet-such as visiting Abraham, and being visible by his wife at the same time.

Consider, like I pointed out with Hercules, the writers of the story wanted to emphasis the main point of the story which was the power of god. How they did so reflects the mindset of the time, which is why the same stories can have very different meaning to us now

Under that logic, we might suggest that the bible is out dated, and that God needs to come out of the closet again and give us a new version that can not be questioned. As you yourself admitted, the new testament has been changed by the church to reflect their wishes. (was that you, someone pointed that out)

But one way to look at it would be that it would help explain to the faithful why any man would be crazy enough to stand against the will of god to the point he had to have his whole army wiped out, etc.

Another is the death of the Pharaoh's first born is what hardened his heart, even though it was just god throwing the Pharaoh's own decree right back at him. It could be another reason why they would have said god hardened his heart even if ultimately it was his own decisions that led that to happen.

It says hardening of the heart in several instances. His heart had been hardened after each plague, the death of the first born being last. You can argue that Pharaoh was doing it to himself, but the wording of the riddles in the bible are important to me. I can understand that in some case Pharaoh did it to himself, by why would god take the responsibility for himself in some of those instances?

But what the new and old testaments had in common was they were all intended to give a message, the absense of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures from Genesis can be argued to show that it is not a literal story. There is even evidence that the story of genesis was essentially created along with the Bible from many different but related stories.

Yeah, I can really agree with that part. It's like when Yaweh is arguing with Moses, and points out to him that he speaks in riddles to everyone else, but plainly to Moses because he 'likes' or favors Moses. Interesting. It suggests that a good deal of the old testament is a riddle. The details of the riddle are interesting.

So it's like listening to Zen stories, if you try to interpret the words instead of the meaning of the story then you learn nothing and only confuse yourself. Unless you can understand the perspective of the story teller then you won't get the story

Unfortunately, if you leave out certain words, or don't bother to understand what the context of the word was originally intended as, then the story is equally skewed. For instance, Eve isn't just a name of a character, is also means 'Life'. When they changed characters names, it was because they changed roles. Abram BECAME Abraham. The names like words had meaning.

So YoungGuyver, your modern sensibilities can read those stories and come away with the conclusion you have stated but do you really think that was the original intended message?

What, in all your arrogant assumption, makes you think I am using solely my modern sensibilities? I'm a bit offended at that. It sounds very condescending.

[*Jess♥]

And to address Ryuki. If the tree of knowledge was put in there to manipulate us into eating from it, why were we punished for it? Why was the snake punished for convincing us to eat from it?

to teach that while we have freewill, there are also consequences for our actions. to teach responsibility.

in actuality, reaching beyond the metaphor, I believe that this illustrates that while we have the wonderful gift of knowledge, we pay for it with our suffering. if we did nt have teh knwledge we do we would be like an ignorant animal simply going through our life in bliss.

the casting out from paradise was not a literal displacement in my view, it was a shift in perception.

[*zeo]

Excellent analysis Ryuki, I think responsibility is the key point.

And sorry YoungGuyver, nothing I have stated was intended to be offensive. I simply stated what I perceive about your statement. To me you do seem to be giving only a single perspective in your remarks and that perspective does look like someone looking at it from a modern mindset which is exclusive of how and why the story was originally written.

For example, you point out that Eve's name essentially means life. But so what? Adam's name means mankind. The story is about the Creation of the world and mankind after all.

I do not see how this in any way serves anything you have argued? Since life being part of Genesis is a given.

Does this somehow change that Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of his own free will, and wasn't tricked like Eve was?

What is the point to this story if not free will and the role it plays in determining our fate?

Is god malicious because he put metal in the Earth and we dig it up and turn it into weapons? When it was our choice from start to finish? When do we take responsibility for our choices?

Just because god made it so certain things are possible, then we must assume he wanted bad things to happen?

