Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-28-2017 4:23 AM
414 online now:
kbertsche, PaulK (2 members, 412 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,589 Year: 10,195/21,208 Month: 3,282/2,674 Week: 698/961 Day: 10/150 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   The Great Debate
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 46 of 102 (252306)
10-17-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
07-11-2005 2:42 AM


Finer Details 1
arachnophilia writes:

i'll repeat: a double negative is not a contrast.

Buh? :confused:

How did I miss this one before?

Actually, arachnophilia, it most certainly can be used this way.

A double negative occurs when two or more ways to express negation are used in the same sentence. It's the usage of two or more negative words in the same sentence to produce a strong emphasis on the positive or negative meaning in the verb.

In English, for example, we can use two negatives to produce a strong positive meaning.

Example: I will never fail you nor will I ever abandon you.

The standard form of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" also has a corresponding double negative form: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" -- which has a different psychological connotation

Whenever the standard form of the Golden Rule is positive, implying a commandment which must or ought to be done, the double negative form is more neutral (merely suggesting a positive action, and commanding only that one refrain from other actions whose results one would not prefer oneself).

In some languages a double negative resolves to a negative, while in others it resolves to a positive. These are strictly grammatical rules and have nothing to do with mathematics. In particular, as stated before, double negatives do not "cancel each other out" -- the usage of two or more negative words in the same sentence produce a strong emphasis on the positive or negative meaning in the verb.

They are used in some languages and considered erroneous in others. Many people criticize dialects employing "double" negatives as "illogical" -- two negatives make a positive in multiplication. But double negatives are really negative agreement (like subject-verb agreement) and are displayed in many languages (including older versions of English).

For example in both French and English we can answer a question negatively:

Who arrived? Nobody.
Qui est arrivé? Personne.

But the standard languages differ on how to form negative statements:

I did not see anybody.
Je n'ai vu personne.

Standard English uses "anybody" instead of "nobody" in negative statements whereas standard French uses "personne" in both places. Notice that the French sentence is equivalent to:

I did not see nobody.

...which is exactly what some dialects of English use, the double negative. So the double negative dialects are exactly like other languages (e.g. standard French) in this respect.

They are not illogical or stupid.

They simply have a rule of negative agreement that standard English does not have. Just as Boston dialects have a rule dropping r that standard American English does not have. Negative agreement is used in many dialects of English -- and in many other languages including Hebrew.

Look. I guess I'm not going to really debate this part about the various forms of parallelsim in the Scriptures. However, I would like you to do something for me:


1) Please be led by the Spirit and print off the pages of this debate...

2) Bring it to your professor...

3) Explain to him/her what I've explained to you...

4) Allow him/her to read our discussion...

5) Then ask him/her who he/she feels is correct on this matter regarding parallelisms.

If he/she agrees with your opinion, then come back and tell me that here. I'll trust you to be honest in relaying whatever your prof has to say about this for the sake of this debate -- and I will not attempt to say that you're lying if indeed your prof agrees with your opinion over my opinion.

But if he/she agrees with my opinion, then you have to do the same -- tell it here.

Is that acceptable to you?

Edit: Sources --
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/023.html
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Double_negative

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-17-2005 12:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 07-11-2005 2:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 3:25 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 47 of 102 (252312)
10-17-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
07-23-2005 5:02 AM


Finer Details 2
arachnophilia writes:

ah ha! no, actually i'm not! see, i think we're really arguing for the same thing, we just need to make each see that. the point of this debate is that i DON'T think the hebrews thought of evil as something tangible at all! nor even defined in the modern sense.

christianity, as a contrast, seems to have a VERY tangible of what evil is. evil is the devil, doing against what god says, disobedience -- and some outside force that acts on us. rather, to hebrews, evils seems to have been a property that was somewhat arbitrarily thrown around. something could be good and evil at the same time, like knowledge. or, for that matter, god. but that's where i'm going.

Exactly where would a passage like this fit into our debate here?

NIV writes:

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.

edit: ie., sin seems to be personified with animated almost human qualities.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-17-2005 12:41 AM

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-18-2005 01:55 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 07-23-2005 5:02 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 48 of 102 (252313)
10-17-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by arachnophilia
10-09-2005 2:50 AM


Re: bump
arachnophilia writes:

here's a question though. does a subjective view of evil become objective because the view is that of god's?

Bingo! This is what I think the Israelite's perceived God like. :)

The Spirit of God which moves all things is still objectively good -- even if the end result of the motion results in what humans would subjectively call evil. Again, as noted above, this is the question of the language employed. In other words, God's objective view of evil become subjective when reduced to a level that humans can misunderstand.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-18-2005 01:42 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 10-09-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 3:31 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 49 of 102 (252317)
10-17-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by arachnophilia
07-18-2005 3:04 AM


Finer Details 3
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

It is interesting to note that this particular darkness could be "felt".

arachnophilia writes:

now THAT sounds like an idiom to me. would you agree?

