|
|
Post by Super-predator on Nov 3, 2018 18:43:47 GMT
The Bible is a library in the form of a book. A library of various religious scriptures, written by different men. Yes men, not God. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written (allegedly) by Moses,... that's why they're called "The Five Book Of Moses".
So here are the rules to understanding the Bible:
1. It's a library so therefore you need to take the genre of the book into consideration. 2. It was written by men inspired by God, not by God. 3. Don't take metaphors literally if it's meant to be poetic.
So we start with Genesis. It's meant to be a poetic philosophical story about how God created life on Earth. It has a very "How the Tiger got it's stripes" approach. For instance Eve was manipulative and so all her daughters take after her in being manipulative bitches. Adam was a simp that went along with her so that's why modern men as his sons are pussy whipped punks just like he was.
The Garden of Eden represents the utopia that the creator intended. Had it lasted humans would be a species of vegan nudists living in peace. But since we gave in to our reptilian brain (snake symbolism) we chose knowledge over life. And since the animals were under our control they became corrupted carnivores too.
The problem with evil and debauchery became so bad that God decided to drown everybody in a flood only to regret it later as he realized it wouldn't solve the problem. This is poetic as it means that you could restart humanity numerous times and the end result would all be the same as it is now, violence and cruelty.
So out of all these nations of people God picks the Israelites descended from Abraham as his chosen people. Of course since the Israelis wrote the book they are going to say they are God's chosen people. They get held as slaves in Egypt, he breaks them out killing a bunch of people in the process like a true action hero. Then he starts giving them rules to follow. And he's harsh at reinforcing these rules no matter how minute because the old testament is designed as a book to be scary to make people straighten their act up.
The Israelites commit ethnic cleansing to acquire the promised land because apparently the people in the towns were the descendants of the Nephilim God tried to exterminate in the flood, or because they practiced human sacrifice or just insert whatever rationalization for genocide you need. Pretend they were the orcs from Lord Of The Rings if it helps you. Nobody cares about orcs.
So then after the age of conquest is finished then comes the age of kings. And in doing so the rest of the Bible becomes a struggle by the kings and the prophets to stamp out idol worship. They fail and so God allows Babylon to sack Israel. Moral of the story, is if bad stuff happens to your nation it's divine punishment.
Once in Babylon though those who maintained faith in God are able to keep Israel together enough so that God's chosen people can escape once more and rebuild the land of Israel. Also included are books like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes written by Solomon giving wisdom and life advice. At a certain point a prophet makes a prophecy of a messiah to come.
New testament. This being the bronze age people think animal sacrifices are a legitimate way to atone for sin. The Gospels fix this by having Jesus Christ be the "son" of God or God's avatar or whatever. He get killed as a human sacrifice for all mankind and now there's no need to sacrifice animals as long as you accept Jesus as your savior. Good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell. Or is it just saved or unsaved? Depends who you ask.
Now there's a new character. The people writing these texts have subtracted all God's negative qualities mentioned in the past books and now blame bad things not on divine punishment but on demons, and the Devil.
In the book of Revelations we are promised an end to sin, suffering and the Devil, and a return to God's true original plan for Earth. But only after the Illuminati or whoever set up a one world government under Lucifer and the Anti-Christ. Jesus/God returns to judge humanity, and the righteous live happily ever after.