Really, the only way god could have not given Adam and Eve the choice to eat from the tree of knowledge was to never allow Adam and Eve to ever learn anything and what better way to show that with knowledge comes consequences and responsibility?

Btw, the age of Adam for example is refered to in the Bible.

Genesis 5:5- "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."

Since both Adam and Eve started to age and die after they were kicked out Eden, this places Adam at least to have lived in Eden for several centuries, because...

Mankind lost it’s right to the tree of the life and thus physical death was introduced to the world. - Genesis 3:19, 24.

Without which they would have started aging just like us, and remember also Adam was created on the Sixth day of Creation and before Eve there was Lilith (may not really be in Christian lore but is in Jewesh lore, which is the original version), so a lot of time had passed between his creation and the final banishment from Eden.

Never mind the point that they were counting the time the universe was created in days despite night and day was not created until the seventh day, separating concept from what was said is the key since without day or night then the measurement of days for a eternal being like god could be our equivalent of eons. So their is little doubt that Adam lived a long time.

On your next point about Angel's, messengers they may be but just like god people can't hear them unless they believe. Which puts you back at square one on convincing the masses and even the Angel's voices can be painful to some. But to your point it doesn't change that like the rest of us Moses had to make his own choices as well. Especially in his death, Moses resisted God's will that he'd die before entering the land of Canaan. Something he could never do if we didn't have free will. And if god really could just over ride free will then why didn't he do that to Moses when he commanded him to die but instead reasoned with him?

Not that your argument is against free will entirely but if free will wasn't so important to god then why suffer any disagreement from us at all?

If god had really hardened the Pharoah's heart then why didn't he just do the same to Moses to accept his fate?

At the very least the evidence in the bible is contradictory on free will, however all the contradictory bits are from stories written by people with their own agendas and intended message. God himselve never wrote anything in the bible. So your call for god to come out of the closet is a bit misplaced, since with the only exception of Christ and the Ten Commandments everything else written in the bible is all second to third hand sources.

Even for Christians the only time that can be pointed to that God ever had a voice among man was with Christ. Christ's own story isn't filled with so many contradictions and in fact many of his messages are much more palatable even to our modern sensibilities. Things like saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (It's just unfortunate that Christ didn't write more, or perhaps the rumors are true that some of Christ personal messages have either been lost or suppressed because some of those messages may contradict with the church's. Like the movie Stigmata was based around the idea the church suppressed the idea that Christ never sactioned the building of temples of any kind and that worship of god was to happen anywhere and not just in a church. I don't know if that is true but does seem more in line with what we know of Christ, who is known to have been against the practices of the temples of the time.)

Yet in other stories in the bible stoning is shown as justified, so do you go with what the guy who is supposed to be god's voice on Earth or some story written by someone no one even remembers anymore? Which holds more weight to the intent of god?

Really, stories written to appeal to the masses are often filled with contradictions. But this should be judged separately from the intended message. Which in the bible, just like with zen, is often more than what it may first appear. Even the stories that seem straight forward can have more than one meaning. This is both good, in gaining wisdom, and bad when people obssess with any perceived contradictions separate from the intended message.

For example we have other stories in the bible that give other messages, like the power of faith bringing down the walls of Jericho... it was the choice to believe that is credited with bringing the walls down. Much like the saying god helps those that helps themselves. Many of the stories not only emphasised free will but the power that comes when many wills are combined in a single common goal.

Ultimately I must point out there is a powerful demonstration on the emphasis on free will in the bible. And that is either the eternal blessing or eternal damnation of your soul. When good and evil are matter of choice then free will indeed becomes the main point.

The bible is ultimately a guide for saving your soul after all. . .

Here's a good article on free will and it's role compared to god.

God’s sovereignty and our free will

By the forester

[*YoungGuyver]

Hmm. Back to your original example Ryuki, I wonder if parents somehow want their children to steal the cookies from the cookie jar.

