13 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, much clearer. Thanks for that. Let's examine the next verse.
the perpetrators were three, Eve who was deceived, Adam who wilfully consented and the satanic element who enticed them. It was particularly the last element that made the charge, that God was withholding something beneficial and implied that humans would be better off independent of God, here are the words,
(Genesis 3:4-5) . . .At this the serp ...[text shortened]... s right to rule and His way of ruling. The issue raised actually involved universal sovereignty.
Gen 3:6 [NIV] When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
There is nothing in here about abandoning God's sovereignty. There really isn't even any implication of it - quite the opposite. The woman's motivations are much more banal than that ('good for food and pleasing to the eye'😉. It is only the last one, the gaining of wisdom, that offers even a hint of ambition towards a larger goal than just a tasty snack.
As for her failure to heed the warning of death, again I must argue that 1) Her concept of death must have been limited, since she had never experienced it before, and 2) It is human nature not to heed warnings at times; we get stubborn, shrug it off as pessimism, and end up admitting the warning was right later on. This does not mean that we are totally rebelling against the person who warned us! It just means that we're curious and like to try things for ourselves sometimes instead of just accepting things on someone's [even God's] say-so.
13 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy should he decieve? Let me try to answer this with a counter question(s)
no not quite, for 'you shall not kill', of course is a relative statement, which on the surface appears to mean literally no killing, but this cannot be the case, for there is accidental death, when you swing an axe while chopping a tree and it slips from your hands and koshes some poor innocent on the head, also there is capital punishment for crime God is god, the greatest personage in the universe, what can he hope to gain from deception?
Is it always the case that it is advantageous to A that B knows A's intentions/motivations/etc...?
Is it always the case that if B is sure to learn or infer A's intentions/motivations/etc...A is best served by letting this happen?
Is it always the case that going to great lengths in explaining the truth is better than achieving your goals quickly and harmlessly by telling lies?
In short there could be countless reasons as to why your god would wish to decieve us...pragmatism and economy springs to mind.
As for the first. I say there was "arbitrary" death to all those that didn't have a hand in the "violence" god was flooding them all for. Secondly you touched upon captital punishment for murder (vindicates your argument??) which is whole different matter. You say that your god executes judgement for crimes he sees as unjust and where the perpetrators are irreformable. Is it really the case they couldn't have been reformed, I see it as a gruesome and lazy quick fix to a problem I'd argue (perhaps in another thread) your god created in the first place. certainly it leads me to question his morality
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitsmoking is a rather excellent example, if someone stated that if you smoke a cigarette you will instantly die, how many persons would take up smoking? not many i should imagine, yet, it is known that smoking is harmful, cigarette packets in the U.K carry a health warning, but because the effects are incremental rather than instant, persons engage in it, despite the warning and despite the fact that it may eventually kill them. The end is the same yet they are willing to ignore the warning!
OK, much clearer. Thanks for that. Let's examine the next verse.Gen 3:6 [NIV] When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
There is nothing in here about abandon ...[text shortened]... ourselves sometimes instead of just accepting things on someone's [even God's] say-so.
One needs to look at the original phrase here, 'good for food and pleasing to the eye', in a footnote of the new world translation of the holy scriptures it states this,
“To look upon,” LXXSyVg. Lit., “to impart wisdom (intelligence; prudence).” Lxx is a reference to the Septuagint, Sy to the Syriac Aramaic translation, and Vg to the Latin Vulgate.
thus it was an appeal not to the mundane, but to the intellect, an appeal to moral and intellectual independence from the sovereign of the universe.
In her defence the fact that one needs to experience something to know it, is well quite an interesting philosophical argument, which someone more brainy than me might like to explore, you for example! and yes if you are going to test the boundaries then you must also accept the responsibility and the consequences of your actions, for they may not have simply immediate consequences, but far reaching ones.
13 Mar 10
Originally posted by Agergmmm, i wish i was more brainy, anyhow let me try to attempt this.
