It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Genesis Paradox

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
the evil was disobeying god..
there was no evil in either of the trees.
it's like how one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill, but well, then god turns around and commands (through his priests which he commanded his people to obey) some of the most horrendous killing sprees of history probably in Isreal's effort to take the promised land for themselves. kill all the men, young and old, kill children, rip the unborn out of their mother's womb, kill the cattle, kill the sheep, kill and destroy everything..... but, well ya those girls over there are pretty, ya, you can take them as your concubines. some say he told them to do this because the people's dna was corrupted, or that they were evil doers worshipping false gods, whatever. but what did the poor cattle or sheep do, why were they evil, and just how evil could an unborn child be?? surely not as evil as those pretty women, who as we all know have been characterized as being such things as the gateway of evil and such. you'd think they would have been the first ones to be corrupted!!

and considering that the story was written long after adam and eve had been returned to the dust from which they came, one can assume that the commands of god were coming from god's supposedly appointed men who were given authority over the people. so, the story was there just to reinforce their own power. it was a sin not to obey the leaders, the priests, the husbands, the masters, no matter how evil you thought the action they were requiring of you were, the true evil was not obeying them...

edit on 23-6-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
the evil was disobeying god..
there was no evil in either of the trees.
it's like how one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill, but well, then god turns around and commands (through his priests which he commanded his people to obey) some of the most horrendous killing sprees of history probably in Isreal's effort to take the promised land for themselves. kill all the men, young and old, kill children, rip the unborn out of their mother's womb, kill the cattle, kill the sheep, kill and destroy everything..... but, well ya those girls over there are pretty, ya, you can take them as your concubines. some say he told them to do this because the people's dna was corrupted, or that they were evil doers worshipping false gods, whatever. but what did the poor cattle or sheep do, why were they evil, and just how evil could an unborn child be?? surely not as evil as those pretty women, who as we all know have been characterized as being such things as the gateway of evil and such. you'd think they would have been the first ones to be corrupted!!

and considering that the story was written long after adam and eve had been returned to the dust from which they came, one can assume that the commands of god were coming from god's supposedly appointed men who were given authority over the people. so, the story was there just to reinforce their own power. it was a sin not to obey the leaders, the priests, the husbands, the masters, no matter how evil you thought the action they were requiring of you were, the true evil was not obeying them...


Dead on there, friend. Very will put.
edit on 23-6-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I don’t believe just disobeying a command leads to the massive mental and spiritual corruption that has plaqued humankind for millennium.


This command that led to the Fall of Man was cataclysmic and likely took a long time to create the monster we today called humankind.


It was a devolved being, ADAM, from a advanced state to a lower state of massive inner corruption where our very faculties were and are still distorted and the creation of a spiritually blind human.

The proof is the thousands of years of evil that humankind has done and still does.


All religious scriptures from the Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Christian, Jewish teach of an era where humankind will reclaim paradise and even go beyond to a higher state of being


This return to paradise will be an outward one and an inward one



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Your appeal to authority as the basis of determining good and evil raises many questions indeed.



If God does it, then doing it is good,
and
If God doesn’t do it, then not doing it is good.
Yes?

Yes. If God does it, then God doing it is good.
Of course that doesn't mean that it is good for humans to do the things which are reserved for God.


By your standard, then, the fact that God refrained from intervening and stopping Eve from eating the fruit can only mean that it was good (and consistent with his will) that he not intervene to stop her. Is this correct?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: birdxofxprey
Yes.
That is, he tried to stop her (both of them, indeed) by telling them not to do it.


edit on 24-6-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: birdxofxprey

Exactly what Dawnstar said it was about commanding women... and some concept of god to carry that out.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: birdxofxprey
Yes.
That is, he tried to stop her (both of them, indeed) by telling them not to do it.



