Spirituality
28 Jun 05
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNo we're blaming the one who set up the poor saps to fail . Jesus christ , you sound like more of a lawyer than No1M ! I haven't heard so much nonsensical double speak , circular logic , and misdirection since Johnny Cochraine at the OJ trial .
As I read everyone else's posts that want to blame God for Adam
and Eve's choice, I see it as just, blame the one who gave the
warning, as long as it isn't man we are some how justified and God
is guilty.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI "blame" the one who actually gave the punishment of death and you ignore the fact that death was God's punishment by the words of your Holy Book. They're no point in discussing it with you anymore; your mind is firmly encased in lead on this.
As I read everyone else's posts that want to blame God for Adam
and Eve's choice, I see it as just, blame the one who gave the
warning, as long as it isn't man we are some how justified and God
is guilty.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesd
A “MIDRASH” ON THE ADAM AND EVE STORY
[b]Preliminaries
There is a Talmudic story: Some rabbis are arguing over an interpretation of Torah. Rabbi Eleazer (if I recall correctly) put forth an interpretation that all the other rabbis disagreed with. R. Eleazer therefore called forth a series of miracles to prove his point—“If I am correct, let this ...[text shortened]... Nilton Bonder, Our Immoral Soul: A Manifesto of Spiritual Disobedience (italics mine)
[/b]
Thanks for this post. Great!
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdMaybe the best post ever on the Spirituality Forum (besides mine of course). I'll have to digest it a bit before commenting further, but I think I like it: it makes the A & E story make some sense in both a logical and spiritual way.
A “MIDRASH” ON THE ADAM AND EVE STORY
[b]Preliminaries
There is a Talmudic story: Some rabbis are arguing over an interpretation of Torah. Rabbi Eleazer (if I recall correctly) put forth an interpretation that all the other rabb ...[text shortened]... Soul: A Manifesto of Spiritual Disobedience[/i] (italics mine)
[/b]
EDIT: EEK! Ivanhoe and me agree on something!😲
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo1 doesn't realise that he is among the crowd that shouts: Crucify Him, He's guilty of all our mistakes and crimes. He should have prevented me from making mistakes. He's not a perfect God because I am not perfect. He is the guilty one, not me. Kill Him !
As I read everyone else's posts that want to blame God for Adam
and Eve's choice, I see it as just, blame the one who gave the
warning, as long as it isn't man we are some how justified and God
is guilty.
Kelly
..... and guess what ? God takes the punishment in no1's place .... He, God, will be executed.
Where's the logic here, No1 ?
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe the best post ever on the Spirituality Forum (besides mine of course). I'll have to digest it a bit before commenting further, but I think I like it: it makes the A & E story make some sense in both a logical and spiritual way.
EDIT: EEK! Ivanhoe and me agree on something!😲
There is still hope for you !
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNot at all. I'm trying to understand the logic behind a story written as a moral lesson thousands of years ago. The interpretation given it by the fundies here leaves your God as harsh, unjust and cruel for the reasons I have tried to spell out in this thread. I also find it interesting in comparison to similar myths of the ancient Greeks as I stated earlier in the thread; those give to Man some noble characteristics that the fundies' interpretation always deny in their quest to see Man as "vile and degraded". The A & E story alone would hardly be a reason to embrace or reject Christianity; surely we agree on THAT, Ivanhoe?
No1 doesn't realise that he is among the crowd that shouts: Crucify Him, He's guilty of all our mistakes and crimes. He should have prevented me from making mistakes. He's not a perfect God because I am not perfect. He is the guilty one, not me. Kill Him !
..... and guess what ? God takes the punishment in no1's place .... He, God, will be executed.
Where's the logic here, No1 ?
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill them. Not thinking things through carefully, she placed the cookies on a table, easily accessible to the twins. A brother who was older, wiser and more mature that the twins asked whether their mother had forbidden them to eat anything in the house. The girl twin, Edna, said that mother had only forbidden them to eat the cookies -- on pain of death. The older brother chuckled and told his sister that parents did that a lot. He said: "Of course she wouldn't kill you. She simply wants to deny you the pleasure of munching on the cookies. She doesn't want to share the cookies. She wants to keep them all to herself." Edna does exactly what any adult could predict: she eats one. Then, she persuades her twin brother Albert to eat another. ...... "
Not at all. I'm trying to understand the logic behind a story written as a moral lesson thousands of years ago. The interpretation given it by the fundies here leaves your God as harsh, unjust and cruel for the reasons I have t ...[text shortened]... embrace or reject Christianity; surely we agree on THAT, Ivanhoe?
In your story you equate the mother, the deceitful and lying woman, with God. You equate the older brother, wiser, more mature than the children and honest in comparison to the mother, he speaks the truth in your story, with the devil.
As you will probably remember God is being equated in the Bible with Truth and Satan is the father of the lie.
-Can't you see that are turning things upside down ?
-Can't you see that your story switches the role of God and Satan in such a way that the story becomes a lie?
-Can't you see that your story is indeed a false analogy ?
-Can't you see that what you present is a terrible case of the Fallacy of the Strawman ?
-Can't you see you turn truth into lies ?
I don't care who originally made the modern story up, but in my view he turns God's revelation upside down. He lends his ear to Satan, so to speak.
...... and you got five recs for cutting and pasting a lie ...... not bad for a beginner.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou continue to be the master of the partial, out of context quote. You skip the most important part of the passage I quoted; Laughlin's discussion of the parable:
"A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill them. Not thinking things through carefully, she placed the cookies on a table, easily accessible to the twins. A brother who was older, wiser and more mature that the twins asked whether their ...[text shortened]... ak.
...... and you got five recs for cutting and pasting a lie ...... not bad for a beginner.