Is it all nonsense? Who knows. Is some stuff applicable to everyday life? Depends what you're searching for.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 3, 2018 19:16:31 GMT
How was Eve any more manipulative than the snake was? If he was manipulated she was as well. Seems to me Adam knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 4, 2018 2:03:10 GMT
How was Eve any more manipulative than the snake was? If he was manipulated she was as well. Seems to me Adam knew what he was doing. How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 4, 2018 2:09:28 GMT
New testament. This being the bronze age
Ok, a pet peeve of mine. The NT was not written in the Bronze Age, no matter which Bronze Age you go by. By the time the first texts of the NT were penned, they had entered the iron age. The Bronze age was more than half a millennium past. |
|
|
|
Post by Super-predator on Nov 4, 2018 2:53:37 GMT
How was Eve any more manipulative than the snake was? If he was manipulated she was as well. Seems to me Adam knew what he was doing. How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
And then there are those people who know they are naked and don't feel ashamed regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 4, 2018 2:55:56 GMT
How was Eve any more manipulative than the snake was? If he was manipulated she was as well. Seems to me Adam knew what he was doing. How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
They both knew of God's prohibition of eating the fruit. It was a case of not trusting His word. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 4, 2018 3:05:45 GMT
How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
They both knew of God's prohibition of eating the fruit. It was a case of not trusting His word. Yes, they both knew of God's prohibition. But they had no way of knowing that there was anything wrong in defying the prohibition, until they ate of the fruit. Because until they did so, they had no concept of wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 4, 2018 3:08:24 GMT
How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
And then there are those people who know they are naked and don't feel ashamed regardless.
Yes, and blessed are they, for they will be filled. |
|
|
|
Post by Super-predator on Nov 10, 2018 6:28:58 GMT
Also God didn't regret flooding the earth. Yeah right. |
|
|
|
Post by Super-predator on Nov 10, 2018 6:39:22 GMT
Why don't you tell me why you think he does? Genesis Chapter 8 Verse 21 "Never again shall I call down evil upon the ground on man's account, because the inclinations of the heart of man is bad from youth up; and never again shall I deal every living thing a blow just as I have done." |
|
|
|
Post by Super-predator on Nov 10, 2018 6:53:34 GMT
"Written by men inspired by God, not written by God" implies the Bible is not God's word. That is not what I was ever taught. I was taught, and believe, that God gave the words to the men who wrote them. There is no reason to be concerned about human error because there is none. Ecclesiastes is literally written from the point of view of Solomon. So is Proverbs. Yes I fucking read it! |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 11, 2018 6:31:22 GMT
How does it seem that Adam knew what he was doing? If anyone knew what they were doing, it was Eve. Because:
Adam and Eve had been created, intentionally deprived of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they could not possibly have known it was wrong to disobey God; they were perpetually innocent no matter what they did.* However, once Eve had eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, she did know. Adam couldn't have known until after he ate the same fruit at Eve's suggestion. Seems to me, Eve was the one who knew what she was doing when she offered the fruit to Adam.
*Case in point: The Bible clearly considers nudity to be sinful, but as the Bible says, before the Fall, "they were naked, but they were not ashamed." And after the fall, when God asked them why they were hiding, they said it was because they were naked. God's response: "Who told you you were naked?" Lewdness was not sinful for Adam and Eve until after they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, because they did not know that lewdness was sinful.
They both knew of God's prohibition of eating the fruit. It was a case of not trusting His word. It is only a fictional parable about temptation only and that it can lead to ruin. Wanting more perhaps than one should desire. |
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Nov 11, 2018 8:35:18 GMT
Farside Observer
Boo-Boo, she is wearing glasses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 11, 2018 12:51:50 GMT
Also God didn't regret flooding the earth. I don't know what that's supposed to be in response to, but it really is neither here nor there. What is more relevant to a different topic, though, is the fact that the Bible says God caused the flood because he regretted having created mankind. This goes against the concept of omniscience, because an omniscient being would never have cause to regret anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 11, 2018 13:43:42 GMT