God could have intervened, enforced his command and stopped them from doing evil (being disobedient) but chose not to.
And, God's actions are always (by definition) consistent with his will. So, given these alternatives:

Eve disobeys God freely
Or
Eve is coerced to obey God

God chose the former over the latter. By your reasoning, then, it is God's will that Eve should freely disobey his commands rather than be coerced to obey. Is this correct also?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

no where in the story did he tell eve though, did he, he told adam not to eat of the tree...

then someone told eve not to eat or even touch the tree...

whoever told eve (probably adam) added to god's words. and the long, long history of adding to the words of god had begun, always posed as being infalliable, unquestionable. people here are claiming that if it's in the old testement, it doesn't matter, but aren't they god's words also? god is the all wise, the all knowing, did he change his mind about observing the seventh day as the sabbath, or eating pig, or killing the disobedient kids? god did not sit down with pen and paper and write those words themselves. and, if he was all wise and all knowing, why did he present all the animals of creation first to adam looking for a suitable helpmate for him instead of knowing that it wasn't going to work and just create eve to begin with? there might be that all knowing, perfect God out there somewhere, but the godS that were walking in the garden weren't HIM, neither is the authors of the sacred texts.
and yet, it's considered blasphemous to suggest that maybe, just maybe, those secared texts aren't that sacred. they the authors although they maybe had done their best to express what they thought of was God's will concerning mankind and who knows maybe the god did add his inspiration, there was plenty of room for error.
and tho shall not eat of the fruit of that tree carries a rather different message than tho shalt not eat, or even touch that tree, doesn't it?

after the many centuries of this, well, we have the appearance of Jesus, who really does seem to scrap much of the legalese that was within the religion and simplified it... with three simple words.. Love thy neighbor as thy self..
to me, that should be the number one command from god for the christian. if you can't stone your child for their disobedience in love, then don't stone the child! if the commands that the authority figure is commanding you to do is very much contrary to love, then don't do it! if you can't love your slave as yourself, then don't have the slave! and recognize that you more than likely would wish for freedom if you were that slave!

far too many times I see the proclaimed christians on these boards acting so contrary to the act of love, it makes me wonder, is there any love left in the church? or has it been replaced with the legalese and thou shalt nots?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


edit on 24-6-2016 by kibric because: irrelevant



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
By your reasoning, then, it is God's will that Eve should freely disobey his commands rather than be coerced to obey. Is this correct also?

Yes, but I will re-phrase it, to express it more clearly.
It was part of God's will that humanity should have the capacity to step outside his will.

I suppose this is all working up to the usual, predictable, line of argument.
That is, you believe, psychologically, that your Ego is so important that you don't like authority being imposed on you.
However, you hope to disguise this attitude from yourself by dressing it up as some kind of self-righteous argument against the morality of God imposing his authority on human beings.
So we both know where this is going, and I am observing the line of movement, step by step.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
I am not tying myself down to the literal details of the Genesis story.
I have previously offered a link to this thread;

The tree of what knowledge?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


from the thread you just linked to....


Or should the development of our conscious will be seen as a stage in our progress towards a future state in which our conscious decision-making has been re-aligned with God’s will? (Another version of the FELIX CULPA idea).



I guess one should ask,

If God's desire was that we remain his slaves throughout our existence, doing what we did because he said so, would you accept that as being a good God?

would God wante a bunch of perpetual children waiting for his next command, or would he want those children to become adults over time and willingly come back to his teachings with the understanding of why he commanded what he did.
but, that doesn't change the fact that at this point, we really have no idea what those commands originally were, because well...
man added to them, even before the first bite of the apple.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
If God's desire was that we remain his slaves throughout our existence, doing what we did because he said so, would you accept that as being a good God?

I see his desire as being that we should so the right thing because he says so, instead of choosing to do the wrong thing.
What objection should there be to calling that "good"- apart from the fact that the human Ego, wanting to be uncontrolled, disapproves of it?


would he want those children to become adults over time and willingly come back to his teachings with the understanding of why he commanded what he did.

I think that's what the Bible is trying to achieve. That's what I referred to as "re-aligning with God's will".
There is no reason to call that slavery, unless doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing is slavery.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

many of the churches will preach on their pulpit that wives should be obedient to their husbands, in all things. the extent to which they preach it varies considerably, with many taking the bite out of the command, but some haven't really watered it down much at all. but the watering down has taken place gradually throughout the centuries.
it's original meaning is exactly what is says....
be obedient.
the churches, when they chose to water down the message, did so because they saw evil in some husbands actions.

and well, if you apply this in a very strict way, then the wife who is facing a angry husband, who is ordering her to come hear him and knows danged well that he intends to knock her senseless, will be obligated to obey him by God's command....