The bible gives us examples of Yawah's limitations. It points out that he is almighty, as in incredibly powerful, but modern thought has us twisting this into omnipotence.

And sorry YoungGuyver, nothing I have stated was intended to be offensive. I simply stated what I perceive about your statement. To me you do seem to be giving only a single perspective in your remarks and that perspective does look like someone looking at it from a modern mindset which is exclusive of how and why the story was originally written.

For example, you point out that Eve's name essentially means life. But so what? Adam's name means mankind. The story is about the Creation of the world and mankind after all

Um, are you serious? I have shown examples of trying to find out what the words actually originally mean, and you are saying that I am looking at this from a modern mindset? Seriously?

Looking at the meaning of each word can give context to what the meaning is. You suggested that we ignore individual words and follow modern interpretation of the meaning instead. Unfortunately, meaning over time can be like rumor, and twisted and perverted.

Does this somehow change that Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of his own free will, and wasn't tricked like Eve was?

What is the point to this story if not free will and the role it plays in determining our fate?

Yes, these are examples of free will. I at no point said that we did not have free will, but I did point out that it can be over ridden. Providing more examples of free will does not prove your point for you. Writing half a dozen pages of free will examples will not prove you right. Do not confuse quality with quantity.

In your examples, you ASSUMED and interpreted the first sin as a significance to free will and such. That can also be interpreted as a limitation of god-that at that point in time he lacked the foresight to see exactly what human nature is like. The church has trying shaping up the image of god over the years in order to try and convert as many people as possible into the religion. For instance, as you pointed out, skewing Sheol into heaven and hell, and later inventing Purgatory. The bible never covered purgatory at all. And mention a promise of god for mankind to enter heaven or hell in the bible. Yahweh promised a good life if you worshiped him (which can be tough for the church if good people actually suffer in life), and to curse and disease those against him (again, tough for the church with real world examples-Karma blending in with heaven and hell was an excellent thing to incorporate into the religion)

But you are right I suppose, that the hardening of Pharohs heart can be interpreted in other ways.

Though how you ignore other things from the bible, such as his laws concerning slavery. Which seem to treat the human slaves as having no free will in the matter at all. After all, they are 'property'. It even uses that excuse when defining to what extent you are allowed to beat them. And points out that slaves are to be obedient. Where is the free will of the slave in that?

But I suppose that if you wanted a real example of free will being over ridden, you could look at King Saul, in the book of Samuel. Instead of saying 'hardened heart', as with Pharaoh, we have a different phrase here. 'An evil spirit from Yhwh (what I spell and pronounce Yaweh) tormented him' was first used in Samuel 16:14. Of course, in the beginning there, it is used as an excuse for Saul to bring David as a Lyre player to ease his spirits. It definitely does not sound like an over riding of free will there, but more like harassment, or possibly even guilt-not the point of this part of the debate. What is interesting is its usage later on in Samuel 18:10.

After Saul and David return from the war, and David killed Goliath and received more of the glory

The next day an evil spirit from god rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house, while David was playing the lyre----Saul had his spear in hand, for he thought, "I will pin David to the wall."

Could that not be interpreted as god manipulating Saul to -attempt- a murder? Why would it say the spirit was from god if it was Saul's feelings of abandonment? Unless the wording of 'spirit' is meant to describe that, and not a power of god. But then we look even further, in Samuel 19:23, when Saul had clearly hunted down David to murder him (you can't really argue with the repeated phrasing of Saul asking for David's location so that he may kill him), Saul was interrupted by god

He went there, toward Naioth in Ramah; and the spirit of God came upon him. As he was going, he fell into a prophetic frenzy, until he came to Naioth in Ramah

Now, VGuyver really should have mentioned that in his debate with you earlier. VGuyver was making a point about the pic that this thread is based on, about God's will, and interfering with evil. You argued against V that God could not interfere in human actions, as it would violate free will. But this is an example of God interfering in order to save the life of David. V was saying that God could prevent evil, prevent was, and you said that he could not. But he did, at least according to the bible. And it is clear that this is interference, because after wards, Saul still wanted to kill him (Samuel 20:30).