I'm honestly not sure on this one. This is more my curiousity than anything, but there have been accounts of clouds and banks of fog that had weird properties and behavior.

For example, in 1758, a fog of "strange and extraordinary appearance" was witnessed by several Colonials in Connecticut. They said it arrived in thick bodies that would "break" when it struck buildings. Odder still, it emitted such heat that they found it difficult to breathe near it.

One account goes like this...

Annual Register, 1:90-91, 1758 writes:

...about sun-rise, at this place was a fog of so strange and extraordinary appearance, that it filled us all with amazement. It came in great bodies, like thick clouds down to the earth, and in its way, striking against the houses, would break and fall down the sides in great bodies, rolling over and over. It resembled the thick steam rising from boiling wort [a plant used in making soap], and was attended with such heat that we could hardly breathe. When first I saw it I really thought my house was on fire, and the last day come, One of our neighbors was then at Sutton, 100 miles to the eastward, and reports it was much the same there.

Exactly what was happening here, I have no idea. But this little story always reminded me of the darkness in Egypt for some reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2005 3:04 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 102 (252410)
10-17-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-16-2005 8:38 PM


Re: bump
arachnophilia writes:


i think it's the other way around. it's people ascribing human qualities to god.

Ok, but you don't think this is what the Israelites themselves believed, do you?

no, but i think it's what they DID. or, rather, some of them did. different books seem to represent different philosophies about god, his personality, and how well he relates to human beings. the god of genesis is very human, but the god of exodus is so foreign that just the sight of him kills.

Although we are free to give our own personal thoughts on the matter, we are still ultimately trying to resolve what the ancient Israelites believed about their own Scriptures, correct?

well, we have to be able to step back for a second an analyze it in context. we don't have to totally look at it through their eyes, so that we fail to see what role this plays in their society. although, if we really wanted to get into it, i'm sure it could probably be argued that many DID believe that genesis humanized god. but this would take a little more knowledge of the talmud than i have, and it's not really the point of this debate.

Alright, God, in the case of the flood, apparently repents that he had ever made man. Yet, later on, several Scriptural verses also teach that God cannot repent. However, again, in I Samuel 15, God repents that he had made Saul king of Israel (in verses 11, 35 for example) and yet he also declares that he is not a man that he should repent (verse 29 for example).

Do you believe the Israelites beleived these things were contradictions in their own Scriptures, or do you believe the Israelites believed these statements were God's way of trying to force the Israelites to see subtle differences in the meanings of a word?

no, i think this goes back to the authority question we've been dealing with here. who does god have to repent TO? us? can we demand that god say he's sorry for something we percieve as evil? no. but god is apparently capable of regret.

Or stating it differently, if you're studying Hebrew, could you take a look at the word for "repent" and see if it is used in more than one way? Are there any cases where the word repent is used in conjunction with someone performing what the Scriptures consider a "good action"?

I ask because I'm not sure if I have the proper resources to properly identify this at this time.

i'm not sure i do, either.

More specifically, for example, consider the case of a parent giving a child a toy. The toy is good. It is designed to give joy to the child. However, by some tragic mishap, the child ends up choking on the toy.

We'll pretend in this case that the child was rescued.

However, in real-life these kinds of accidents do unfortunately happen. If, in this hypothetical situation, the child perished due to the toy, would the parent be guilty of sinning -- even if their original intention was good?

...the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. or so they say; i don't really believe that. no, i don't think accidents should be counted as sin. i'm not sure of the specific biblical perspective of it, but if i recall accidents that you feel bad about and sins of ignorance have a different sacrifice/atonement than willful sin. i'm not totally sure.

but i do think that's a good analogy. god did something good that resulted in somethign bad, and he regretted it. in either case, it seems to prove two things: that god is fallible (might just be a byproduct of human will) and that god can do something that god himself considers bad (even if it was for good reasons).

arachnophilia writes:

saying god sinned is to say that god made some kind of trespass against something or someone. since god is the highest authority, no one has any right to say that god commited a trespass.

But doesn't God have the ability to judge his own actions?

well, yes. i think we agree here, maybe. god can judge his own actions as bad -- and repent. but we can't judge god's actions as evil.

the fact that we do is something of a conundrum, i admit. but this, plus the subjectivity of evil and objectivity of good might explain why we attribute only good, or both good and evil to god, but never JUST evil.

arachnophilia writes:

therefore, god cannot sin, even if he can do things we call evil, and even if he can do things he calls mistakes.

Well, let's take a look at this statement for a minute.

