The adversary is within

@kellyjay said
Well, you can say you are just a bag of chemicals with an expiration date, nothing more.

But I don't.

@kellyjay said
You can claim all of your reactions are just a product of outside forces from culture to whatever shapes you into what you are, which has no more meaning than the next person going through the same process but looking a little differently.

I don't claim this either.

@kellyjay said
harming another for pleasure is either a moralless chemical reaction that can be embraced or shunned by people or its wrong period no matter what the culture says.

If your religious beliefs are the only reason you are able to discern that "harming another for pleasure" is morally unsound, then so be it.

@kellyjay said
We are broken

Speak for yourself, KellyJay. If you think you are "broken" because your religious dogma tells you you are, then that is a matter for you. I hope you get better soon.

@kellyjay said
We are broken

Misanthropy 1: we are broken.

Misanthropy 2: non-believers are not fully human.

Narcissism 1: I am made righteous by my faith in my God figure.

Narcissism 2: my beliefs mean I am immortal.

Misanthropy + Narcissism = Christianity

@fmf said
But I don't.

How do you define people? Are we nothing but our material makeup, the sum of our parts in this material world, or something more?

@kellyjay said
How do you define people?

In the same way as I have 'defined people' in countless posts addressed directly to you over a period of years. My definition has not changed.

@moonbus said
No, I don't think you're nuts. But here's the bit I don't get. God creates a lesser being in His own image, with a certain capacity (freewill, a capacity for making choices), but then He says to the lesser being, in effect, 'Here, I give you this marvelous capacity, in My image, but I forbid you to exercise it. You must continue to do as I tell you, you must continue to follo ...[text shortened]... .

It makes sense, as @fmf contends, only as some kind of fairy tale, as an allegory with a moral.

"Whoa, nelly! Eternal life was possible for the man in paradise, but God forbade it him -- and then some generations later, after a lot of sinning, Jesus shows up and promises what was previously made inaccessible to Adam, to make his progeny both god-like in a knowledge of good and evil and immortal? This is incoherent. I mean really incoherent. Please don't leap to the conclusion that I think God made a mistake. I'm saying the story is massively incoherent. So incoherent, that it cannot be taken to be a factual, literal history of events which really happened as described."

I'm going to try to be careful not to give you the impression I'm calling you incoherent when I say your conclusion of what you perceive as incoherent is a misperception of the truth laid out in the narrative.

"Eternal life was possible..." Adam was created with eternal life. There was no death in the original creation.

"..,but God forbade it him..." Not so! God did not forbid access to the tree of life. There was but one tree that God "forbade" Adam to eat of. Adam chose to disobey one single rule God had instituted, and jumped ahead of God's perfect, unflawed and just plan.

As a result God removed Adam from access to the tree of life.

".., Jesus shows up..."

But first I need to take a step back and correct an error you made when you said this; ..: "he might gain immortality, by eating of a second tree, of which God had not previously spoken or forbidden the man to eat of".

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9

Adam was aware of the tree of life before God forbade him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Several questions:
Is it incoherent to believe that there exists an infinite being capable of creating all that exists?

Would it then be incoherent for such a being to know how to establish order in creation that sustains everything in a steady state without rot, decay and death?

Is it incoherent for such a being to be able to create a being with like qualities and characteristics; bearing the image of God?

Is it incoherent to expect that the created being should obey his creator knowing the creator knows all things? (Adam wasn't an idiot automaton)


Now back to ".., Jesus shows up..." maybe!

Notwithstanding FMF's misconceptions.

@josephw said
Notwithstanding FMF's misconceptions.

Which, presumably, you reckon you have now dealt with by saying this.

@josephw said

"Eternal life was possible..." Adam was created with eternal life. There was no death in the original creation.

God said that if Adam ate from the tree of life, then Adam will live forever. It seems Adam was not created with eternal life.

@fmf said
Which, presumably, you reckon you have now dealt with by saying this.

Yeah, but only if you hadn't said that.

Your opinions about the veracity of the scriptures are just your opinions, and you can believe whatever you want. Just be sure that what you believe is based in truth.

You define yourself as an agnostic atheist. Seems to indicate you're really not certain about your beliefs or opinions, which in turn raises the question of the validity of them.

@rajk999 said
God said that if Adam ate from the tree of life, then Adam will live forever. It seems Adam was not created with eternal life.

Your rationale is out of context.

Adam died spiritually when he disobeyed God. If Adam were to eat of the fruit of the tree of life he would have lived eternally in sin separated from God.

It was a mercy for God to remove Adam from the garden.

@josephw said
You define yourself as an agnostic atheist. Seems to indicate you're really not certain about your beliefs or opinions, which in turn raises the question of the validity of them.

You are welcome to question of the validity of my beliefs.

@FMF

If you're asking me 'Are people's behaviour generally different in different cultures?' then, yes, I agree.

Do you agree that people in different cultures express different norms that achieve the same overall moral objective ?

If you are asking me 'Are people in "the East" and "the "West" always respectful, even though it may be expressed in different ways across cultures?' then, no, I don't agree.

You are clearly and succintly saying "No" to something I did NOT ask.
What I asked had nothing to do with whether people anywhere are always
respectful.

I didn't ask you that.

If you are asking me 'Do people in "the East" always bow instead of shaking hands in order to show respect?' then my answer is no, and if you think they do, then I disagree with you.

I didn't ask if it is ALWAYS done.
You're erecting a strawman.

Over the eareth in any human culture there are norms for the way people show respect.

When you watch such videos as "What NOT to do when you visit _________" you learn some things about different cultures' ways.

So I say you're flat wrong on that score.
Bowing and shaking hands are two different ways of showing respect.