The Meaning Of The Bible

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A temporal 'crime' of curiosity whilst innocent (mitigated by God's failure to adequately control identified risks) results in the death penalty?  That doesn't seem a little harsh?

Given that he reportedly came back, that doesn't sound like a sacrifice - I'm not pretending that the process would have been pleasant if it had happened as described, but it's not a sacrifice if you're around to talk about it afterwards, is it?

Which makes the idea of a punishment all the more repugnant - we have the concept of diminished responsibility, and it's potentially open to abuse at times, but this sort of lack of awareness is what it was put into place for.  If someone genuinely doesn't understand what they're doing is wrong, how can we - or a perfectly moral deity - punish them for it?

What is the value of a choice made by someone who doesn't understand the consequences of the 'wrong' choice?  How does an all-knowing God not already know which way they'll go?

But the serpent wasn't a snake at the time - it was his subsequent punishment to crawl on his belly in the dust... and it spoke - animals don't speak, don't reason.  This was a divine creature, with supernatural powers of temptation of its own, working on naive people with literally no moral understanding at all...

Even if that were the best way forward, and I'd question that, it's the idea of an eternal punishment for a temporal activity, even if you define an atheist life (or the wrong theistic life) as something inherently worthy of punishment.  Notwithstanding the authoritarian nature of 'my arbitrary, illogical way or hellfire', isn't an eternity of punishment excessive?  Punishment not tempered with mercy isn't justice, it's revenge; when it's a punishment transposed from someone else's actions that's even less justice and becomes just sadism.

No, I'd expect them to understand when I explain to them why I don't think they should be doing things; until they're old enough to understand and make informed decisions they don't get to disobey because they aren't left alone.

The specifics aren't necessarily the point - the various ranks of angels are divine beings, God and Jesus and the word of God/Holy Spirit are three independent (if 'spiritually' linked) divine beings... this isn't a monotheism.

I appreciate most believers are ready to accept that the depiction of creation in Genesis is at least partially metaphoric - that was a point aimed at what seemed like a particularly literal interpretation.

No, they don't 'have to' - sometimes we lack the nuance, subtlety, compassion, time or sadly just the will to implement a system where it doesn't happen, sometimes we lack the ability to prevent it, but that's not the same as deliberately implementing the system so that it punishes individuals for the sins of their predecessors.

That would be more meaningful if it wasn't God's apparent malice that we needed saving from.  Even if you follow the teaching that salvation can be 'earned', not being eternally punished for something someone with no moral understanding did doesn't make god gracious or beneficent.  People don't worship me because I don't kill the descendants of, say, slave traders...  that's not holy, that's just the minimum standard of not being a tyrant.

O.

You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.

This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.

 I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.

It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.

Isn’t the a priori problem that the story has loopholes at all rather than that it (supposedly) takes a particular approach to identify them?

This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship.

An alienation that we’re told this “god” made inevitable to start with remember – “he made us sick and commanded us to be well” as Christopher Hitchens used to say.

However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship.

Yeah, sadists sometimes behave that way – wreck everything, then offer to fix it in exchange for love, fealty etc. 

If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.

Only if you believe the sorry mess of the morally contemptible myth to begin with. Oh, and doesn’t the price of non-alienation – craven “worship” of a capricious monster, Stockholm syndrome style – seem a bit high to you? 

I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.

That he rigged to happen in the first place. How much more monstrous could this supposed god be would you say?

It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.

Of course it doesn’t sound like that. Real world actions have consequences anyway – that’s true whether or not you introduce an iron-age sky fairy superstition into the equation.

[Stranger]

This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.

I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.

It's truly staggering how the utter monstrous absurdity of this story fails to register with (apparently) otherwise morally normal people. Visiting the 'crimes' of just two people on all their descendants is unjust, petty, and vindictive, even if you offer some way out. As for the bizarre sadomasochistic notion of god becoming a human and then making sure that he's tortured to death (only to be magicked back to life) meaning that we get a way out of the initial monstrous injustice, well, words fail me.

It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.

I prefer a system in which consequences are not randomly scattered on the innocent. The amount of doublethink needed to accept this horrific story and present it as justice is breathtaking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's truly staggering how the utter monstrous absurdity of this story fails to register with (apparently) otherwise morally normal people. Visiting the 'crimes' of just two people on all their descendants is unjust, petty, and vindictive, even if you offer some way out. As for the bizarre sadomasochistic notion of god becoming a human and then making sure that he's tortured to death (only to be magicked back to life) meaning that we get a way out of the initial monstrous injustice, well, words fail me.

I prefer a system in which consequences are not randomly scattered on the innocent. The amount of doublethink needed to accept this horrific story and present it as justice is breathtaking.