First of all, God is apparently doing something that has a direct effect on humanity, something that he should be able to hold himself accountable for, correct?

Is God not aware of his own actions -- or is he simply above condemning himself?

i don't understand what you mean. why would god hold himself accountable for something? i mean, granted, he seems to keep his promises and covenants, and i guess that's sort of the same thing. but what's he gonna do, punish himself?

the simple principle of the judeo-christian-islamic faith is that there is no higher authority than god. there is no one for him to repent to, or to condemn him. god is aware of his actions, and capable of feeling bad about them, too. in some manner, god could even say he sinned against us if he wanted to -- but for us to say so would be blasphemy, right?

(i'm convinced, btw, that there are a good many things in the bible that amount to blasphemy. i've been accused of blasphemy on this board for paraphrasing them before, too. but that's another debate, i think)

wow.

Do you agree that this is what the Israelites believed as well?

i think they used the word evil very differently than we do today -- the entire purpose of this debate, really. to them, evil seems to have had a few meanings, against god (the street example) or general misfortune. god is, of course, capable of causing misfortune. one needs only to read the bible to see that. but i don't think god can go against god.

today, we use evil as an objective moral standard, whole opposite and mutually exclusive to good. we've adapted this "against god" idea into a much larger one, involving a whole patron spirit as god's opponent. so god rules the good and the devil the bad, like the sun rules the day and the moon the night.

we have a simplistic dualistic standard for night and day, but it's really not as clear as that, is it? the analogy doesn't quite hold up: we've all seen the moon out in the daytime, right? but the sun is never out at night in most parts of the world (let's ignore alaska...)

normally we define the daytime by the presence of the sun. if it's out, it's daytime. but we don't define the night by the presence of the moon. it's the abscence of the sun. -- this is basically the standard you're presenting in this debate: evil is the abscence of god.

what i'm saying is that to the hebrews, evil would correlate with the moon in this analogy, not the abscence of the sun. it can be in the presence of the sun, but not make the day any less bright. the abscence of god can be seen as evil, but is just part of that subjective understanding.

To be honest, I think it's not so much about good and evil. I think it's more probably about shame -- and the laying of blame to others who do not deserve it. It's about figuring out who is responsble for what and what's going to be done in response to each other's actions.

More importantly, although many tend to think of the account of the garden as a story of good vs. evil, I think it's more a story of how a loving God was willing to subject himself to the scrunity and judgements of his own creation.

well, i don't mean to say it's about good VERSUS evil. it's not. but evil is there in the story. it's the origin of mans' tendency to decide what is good and what is evil. something which the bible considers bad, like playing god, yet many people in the bible seem to do it anyways. leading by counterexample, i think.

As the late Pope John Paul II said,

Pope John Paul II writes:

"...in a certain sense one could say that confronted with our human freedom, God decided to make Himself 'impotent.' And one could say that God is paying for the great gift bestowed upon a being He created 'in his image, after his likeness' (cf. Gn 1:26). Before this gift, He remains consistent, and places Himself before the judgment of man..."

that sounds about like what i think to be the case personally (thought i don't know abotu scripturally). it makes sense that god would not have to not be omnipotent if we are to be truly free -- thus we are "given" the ability to judge, and choose right from wrong.

I'd also like to get back to the concept of the "void" which existed prior to God's creation.

Is that ok?

oh dear god no, let's not. it was an analogy, and failed miserably. the genesis reading implies that god did not create the void, but does seem to imply god creating evil. so the analogy breaks down. it's also seemingly inconsistent with later books, that list god as creating everything includign evil.

but if we get on this again, we'll sit here and argue it until we both turn blue, and it's not really even on topic. i don't think there's a clear way to make sense of it -- how about we come back to it when we decide on a clear interpretation of the rest of it, and if choas really EQUALS evil, or is just a parallel.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-16-2005 8:38 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 2:38 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 102 (252423)
10-17-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 12:24 AM


Re: Finer Details 1
arachnophilia writes:

i'll repeat: a double negative is not a contrast.


Buh? :confused:

How did I miss this one before?

Actually, arachnophilia, it most certainly can be used this way.

A double negative occurs when two or more ways to express negation are used in the same sentence. It's the usage of two or more negative words in the same sentence to produce a strong emphasis on the positive or negative meaning in the verb.

In English, for example, we can use two negatives to produce a strong positive meaning.

Example: I will never fail you nor will I ever abandon you.

The standard form of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" also has a corresponding double negative form: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" -- which has a different psychological connotation

Whenever the standard form of the Golden Rule is positive, implying a commandment which must or ought to be done, the double negative form is more neutral (merely suggesting a positive action, and commanding only that one refrain from other actions whose results one would not prefer oneself).

i don't want to spend a lot of time on this one again, but i'll leave it at this: what i'm saying is that a double negative is not a single negative.