Btw, the age of Adam for example is refered to in the Bible

Yes, but you said how long Adam and Eve had been in Eden before their expulsion, which was not exactly given. You example did not show math to calculate how old they were when expelled. Now if you had taken the age of Cain and Able at the death of Adam and Eve, then that would have been far more suggestive. But you spent a few chunks of text giving examples that don't really prove your point. You do that a lot.

On your next point about Angel's, messengers they may be but just like god people can't hear them unless they believe. Which puts you back at square one on convincing the masses and even the Angel's voices can be painful to some

What? um, ok. Are you just spouting random things to make me look things up and actually reference them in order to refute them? Are you just trying to get me to waste my time? Are you referencing movies like Eric the Viking now? Kinda reminds me of when you tried referencing Marvel comics for science to try to use in Guyver.

Not that your argument is against free will entirely but if free will wasn't so important to god then why suffer any disagreement from us at all?

Because God is almighty, but not omnipotent. He has great power, but there are limitations to it. Since we're using movies, why not make a simile. The agents in the Matrix movie had great powers in the matrix. They created the matrix, and could change it. They could even over ride a human in it to get certain actions done (taking over bodies). In the second movie, if a computer program person looked at you, it was revealed that they could read your code and learn truth about you. But they were still limited, they couldn't see everything in their world at once. The rebels were capable of hiding to some degree within the matrix. I know, this is a movie, but the relationship of power is what I'm alluding to. Please note that there are limits to how well this simile works

At the very least the evidence in the bible is contradictory on free will, however all the contradictory bits are from stories written by people with their own agendas and intended message. God himselve never wrote anything in the bible. So your call for god to come out of the closet is a bit misplaced, since with the only exception of Christ and the Ten Commandments everything else written in the bible is all second to third hand sources

Um, Christ was declared by the Constantine government to be of god. Before that, the exact nature of Christ was in dispute. Some considered him a very good priest, and other considered him god on Earth. But you just referenced a government opinion and said it was a source of god. Kind of an ironic argument.

But you said the stories that are against free will are from people with agendas? What about the stories FOR free will? Are you suggesting that you want to pick and choose from the bible? Are you saying that you only want to pick out the ones that back your beliefs? A little bit biased there in my opinion. That would sounds as if you already have a religious belief, and are then trying to validate it with scraps that you can gather from here and there, and leaving out the rest.

Oh, and the first five books of the old testament were supposed to have been written by Moses, who walked with god. would that not count as a first hand account? It says Moses wrote the law/torah in Deuteronomy 31:24

Even for Christians the only time that can be pointed to that God ever had a voice among man was with Christ

That is assuming that Jesus was an actual person.

The bible is ultimately a guide for saving your soul after all. . .

Riiiight. Not if you misuse it. I'll trust my soul to myself, thank you very much. I think the Karaite's have the right idea. They might use the bible, but they at least take responsibility for themselves.

[*Jess♥]

Hmm. Back to your original example Ryuki, I wonder if parents somehow want their children to steal the cookies from the cookie jar.

you know, that is quite interesting dude!

I do not have kids.. but if i think about how it might be to have kids...

If they were so well behaved all the time, I think i might be quite worried. because if there is no situation for me to teach them right from wrong, then when they leave my care, there would be a danger of them making a lot of mistakes because i had not had the opportunity to teach them.

when parents throw their kids out of the house, I think while it seems like a punishment, it is a way of saying " if you are ready to make this kind of decision, you are ready to be indipendant" it's like a rite of passage maybe. it is a path to growth.

[*zeo]

You example did not show math to calculate how old they were when expelled.

Didn't have to, mortality should be self explanatory in my opinion.