It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it. You think it's all about crime and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer. However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part. The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An alienation that we’re told this “god” made inevitable to start with remember – “he made us sick and commanded us to be well” as Christopher Hitchens used to say.

Not in the Bible he didn't. Man walks happily with God in the beginning. That is how God made him. He doesn't command us to be well. The sick need a doctor.

Christopher Hitchen's was wrong on that account.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it. You think it's all about crime and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer. However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part. The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?

Because I've never seen a sound argument to indicate that such a god exists at all. I also happen to think that that's a good thing - if there was a god as morally contemptible as you unwittingly suggest (and, apparently, as you worship) the idea of it would be just too depressing.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not in the Bible he didn't. Man walks happily with God in the beginning. That is how God made him. He doesn't command us to be well. The sick need a doctor.

Christopher Hitchen's was wrong on that account.

Wrong again. He was referring to the Christian concept of original sin and redemption though Jesus. Christians (or most of them apparently) believe they were created sick (original sin) and ordered to be well (they must believe in Christ or be sent to hell).

Here’s CH’s take on it:

“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.

And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”

And you choose to worship that "god"? Really though? 

[Stranger]

It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it.

In what way?

You think it's all about crime...

Well that's how it's presented. Spud just used legal terms such as 'justice' and 'penalty' to defend it.

...and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Why do I need to get out of anything?

However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part.

This is just nonsensical. In the story, Adam and Eve did something wrong (although they apparently didn't even know right from wrong until afterwards) and everybody else has to live with the consequences. Relationships are between people, you don't blame the somebody's children for the breakdown of a relationship with their parents.

The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?

Firstly, I have zero reason to think any of this horrific nonsense is anything to do with reality, and secondly, if I thought for a moment it was, then god is a monster and I want nothing to do with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way?

Well that's how it's presented. Spud just used legal terms such as 'justice' and 'penalty' to defend it.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Why do I need to get out of anything?

This is just nonsensical. In the story, Adam and Eve did something wrong (although they apparently didn't even know right from wrong until afterwards) and everybody else has to live with the consequences. Relationships are between people, you don't blame the somebody's children for the breakdown of a relationship with their parents.

Firstly, I have zero reason to think any of this horrific nonsense is anything to do with reality, and secondly, if I thought for a moment it was, then god is a monster and I want nothing to do with it.

I think you have got the story wrong though. God has reopened the door to himself through Jesus Christ. The horror story would be if God had slammed the door on all of us. The story as presented by the bible is that God, in Jesus Christ has opened the door to all of us. If the door is ever slammed shut it is because we are the ones that slam it.

Biblically, Christ reverses the ''work'' of Adam.

Putting yourself onto a forum where the most popular board is the Christian board is a strange way of not wanting anything to do with God.

[Stranger]

I think you have got the story wrong though.

Why is it that every time you repeat it with different words, it's just as horrific? You seem to be completely blind to the implications.

God has reopened the door to himself through Jesus Christ.

Why was it closed in the first place? Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong (according to the story) until afterwards and nobody else got to choose. Why does the bizarre sadomasochistic incarnation, tortured to death and magicked back to life nonsense make any difference?

If the door is ever slammed shut it is because we are the ones that slam it.

But in the story nobody but Adam and Eve (who didn't even know right from wrong) got a genuine choice. All the rest of us are created sick (sinners).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. He was referring to the Christian concept of original sin and redemption though Jesus. Christians (or most of them apparently) believe they were created sick (original sin) and ordered to be well (they must believe in Christ or be sent to hell).

Here’s CH’s take on it:

“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.

And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”

And you choose to worship that "god"? Really though?

When Hitchens talks about critical faculties I rather think he means contrarianism.

Hitchens misses that biblically Jesus reverses the ''work'' of Adam. The door to God is unlocked. The only person asking critical faculties to be surrendered is Hitchens who exhorts us to surrender self critical faculties. His supposed concern for his faculties as I understand it extended to rewarding them on a frequent basis with copious amounts of alcohol.

And you choose to worship that? Really though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.

And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”

A dogs dinner conflating earthly dictatorship. Balls. If Hitchen's wants to carry out an eternal rebellion against God he is free to do so. North Korea? There seems no compunction to give any show of phoney love. He conflates God and the church here too.

[Spud]

Why was it closed in the first place? Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong (according to the story) until afterwards

They were told they would die if they ate it. Do you think it is unfair that they were denied the tree of life having disobeyed?
Also, if they then realized they had done wrong and decided to carry on doing wrong - after all, "tomorrow we die" - is it fair that God would close the door to them at the last judgment?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When Hitchens talks about critical faculties I rather think he means contrarianism.

Hitchens misses that biblically Jesus reverses the ''work'' of Adam. The door to God is unlocked.

