Q
Quirkybird
Guest
If you believe the Biblical depiction of the deity to be true, how can you describe it as 'good' when its actions are the opposite of good?
expecting crickets Thomas?
F
Frrostedman
Guest
Quirkybird. Still lovin' the name. This sets up a necessary question back to you - which should answer your question at the same time if you think deeply enough.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that you're definition of "good" and God's definition of "good" contradict one another. So then, assuming the Creator of all things exists - which is what we are doing when we debate about His character - whose definition of "good" should we consider superior?
Bear in mind that God--according to the bible--is all-knowing. That means He knows the ultimate outcome of every action. So it must be considered that with our limited vision, we cannot truly define an action as good or bad overall. If someone dies, we immediately think this is a bad thing. But consider Jesus' death on the cross. At the time, it was considered a terrible thing. Maybe the most terrible thing ever to happen. But ultimately it was the best thing that ever happened because as a result, countless people were saved (in so far, a span of 2000 years). Mankind had no idea then that Jesus' dying on the cross was a good thing because they couldn't see thousands of years down the road, like God can.
And finally. Again, since we are debating God's character, the bible must be accepted as the truth. Since in your case you are arguing against God's character as described in the bible, you are not allowed to also insist that we reject some other part of the bible. With that in mind, let us recall: the bible tells us everything preordained (i.e. allowed to happen) by God, works together for good.
So in conclusion
1. It is established that if God does exist, His definition of good necessarily trumps your definition of good.
2. With your limited (90 years or so, max) scope, you can't possibly know what actions will work ultimately toward good or not. Thus, technically, you are not qualified to unconditionally define an action as good or bad overall.
3. The bible--which must be true just for the sake of this debate--says that everything works together for good.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
"The bible--which must be true just for the sake of this debate--says that everything works together for good."
--> The Bible says that God has placed a curse on all women just because they are women. I do not see any way this "works together for good."
--> The Bible says that God has placed a curse on all women just because they are women. I do not see any way this "works together for good."
F
Frrostedman
Guest
I can say with confidence that nowhere in the bible does God say, "Women. Since you are women, and for no other reason, I curse you." -- nor does the bible say anything even close to that.
You might as well have posted the book, chapter, and verse because you know you're going to be asked. Can't continue without it.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Welcome Frrostedman.
You'll have you work cut out here.
Sadly, too many choose to read Scripture through the lens of their own agendas.
No surprise that someone came up with Genesis 3:16. I thought Luke 23:28 might have got a mention, too.
The wisdom and simplicity of Scripture is boundless (of course), in this instance Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent, neither make any attempt to 'fess up' to their transgression, neither party apologises or seeks forgiveness, and, to quote Kurt Vonnegut, 'so it goes' ... we've been blaming God and our neighbour for our sorrows ever since.
You'll have you work cut out here.
Good grief, a voice of reason
Sadly, too many choose to read Scripture through the lens of their own agendas. No surprise that someone came up with Genesis 3:16. I thought Luke 23:28 might have got a mention, too.
The wisdom and simplicity of Scripture is boundless (of course), in this instance Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent, neither make any attempt to 'fess up' to their transgression, neither party apologises or seeks forgiveness, and, to quote Kurt Vonnegut, 'so it goes' ... we've been blaming God and our neighbour for our sorrows ever since.
Q
Quirkybird
Guest
Well the deity was wholly to blame, for tempting them to try the fruit. If it supposedly created human nature then it knew exactly what the outcome would be. It is human to wish to attain knowledge and not be kept in ignorance!
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Q, um, the story of Adam and Eve is all about sex. It's not hard to see the symbolism of snakes chasing fruit.
May I suggest you refresh yourself as to what the text actually says. To me it reads like sage advice and a sound warning. I have no idea where you read temptation into it.
By your reasoning, to say 'murder is against the law' is an invitation to murder.
That is so, but unless you choose to surrender all ideas of autonomy, freedom and self-determination, then responsibility for your actions rests with you.
By your logic, my advice to my children to look both ways before they cross the road, is a temptation to run out with their eyes shut.
Is it a human wish to die? Because that was the 'knowledge' against which they were warned.
The assumption that Adam and Eve were ignorant also ignores the text. They were far from ignorant.
Q
Quirkybird
Guest
Anyway as far as I am concerned Adam and Eve and the GofE didn't exist, it is a rather silly tale.
That's a shame. There's a world of wisdom there, if only you could see it.
Marcialou
We are stardust
Even if Adam and Eve didn't exist it's more than a silly tale. You can think of it as a myth, like Pandora's box, that tries to explain why the world is in such a mess. The answers may not be literally true but the questions are universal: Why do men and women have to work so hard to survive? Why do so many women die in labor and their newborns, as well (this is rare in the developed world but for a very long time it was the norm.)
You can also look at the story from a psychological point of view. Somewhere I've heard it conjectured that the Garden of Eden represents a distant memory our time in the womb; a perfect, nurturing place. This said, you can easily see the Biblical expulsion as a metaphor for birth.