Now if you had taken the age of Cain and Able at the death of Adam and Eve, then that would have been far more suggestive.

Only if you assume they didn't already start to have kids while in Eden, simply because it wasn't mentioned didn't mean it wasn't happening. For example if Cain and Abel were the first children then who the hell did Cain marry?

Remember Eve was created to be Adam's wife, and Adam literally means mankind. The tree of knowledge only gave them the capacity for shame. But like any other animal such human emotions aren't needed for mating.

And clearly god wasn't preventing the animals from multiplying as otherwise the first animals that Adam and Eve killed to eat or sacrifice would have been the last as well.

All this besides the original origins of the story of Cain and Abel, which is another story with name meaning and was created from previous stories.

Basically the problem I'm having with your arguments is you take them from a very literal interpretation when any enlightened cleric would tell you the bible is primarily a collection of moral tales and not a law book on religious facts.

Samuel 20:30 for example was not a tale of god's intervention. Saul did not spare David, 20:30 specifically was the scene between Saul and his son Jonathon, in which Jonathon stood up for David and Saul became enraged. The closest to god interfering is Samuel 19 where Saul was overcome by prophecy, but that only suggests Saul was both very religious and also a prophet, which would explain why they thought he was given the god given right to be king. Rather it was David that spared Saul twice but his reasons were moral.

The key to the confusion is how people in those days viewed god, as most of the old testament shows god was viewed as the source of everything, which includes good and evil. And since man was created in god's image that man also manifested the spirit of god. Ergo our nature/soul.

Just like god was seen being responsible for the weather, etc. It doesn't mean god literally did anything, just was given credit for it.

Also remember Samuel was during a very war like time for the jews, practices like one family taking over leadership from another for example usually entaled killing all in the displaced family that could lay claim to the leadership. This was emphasized when David promised Jonathon that he would not do that if he became king. Similarly to Saul David spoke to god and thus was much like a prophet as well, which is probably part of the reason why he was considered ordained to replace Saul over Saul's own son.

I however agree on the note of self responsibility, in fact this is why I so strongly argue free will as that is what bestows that responsibility unto us.

[*Jess♥]

Didn't have to, mortality should be self explanatory in my opinion.

sorry, i thought about this earlier but forgot to make mention of it.

just consider how long noah lived....

anyway.. regardles of that, we don't know exactly how long they dwelled in the garden of eden.

[*zeo]

True, but that's when we have to separate the story telling from the facts... Many of the stories in the Bible are actually allegories. Like Adam's name we can reason that since it means Mankind that his character is an allegory for Mankind, we aren't really suppose to take it literally yet we often do.

That's the problem when a allegory being interpreted literally, we often run into situations where the story fails to meet all logical analysis.

It would for example have taken a fleet of over 30 Arks to just carry two of each of the million of species on this world and that's not counting provisions for the trip and whatever measures would have been needed to prevent them from eating each other as they would in the wild during the long trip... Factually there isn't even enough water on the planet to completely flood the entire surface of the planet.

Yet we do know there was a great flood about 8000 years ago when the ice sheets from the last ice age melted and raised sea levels world wide, it just only flooded the coastal areas but effected civilizations all over the world. There was also a local massive flood according to babylonian tablets unearthed in Iraq for about 5000 years ago that match archeological findings in the middle east area.

In both those cases there are stories of real life characters that could have inspired the story of Noah. So in a world that sought to think of such events in the moral light and acts of god then comes the story we now know as Noah and the Ark.

Like the Story of King Arthur, there is some basis in fact but the story had elements added and changed to provide specific moral messages over time. The story of Genesis for example has been analyzed by experts to be a composite of at least 11 separate stories that were combined.

Yet many consider it an actual literal story, for example, some people actually take the part about Adam giving up a rib for god to create Eve as being literal and even extend it to all men. A medical teacher even published an article in Scientific America once about the trouble he went through to have some of his students convince themselves that men don't have one fewer ribs than women. Though of course this is not representative of all his students it happened often enough that he created a method so they convince themselves and thus he would never have to confront their religious beliefs.