Why should he decieve? Let me try to answer this with a counter question(s)
Is it always the case that it is advantageous to A that B knows A's intentions/motivations/etc...?
Is it always the case that if B is sure to learn or infer A's intentions/motivations/etc...A is best served by letting this happen?
Is it always the case that going to great lengths in ...[text shortened]... ad) your god created in the first place. certainly it leads me to question his morality
in chess is it advantageous that we know a persons intentions? i think it must be, for we can them make contingencies for any event.
Is it always best served by letting a course happen, mmm, this is quite a hard question, for it must be taken in its context, however there is a duality to this, for one acknowledges that one is surely responsible for ones own actions yet as a Christian we are under duress to inform others if the path they take is one of detriment.
yes it is always better to tell truth no matter how expedient, economical, efficient etc etc it seems to be at the time, for it sets a precedent.
these are not reasons in themselves, but hypothetical scenario, and each and every instance is relative to its context, furthermore, we can see clearly, that God has not lied, for they died, as he stated, and furthermore, there is a host of Biblical precedents which testify to Gods truthfulness. Interestingly the very essence of the accusation against God, was that he lied! How was he to counteract a lie with another lie? it simply cannot be done, not in the name of justice.
the problem that we face as humans is that we are unable to read the intentions and motivations of others, nor can we see the future, therefore it is impossible to determine whether someone is reformable or otherwise, this is not the case with God, who exists, outside of time and , according to scripture can read the thoughts and intentions of the heart. What is more there is a rather wonderful account when God reasons with a human, who charges God with judicially executing others in an arbitrary fashion. God states that if fifty, forty thirty, ten, five and one are found to be righteous he will forgo the judicial decision, hardly the sentiments of a God bent on arbitrary destruction, is it?
Lol, you may argue all you like, the fact of the matter is, that God, in adhering to his own standards cannot be charged with anything, no deception, no hypocrisy, no lazy fixes , for he has provided reparation at great cost to himself.
i am sorry at the basic answers but i have had a long day, i have drank a little wine and my mind is at meltdown stage 🙂
14 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiein chess is it advantageous that we know a persons intentions? i think it must be, for we can them make contingencies for any event
mmm, i wish i was more brainy, anyhow let me try to attempt this.
in chess is it advantageous that we know a persons intentions? i think it must be, for we can them make contingencies for any event.
Is it always best served by letting a course happen, mmm, this is quite a hard question, for it must be taken in its context, however there is a d ...[text shortened]... nswers but i have had a long day, i have drank a little wine and my mind is at meltdown stage 🙂
That, in part, answers:
Is it always the case that A knowing the intentions of B is advantageous to A? as opposed to the question I asked which was:
Is it always the case that it is advantageous to A that B knows A's intentions/motivations/etc...?
In other words, to use your chess answer, does it work better for me that you know what my plans are in a chess game?
Is it always best served by letting a course happen, mmm, this is quite a hard question, for it must be taken in its context, however there is a duality to this, for one acknowledges that one is surely responsible for ones own actions yet as a Christian we are under duress to inform others if the path they take is one of detriment.
This question was meant to be an extention of the first... if, say, you knowing what my plans in a chess game are going to be is it best for me I don't throw you off the scent?
yes it is always better to tell truth no matter how expedient, economical, efficient etc etc it seems to be at the time, for it sets a precedent.
I'd ask what is intrinsic about giving false information that is in ALL cases bad, without falling back on something like "because it's contrary to God's will" (for if your God exists and is indeed capable of lying then how could you know what is really God's will anyway? Why should you know??
these are not reasons in themselves, but hypothetical scenario, and each and every instance is relative to its context, furthermore, 1) we can see clearly, that God has not lied, for they died, as he stated, and furthermore, 2) there is a host of Biblical precedents which testify to Gods truthfulness. Interestingly the very essence of the accusation against God, was that he lied! How was he to counteract a lie with another lie? it simply cannot be done, not in the name of justice.
1) You lost me here.