I am sorry, but weather or not one understands the concept of good an evil, no good god would expect her to do this! instinct would dictate that she run the other way.

and yet, it is taught, at least in it's watered down state, in every church.

so what we are left with at this point is that we have only our judgement of what is right and what is wrong to guide us really. and like I said adam was adding to god's words even before the apple was taken from the tree. we'd be faced a corrupted voice from god anyways, only without the ability to know how wrong some things are.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
In my interpretation of this episode, I talk about "humanity".
I haven't been distinguishing between the sexes, and I'm not getting involved in that issue.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

okay, we see hitler as a real evil person, who tried to exterminate the jews...

and yet, look at the genocide that Isreal was appearently ordered to do by their "Good" God while claiming the promised land.

he caste out all the angels that refused his commands leaving him only with angels could do some rather horrible things at his command with no conscious.

he already had an army of obedient angels at his command. why create us if he that was all he wanted?




I see his desire as being that we should so the right thing because he says so, instead of choosing to do the wrong thing.


I see it as more he wished for us to act on his commands because we agree with him that it's the right thing to do, but also having the courage and strength to say no when we strongly disagree with him. he knows he isn't perfect even if we don't. he teaches us, but sometimes even the student has something to teach the teacher.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: dawnstar
In my interpretation of this episode, I talk about "humanity".
I haven't been distinguishing between the sexes, and I'm not getting involved in that issue.



LOL....yea, most men don't want to go there.....esp. pastors. Bet it would irk you if your weren't a guy.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
By your reasoning, then, it is God's will that Eve should freely disobey his commands rather than be coerced to obey. Is this correct also?

Yes, but I will re-phrase it, to express it more clearly.
It was part of God's will that humanity should have the capacity to step outside his will.

I suppose this is all working up to the usual, predictable, line of argument.
That is, you believe, psychologically, that your Ego is so important that you don't like authority being imposed on you.
However, you hope to disguise this attitude from yourself by dressing it up as some kind of self-righteous argument against the morality of God imposing his authority on human beings.
So we both know where this is going, and I am observing the line of movement, step by step.


Argumentum ad hominem is the tool of those whom reason refuses to serve.

To impose one’s authority on another is to act coercively; to compel others to act (or not act) according to one’s wishes. In the absence of coercion, authority is not being imposed. Since it doesn’t appear to me that God is making any attempt to impose his authority on anyone, I find no need to construct a “righteous argument against the morality of God imposing his authority on human beings.”

“you believe, psychologically, that your Ego is so important that you don't like authority being imposed on you.” [You defend your theistic perspective by drawing on Freudian discourse (in which Atheism is an essential component)?] The really disturbing feature of this comment is that you are able to find only one possible explanation for why someone would think differently from you – psychological defect. Certainly, if anyone is egotistical, it is the one who believes that ideas different from their own must be the effect of some psychopathology.

“I suppose this is all working up to the usual, predictable, line of argument.” Indeed, it is. You would have the discussion derailed by psychobabble rather than deliberate for yourself regarding matters of good and evil. But, unless one knows God’s will every time a decision needs to be made (a wild boast, indeed), deliberation is a necessity.

“It was part of God's will that humanity should have the capacity to step outside his will.”
So, God wills that we have this capacity while also willing that we never use it?
What does it mean to will that something should remain possible but that it should never become actual?
And since God already knows we'll step outside his will, he's willing something which he knows will not happen.
How is it possible that what is willed by an all powerful being should fail to obtain?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: birdxofxprey
The ability of a will created by God to depart from God's will is a paradox, in the same way that the very existence of something created by God which is not God is a paradox.
This is not something we are ever going to be able to understand, so it comes down to whether we are willing or unwilling to accept the possibiity of something we cannot understand.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Children are a responsibility to nurture and grow in care not a gift to unwrap and play with as if one is a god making them in ones own image instead of the original face and natural gifts or talents carried with them... or youre robbing their "milk money" and stealing their "honey" this makes the entire ocean of tears that should be sweet in laughter to change their taste into one of suffering.



new topics




 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join