Thus the problem with trying to argue details for stories that ultimately were only intended for moral messages using allegory methods. We can go back and forth with the details, but a person who wrote the story thousand of years ago would not have thought of every possible logic hole in the story and thus we have conflicting details. But this ignores the intended moral of the stories, which is the main point we should pay attention to.

What we have discussed so far has been thus the different levels of details of each story. Analyzing both within the story details and the meaning of the story. The problem being while some stories are heavily allegorized others are essentially based on historical events, like the walls of Jericho did fall, just such stories were either glamorized or heavily interpreted through a religious viewpoint. Telling the difference isn't easy but in all cases I think we must remember the intended moral message is the one common factor and the only one the authors really intended.

For those more religious than myself please don't take offense in this analysis, like I said before I'm not a believer in religion even though I do believe in god. I tend to favor what we know to be true versus what is said, but I also seek to be fair and to view the intended message from religion in the light that reason tells me was intended and try to avoid modern biases as much as possible.

[*YoungGuyver]

Only if you assume they didn't already start to have kids while in Eden, simply because it wasn't mentioned didn't mean it wasn't happening. For example if Cain and Abel were the first children then who the hell did Cain marry?

Good point. But your logic still baffles me, because as Ryuki pointed out, everyone was long lived back then. Suggesting that Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden because they were long lived doesn't seem logical considering that.

And if you are pointing out that good portions of this are symbollic (which I agree with, it did have god confessing to speak in riddles), then why are you making statements such as the length of time that Adam and Eve lived in Eden?

and Adam literally means mankind

Yes, I know. I was the one that pointed out that names have meanings. That for the true meaning behind the bible we must take into account every word in order to figure out the riddle. Remember? I was arguing against you simply taking the meaning that the modern church dishes out.

Basically the problem I'm having with your arguments is you take them from a very literal interpretation when any enlightened cleric would tell you the bible is primarily a collection of moral tales and not a law book on religious facts

No Zeo, I'm working the riddle and the meaning, and incorporating every fragment. I'm not dropping the parts that don't fit into my world view. I'm trying to incorporate them in order to see what this particular religion was actually trying to say.

Oh, and about the bible being a law book-the first five books of the bible are the Torah. That literally translates into 'law'. Remember how many rules it lays down? And punishments? And descriptions for becoming clean? Though honestly I think the clean part relates into the presence of the Ark. The Ark was just really weird.

Samuel 20:30 for example was not a tale of god's intervention. Saul did not spare David, 20:30 specifically was the scene between Saul and his son Jonathon, in which Jonathon stood up for David and Saul became enraged. The closest to god interfering is Samuel 19 where Saul was overcome by prophecy, but that only suggests Saul was both very religious and also a prophet, which would explain why they thought he was given the god given right to be king. Rather it was David that spared Saul twice but his reasons were moral.

True, no argument. But the prophecy came from god, and god gave it in order to save David from Saul. God interfered with Saul's free will. That is what we were debating. You were taking various examples of free will from other stories, I took an example of free will being over ridden from this one. That is the only reason I brought it up

I however agree on the note of self responsibility, in fact this is why I so strongly argue free will as that is what bestows that responsibility unto us.

That's why the church originally started arguing for free will. Without free will, people didn't see the need to work for going to heaven. They felt they were either going or they weren't. Fate was dangerous as a concept to the church. Prophecy was dangerous as it was-(If I am prophecized to commit a sin, is it destiny? If it is, is it really my fault? Because god made it all and set me up to fail?) This is under the same lines as why the church created Purgatory. (What good is going to church if you have already sinned-better to have a place to work the lesser sins off).

The church created and twisted many concepts. Free will became absolute, when that is not what the bible was suggesting.