Carrying the psychological idea further, eating the apple from the tree of good and evil may have caused us pain but it also was the thing that made us human. Our ability to distinguish good from evil may not be perfect but our willingness to try appears to far exceed that of any other species.
In conclusion, modern science can tell us the age of the universe, and how natural selection works but it still can't explain away the anguish we feel when terrible things happen to us or our loved ones. This is part of the draw of religion and it's old silly tales.
Frosty and others who may have a literal understanding of Bible, you'll get no argument from me. I'm content to agree to disagree.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Marcia said "Our ability to distinguish good from evil may not be perfect but our willingness to try appears to far exceed that of any other species."
Interesting statement. As far as it is known, humanity is the only species with the ability to distinguish good from evil. The rest of the life on the planet does what it does. They don't put any sort of label on their actions.
Interesting statement. As far as it is known, humanity is the only species with the ability to distinguish good from evil. The rest of the life on the planet does what it does. They don't put any sort of label on their actions.
Marcialou
We are stardust
GK, you could be right but animal behaviorists are beginning to think that some other species have a rudimentary form of morality, like the ability to show empathy. That's why I said "far exceed." But I haven't looked it up recently so I can't say for sure.
OK. Now I've looked it up. If you Google "animal morality" you'll find several articles and a TED talk on the subject. I'm not going to read them until later because I have to go to bed but here's one link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals
There's also at least one article that argues against the idea.
OK. Now I've looked it up. If you Google "animal morality" you'll find several articles and a TED talk on the subject. I'm not going to read them until later because I have to go to bed but here's one link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals
There's also at least one article that argues against the idea.
So far then, on the strength of the above, the only 'Biblical literalists' here are Quirkybird and Nick, neither of whom claim a belief in the Bible!
As we say up north, 'there's nowt a queer as folk'!
As we say up north, 'there's nowt a queer as folk'!
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Marcia, I do agree that animals have emotions. They may not be emotions as humans experience them, but have them they do.
What I disagree with is they have any form of morality. For animals there is no concept that 'A' is 'good' but 'B' is 'bad'. Everything I have observed about animal behavior (fair disclosure, I'm no expert in this field) is that life just is. What happens is what happens, and animals accept it at that level.
If in a wolf clan, the Alpha female is challenged by one of the other females, and the Alpha is killed. The pack accepts the challenger as the new Alpha female. I remember this event as it is unusual for power struggles within a pack to end in death. This time it did. What happened is what happened, and the pack accepted that. It is what it is.
What I disagree with is they have any form of morality. For animals there is no concept that 'A' is 'good' but 'B' is 'bad'. Everything I have observed about animal behavior (fair disclosure, I'm no expert in this field) is that life just is. What happens is what happens, and animals accept it at that level.
If in a wolf clan, the Alpha female is challenged by one of the other females, and the Alpha is killed. The pack accepts the challenger as the new Alpha female. I remember this event as it is unusual for power struggles within a pack to end in death. This time it did. What happened is what happened, and the pack accepted that. It is what it is.
Hi GK.
There was a study done of crows raiding bins at a service station. The bins were big, about 15 foot tall, and lined with polythene. The crows would ring the rim, and then claw up the polythene to bring the food waste in reach. They would then toss that down to more crows, who stacked it nearby. Then all of them would carry it back to their nesting place.
Why didn't they just eat the food? Why didn't the crows below 'steal' it? The explanation of the experts required the crows to have a rudimentary concept of time, or at least 'a future', of altruism ... it was quite thought-provoking.
I think the saying "I wish I was half the man my dog obviously thinks I am" is one of my favourites, even though I haven't got a dog! But yes, there was a tear-jerking TV item here in the UK that showed beyond doubt that a male gorilla was grieving the death of his mate. At least, whatever was motivating that gorilla motivates us in the same ways ... sadness, loneliness, tears ...
Nor am I, and a year ago I would have agreed, but I've recently seen stuff that made me think.
There was a study done of crows raiding bins at a service station. The bins were big, about 15 foot tall, and lined with polythene. The crows would ring the rim, and then claw up the polythene to bring the food waste in reach. They would then toss that down to more crows, who stacked it nearby. Then all of them would carry it back to their nesting place.
Why didn't they just eat the food? Why didn't the crows below 'steal' it? The explanation of the experts required the crows to have a rudimentary concept of time, or at least 'a future', of altruism ... it was quite thought-provoking.
There was a TV doc. about a meerkat colony. The alpha female had three sisters. One of them was really big, but not big enough to take the alpha on. So she 'recruited' the other two via a kind of 'caring' campaign, the three deposed the alpha, and then she disposed of the other two! Real Machiavelli stuff! I know 'nature's red in tooth and claw', but this seemed to evidence forethought and planning as well ...
I once had a cat that knew when I was depressed and would bring me their favorite toy to play with. The one I have now, reminds me when it's time for me to eat. Not when he wants to eat mind you, when it's time for me to eat. The same cat gets very upset if he knocks something over and tries to right it again. To me that shows a strong sense of right and wrong. Not to mention, rational thinking.