The whole sadistic parlour game having been constructed by your supposedly good god in the first place remember?

The only person asking critical faculties to be surrendered is Hitchens who exhorts us to surrender self critical faculties.

If not for with critical faculties, how else would you propose anyone distinguish between true and not true? Faith? Seriously though?

His supposed concern for his faculties as I understand it extended to rewarding them on a frequent basis with copious amounts of alcohol.

Do grow up.

And you choose to worship that? Really though?

I don’t worship anything – I leave that self-loathing idiocy to the credulous.

A dogs dinner conflating earthly dictatorship. Balls. If Hitchen's wants to carry out an eternal rebellion against God he is free to do so. North Korea? There seems no compunction to give any show of phoney love. He conflates God and the church here too.

Are you feeling unwell or something? It’s your myth – you deal with its consequences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The whole sadistic parlour game having been constructed by your supposedly good god in the first place remember?

Do grow up.

I don’t worship anything – I leave that self-loathing idiocy to the credulous.

Are you feeling unwell or something? It’s your myth – you deal with its consequences.

Christopher Hitchens telling of it isn't my myth either yet there you are quoting it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Christopher Hitchens telling of it isn't my myth either yet there you are quoting it.

I have no idea what your myth is - whatever it is though, it seems to change more often than you change your socks. What CH was describing however was mainstream Christian theology - you can subscribe to that or not as you wish. 

[Dicky Underpants]

You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.

This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.

 I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.

It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.

Lorks alorky! "God" and "god". Have you suddenly adopted the Arian heresy? Maybe you've been influenced by the two latter-day Arians on this board. Watered down, lapsed JWs they may be, but the spirit of Arius has reached down through the ages, via the JWs to you.
Old 'Arry didn't die of a rectal prolapse in vain!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lorks alorky! "God" and "god". Have you suddenly adopted the Arian heresy? Maybe you've been influenced by the two latter-day Arians on this board. Watered down, lapsed JWs they may be, but the spirit of Arius has reached down through the ages, via the JWs to you.
Old 'Arry didn't die of a rectal prolapse in vain!

Dicky......I may call you Dicky Mayn't I?
When I read this first on my smart phone I thought you'd written ''The spirit of Anus''.

We will now sing hymn number 33 ''Hark the sound of Barrels scraping''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have no idea what your myth is - whatever it is though, it seems to change more often than you change your socks. What CH was describing however was mainstream Christian theology

No he wasn't. Have a nice day.

[Nearly Sane]

No he wasn't. Have a nice day.

So describe mainstream Christian theology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So describe mainstream Christian theology.

Hitchens makes 2 or 3 mistakes. He takes a totally legalistic point of view, He seems to ignore that when we started as a race that we were in communion with God. He seems to ignore the new testament declaration that Christ has overturned the work of Adam.

There also seems to be the suggestion that God has trapped humanity, that he is a cosmic dictator and that you can only be redeemed or otherwise because of what you intellectually assent to.

In terms of mainstream christianity, original sin only comes in with Augustine and the augustinian understanding is not universal anyway.

Mainstream christianity states that relationship with God is available through Jesus Christ. There is no recourse to redemption through commandment obedience but through the merits of Jesus Christ which open the way to a relationship with God.

[Owlswing]

 
 The basic problem of discussing virtually anything about the Bible is the fact that it does not take a literary genius to make it say just about anything you might want it to.

[Stranger]

They were told they would die if they ate it. Do you think it is unfair that they were denied the tree of life having disobeyed?

If they didn't know right from wrong, then they shouldn't have been punished for anything. If god wanted them to make a real choice then they should have known that it was right to obey god and wrong to believe the talking snake.

Also, if they then realized they had done wrong and decided to carry on doing wrong - after all, "tomorrow we die" - is it fair that God would close the door to them at the last judgment?

Why "close the door" on all of their descendants because of what they did? That's not justice, it being spiteful and vindictive.

[Stranger]

Hitchens makes 2 or 3 mistakes. He takes a totally legalistic point of view, He seems to ignore that when we started as a race that we were in communion with God...

If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.

He seems to ignore the new testament declaration that Christ has overturned the work of Adam.

Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.

There also seems to be the suggestion that God has trapped humanity, that he is a cosmic dictator and that you can only be redeemed or otherwise because of what you intellectually assent to.

In terms of mainstream christianity, original sin only comes in with Augustine and the augustinian understanding is not universal anyway.

However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.

If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.

Mainstream christianity states that relationship with God is available through Jesus Christ.

But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.

Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.

However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.

If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.

But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.

There is no design flaw since the Adam and Eve are described as walking with God i.e. a situation where they are neither sinning sinners, or in a state of sin. This is how mankind is 'designed' as you put it. Sin, sinning and sin are self mods if you like.