An outside observer might wonder why the mother did not have the sense to prevent the theft by putting the cookies out of reach of the twins. The observer would probably consider her an abusive parent for treating her children so harshly for simply doing what kids will naturally do. The observer might well consider the mother's actions indefensible, because the children are barely out of the toddler stage. They have no moral sense -- they cannot really differentiate between right and wrong.
Laughlin concludes that in Genesis 3: "We call this God 'just' and 'righteous' for putting temptation close at hand and punishing people who, in their naïve and childlike innocence, couldn't have known any better than to do a deed that any deity (or human) with common sense could have foreseen and prevented."
God, of course, is not truthful in the story; "if you eat of the Tree you shall surely die" is misleading at best. It comes across as a warning like "if you play with the cord you'll get electrocuted" but what actually happens is God punishes them for their disobedience (and in more ways than just death). Nor is the older brother 100% truthful either nor is the Serpent in Genesis a 100% liar; there are shades in all of these characters, not the black and white you insist on.
I don't see the Modern Parable as a false analogy at all; if it's wrong in one part it's that the mother, unlike God, doesn't kill her kids. This is making the MP less morally objectionable than the Genesis parable, in fact. Again an analogy can be useful or not useful but according to the definitions given in the Logic Books it can't be "A Strawman Fallacy" examples of actual Strawman fallacies were given above. And what is truth and what are lies in interpreting an ancient and modern parable are mostly in the heads of the people reading it. The Modern parable is not a "lie" anymore than the Genesis parable is a "lie"; it is an argument by analogy to a story. And I couldn't care less about recs; some people find the thread interesting enough to discuss the two parables - ain't that what a Forum is for, Ivanhoe?
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
You continue to be the master of the partial, out of context quote. You skip the most important part of the passage I quoted; Laughlin's discussion of the parable:
An outside observer might wonder why the mother d ...[text shortened]... s the two parables - ain't that what a Forum is for, Ivanhoe?
You never reacted to my proposal to replace the cookies by deadly poison. That would make the modern story a bit more compatible with the real thing.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou say in the story the mother did not kill her kids, but will those
You continue to be the master of the partial, out of context quote. You skip the most important part of the passage I quoted; Laughlin's discussion of the parable:
An outside observer might wonder why the mother did not have the sense to prevent the theft by putting the cookies out of reach of the twins. The observer would probably ...[text shortened]... d interesting enough to discuss the two parables - ain't that what a Forum is for, Ivanhoe?
kids die at some time anyway? Will there be eternal life for the kids
if they do as they were told? Did the mom actually give them their
lives or did she just have sex with someone and the process she did
not create cause her to have her kids? Did she form her kids with her
womb? Does she hold the universe together by the power of her
word? We are all responsible for our actions and words to the powers
that rule over us, even if we do not like it, does not change anything.
You want to compare those stories, had Adam and Eve not eaten from
that tree they would have lived forever, unlike your story the same
cannot be said for your mother's kids.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes I did on page two of the thread:
You never reacted to my proposal to replace the cookies by deadly poison. That would make the modern story a bit more compatible with the real thing.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Those nice tasty cookies meant for a party should be replaced by poison that would REALLY kill the children.
Now please, read the Strawman again.
no1Marauder: No, because eating of the tree didn't kill Adam and Eve so your analogy would be a poor one, while the Modern Parable is an apt one.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAdam and Eve did not live forever according to the story because God punished them from eating from the Tree, not from the direct result of eating from the Tree. This is the diference that you choose to ignore.
You say in the story the mother did not kill her kids, but will those
kids die at some time anyway? Will there be eternal life for the kids
if they do as they were told? Did the mom actually give them their
lives or did she just have sex with someone and the process she did
not create cause her to have her kids? Did she form her kids with her
womb? Do ...[text shortened]... d have lived forever, unlike your story the same
cannot be said for your mother's kids.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
2 edits
Then YHVH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—therefore YHVH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (Gen 3:22, 23)
Ah, the other tree in the story: etz chaim, the tree of life. They were already mortal, because they had not yet eaten of this tree, although, before they had eaten of the other tree, it was (implicitly) permitted.
Some questions arise—
1) Did they know about mortality/immortality before eating the fruit?
2) When do children become aware of their own mortality (at least in any real sense).
3) When they ate of the fruit, something was gained, something lost—perhaps more than the possibility of immortality. We could say “innocence,” but then I think we have to explore what all might be covered by that word (again, I am thinking more of the existential, than the ethical, aspect of the story).
It might be likened to sexual awakening (a powerful metaphor—but just a metaphor!). For some people the first sexual experience is like, “Wow! So that’s what it’s about!” For some, it is perhaps more like, “Wow… So that’s what it’s about?” But in either case (and perhaps most of us experience it both ways, eventually), something’s gained and something’s lost. That first experience is often called the “loss of innocence.” Perhaps some of it has to do with losing that open, anticipatory wondering, that is its own joy. And how is that—or something akin to it—to be recovered, without losing the “something gained.” With regard to sex (which again is only a metaphor here), some people seem to pursue endless experiences in an attempt at recovering the initial wonderment.
4) With that “something lost,” would immortality really be a boon, and the (at least for the “time being&rdquo😉 loss of it a “punishment?”
In neither Judaism nor Christianity, as I understand them, can paradise be “regained” without some—I’m at a loss for a good word here—“compensation” for that “something lost.” In both cases, that “compensation” has something to do with “messiah” (understood differently by both religions, and with various understandings in Judaism).
And, perhaps in both cases, it has something to do (and I’m referring back to the sexual metaphor here) with an intimate, deep, intense, loving, personal relationship—a relationship that goes beyond parent/child. Perhaps that is the kind of relationship (leaving the metaphor here) that God is aiming for—however you think of God (e.g., as a being, the ground of being, etc.).