2) Assuming the Bible is a *truthful* account of your god and it's actions/ways???
the problem that we face as humans is that we are unable to read the intentions and motivations of others, nor can we see the future, therefore it is impossible to determine whether someone is reformable or otherwise, this is not the case with God, who exists, outside of time and , according to scripture can read the thoughts and intentions of the heart. What is more there is a rather wonderful account when God reasons with a human, who charges God with judicially executing others in an arbitrary fashion. God states that if fifty, forty thirty, ten, five and one are found to be righteous he will forgo the judicial decision, hardly the sentiments of a God bent on arbitrary destruction, is it?
I could really go off at a tangent with the first half of this one (I won't)...If god destroys the life of at least one innocent child in it's quest to wash away mans' "violence" with a great flood then he is bent on arbitrary destruction
Lol, you may argue all you like, the fact of the matter is, that God, in adhering to his own standards cannot be charged with anything, no deception, no hypocrisy, no lazy fixes , for he has provided reparation at great cost to himself.
So you say...I fail to see how you justify this
i am sorry at the basic answers but i have had a long day, i have drank a little wine and my mind is at meltdown stage
a little? 😉
14 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCome on Robbie! I know you don't believe that...I also worry about the extent you think you are *pandering to my ego*!!! 🙁
sorry mate you need to ask someone way more brainy, i am but a humble peasant 🙂
To summarise the main points in my last post, what is it about lying which makes it always bad whoever does the lying, whatever the context?
14 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergActually Agerg, i do believe it and i have no intentions of pandering to your ego, i am not a fox trying to get the crow to sing and let go of the tasty morsel. The questions were quite hard, no doubt, especially after a glass of wine and a long day.
Come on Robbie! I know you don't believe that...I also worry about the extent you think you are *pandering to my ego*!!! 🙁
To summarise the main points in my last post, what is it about lying which makes it [b]always bad whoever does the lying, whatever the context?[/b]
Why is lying always bad?
It seems to me that there are situations where one may withhold information, if it is deemed in the best interests to do so, or if the receiving part has no right to that information. This is clearly not lying as no deception has occurred.
Is it always bad? it seems to me that it is always essentially damaging. From a Christians perspective, it damages one relationship with God, but you are an atheist, so i shall spare you this, however consider these,
1.falsehood breeds distrust between marriage mates and among family members.
2.unfounded gossip can damage a person’s reputation.
3.cheating by employees raises operating costs and results in more expensive products.
4.false claims on tax returns rob governments of needed revenues to provide public services.
5.fabrications by researchers ruin promising careers and tarnish the reputation of respected institutions.
6.dishonest get-rich-quick schemes divest gullible investors of their life savings or worse
in essence, i find it very difficult, nay impossible to advocate a scenario where lying is beneficial and thus must conclude that it is always damaging and detrimental.
14 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joeno, that is a situation where one would withhold information on the basis that the person has no right to know and that it is in the best interests to withhold that information. Lying is always damaging and detrimental.
Lying is not always bad. In fact it is occasionally commendable. For example, if a Nazi asked you if you knew where any Jews were hiding,,,,,,,,
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat exactly would you say if you were asked that then?
no, that is a situation where one would withhold information on the basis that the person has no right to know and that it is in the best interests to withhold that information. Lying is always damaging and detrimental.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChristianity is a lie. There was no virgin birth, and no resurrection.
no, that is a situation where one would withhold information on the basis that the person has no right to know and that it is in the best interests to withhold that information. Lying is always damaging and detrimental.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi would say that it was none of their business or that i am not at liberty to discuss it. And before you go on a rant, this has actually happened to Jehovahs Witnesses during the Nazi regime, where many were tortured to death in Nazi concentration camps rather than give up the names of fellow Witnesses and collaborators.
What exactly would you say if you were asked that then?
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWow. That's impressive.
i would say that it was none of their business or that i am not at liberty to discuss it. And before you go on a rant, this has actually happened to Jehovahs Witnesses during the Nazi regime, where many were tortured to death in Nazi concentration camps rather than give up the names of fellow Witnesses and collaborators.