Also God didn't regret flooding the earth. I don't know what that's supposed to be in response to, but it really is neither here nor there. What is more relevant to a different topic, though, is the fact that the Bible says God caused the flood because he regretted having created mankind. This goes against the concept of omniscience, because an omniscient being would never have cause to regret anything. That presumes that omniscience can have no free choices. There are facts and there are choices made based on them. Suppose your are totally familiar with coffee and with tea from years of experience with both. Suppose one day you choose to have coffee then change your mind. It was not because the coffee was any different than you expected. You don't expect the tea to be any different either. You merely changed the way you feel about your choice. You have made no error about the facts of the matter. The facts never escaped you. Now you might argue here that an omniscient being should also know in advance how it would feel about things in the end. The answer to that is that the omniscient being goes through its feelings anyway each in their time knowing full well that it would feel like having coffee first then feel like having tea later. All that is possible because facts are one thing and feelings are something else. Your notion of "omniscience" requires a lifeless machine with some sort of database. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 11, 2018 13:57:30 GMT
I don't know what that's supposed to be in response to, but it really is neither here nor there. What is more relevant to a different topic, though, is the fact that the Bible says God caused the flood because he regretted having created mankind. This goes against the concept of omniscience, because an omniscient being would never have cause to regret anything. That presumes that omniscience can have no free choices. There are facts and there are choices made based on them. Suppose your are totally familiar with coffee and with tea from years of experience with both. Suppose one day you choose to have coffee then change your mind. It was not because the coffee was any different than you expected. You don't expect the tea to be any different either. You merely changed the way you feel about your choice. You have made no error about the facts of the matter. The facts never escaped you. Now you might argue here that an omniscient being should also know in advance how it would feel about things in the end. The answer to that is that the omniscient being goes through its feelings anyway each in their time knowing full well that it would feel like having coffee first then feel like having tea later. All that is possible because facts are one thing and feelings are something else. Your notion of "omniscience" requires a lifeless machine with some sort of database. Here you are actually refuting your own point. First you say that what I said presumes omniscience can have no free choices. And then you proceed to demolish that statement. I agree that omniscience does not preclude freedom of choice. However, omniscience does mean that you would never choose something you'd regret, because you know you'd regret it. You'd know the outcome of all possible plans, so you'd naturally pick the best one. For example, I have to get up at 05:00 am tomorrow morning. And I know that if I get less than 5 hours of sleep, I won't be happy. Ideally I'll go for 6-8 hours. This means that I'll choose to go to bed no later than midnight, and possibly as early as 21:00. I can still choose to go to bed at 02:00, but I'm not going to do that, because I know I'll be sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 11, 2018 14:19:59 GMT
That presumes that omniscience can have no free choices. There are facts and there are choices made based on them. Suppose your are totally familiar with coffee and with tea from years of experience with both. Suppose one day you choose to have coffee then change your mind. It was not because the coffee was any different than you expected. You don't expect the tea to be any different either. You merely changed the way you feel about your choice. You have made no error about the facts of the matter. The facts never escaped you. Now you might argue here that an omniscient being should also know in advance how it would feel about things in the end. The answer to that is that the omniscient being goes through its feelings anyway each in their time knowing full well that it would feel like having coffee first then feel like having tea later. All that is possible because facts are one thing and feelings are something else. Your notion of "omniscience" requires a lifeless machine with some sort of database. Here you are actually refuting your own point. First you say that what I said presumes omniscience can have no free choices. And then you proceed to demolish that statement. I agree that omniscience does not preclude freedom of choice. However, omniscience does mean that you would never choose something you'd regret, because you know you'd regret it. You'd know the outcome of all possible plans, so you'd naturally pick the best one. For example, I have to get up at 05:00 am tomorrow morning. And I know that if I get less than 5 hours of sleep, I won't be happy. Ideally I'll go for 6-8 hours. This means that I'll choose to go to bed no later than midnight, and possibly as early as 21:00. I can still choose to go to bed at 02:00, but I'm not going to do that, because I know I'll be sorry. I think you are failing to distinguish facts and feelings. Having free choice literally means having the ability to change the way you feel about things. That's what makes it so difficult for many people to understand. They are not aware of being able to do that. Perhaps they are not able. Nevertheless other people seem to have that ability. Because they are not omniscient people often make choices they regret because they learn facts later that make some other choice preferable to them. That is not however the only reason to change your mind. You can change your mind by changing the very way you feel about it all. You can literally "like" apples more one day and "like" oranges more another day. There is no change in facts necessary. You can also "let yourself" like one or other one day and the other the next day. You are not seeing the choice to stay awake to 2:00 a.m. because you are not recognizing your ability to change the way you feel about the course of events that would follow that. You can literally change what makes you happy. That's what makes it "free" will. |
|