"i want to watch the game tomorrow night" and "i don't want to miss the game tomorrow night" are essentially the same statement. there is some subjectivity to it, yes. and they do have slightly different connotations, yes. but essentially, they have the same meaning.

the bit about languages is essentially moot, since we're dealing with an ENGLISH translation here. it obeys the laws of proper english, in which a double negative is a positive. other language may be different.

Negative agreement is used in many dialects of English -- and in many other languages including Hebrew.

Look. I guess I'm not going to really debate this part about the various forms of parallelsim in the Scriptures. However, I would like you to do something for me:


1) Please be led by the Spirit and print off the pages of this debate...

2) Bring it to your professor...

3) Explain to him/her what I've explained to you...

4) Allow him/her to read our discussion...

5) Then ask him/her who he/she feels is correct on this matter regarding parallelisms.

If he/she agrees with your opinion, then come back and tell me that here. I'll trust you to be honest in relaying whatever your prof has to say about this for the sake of this debate -- and I will not attempt to say that you're lying if indeed your prof agrees with your opinion over my opinion.

But if he/she agrees with my opinion, then you have to do the same -- tell it here.

Is that acceptable to you?

we've covered negatives in hebrew already. one does it exactly as you do in english. if i were to say "i study the torah" i would write:

אני לומד התורה -- "ani lomed ha-torah"

if i wanted to write "i don't like homework" i would write

אני לא אוהב שיערי-בית -- "ani lo 'oheb shiori-bait"

for the most part, the BASIC grammar is suprisingly like english, with different exceptions, conjugations, and spelling. but let's look at some funny constructions anyways: where's how you say "where are you from?"

?מאין אתה -- m'ain atah?

literally, it's "from-nothing you?" the idea of it is "you haven't told me where you're from." ain could be considered a negative, but it's really just a negative marker. so here's a "double negative:"

בנ אין לא -- ben ain lo. son there is not no, "i have no son." of course, you may notice this is backwards: object (subject) verb, like yoda-speak.

see, modern hebrew borrows from yiddish, in which double negatives are used, and implied to be negative from the style. strict hebrew, apparently, does not use double negatives. i'm not even sure "ain" should count. it doesn't translate very well into english at all.

it's important to note two things.

1. we're not dealing with modern hebrew. we're not even dealing with biblical hebrew (which uses double negatives like english). we're dealign with modern english translations.

2. we're not dealing with double negatives.

you had insisted that it said god destroys evil. it doesn't. it says, in my own literal translation here:

quote:
,יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ -- yotzer 'or v'boreh chosek, -- "form light and create darkness"
;עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע -- 'oseh shalom v'boreh ra; -- "make peace and create evil"
.אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה -- ani yehwah, 'oseh kal-'eleh. -- "i the LORD make all these"

form (+) light (+) and create (+) darkness (-).
make (+) peace (+) and create (+) evil (-).

where's the double negative? where are the strange sentance structures of yiddish? do you see an "ain" or a "lo" in there to make the other negative? no, because there is no double negative.

[edit] i'd also like to point out something that's more clear now that i've actually bothered to translate this verse myself. it contains two words that i couldn't read on the first pass: kol and 'eleh. kol means "all" or "whole" -- and 'eleh i should have recognized. it's the plural of zeh (m) and zot (f) which are the words for "this is ____." 'eleh is given an object in most translations, but literally it refers back to the things listed in the verse. the objects of the word 'eleh are 'or, chosek, shalom, and ra, all together.

so it literally says that the lord makes all of those things, one verb for everything. which blows the double-negative thing out of the water.[b][/edit][/b] but if you really want, i'll ask my teacher anyways. but seriously, that's pretty straight forward hebrew.

(also you missed a source: http://www.ling.udel.edu/colin/courses/ling101/idsardi_notes/sociolinguistics.html )

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-17-2005 03:40 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 12:24 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 102 (252424)
10-17-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 12:46 AM


Re: bump
arachnophilia writes:

here's a question though. does a subjective view of evil become objective because the view is that of god's?


Bingo! This is what I think the Israelite's perceived God like. :)

probably, but the evidence is that god still uses it subjectively to refer to calamity, not some objective external evil (ie: "the devil"). recall the passage about god calling the exile and evil, where he says he is sending it.

if god's subjective view of evil is objective -- then god calling his own actions evil makes god evil? i don't like that outcome. maybe for most other things.

i think the idea is: god is the boss, and decides what is good and what is evil, but that it's still subjective.

i'm not sure how the other two posts fit into the debate, so i'll ignore them for now. if there's anything you're really trying to say in 2 and 3, let me know.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 12:46 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 53 of 102 (252590)
10-18-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
10-17-2005 1:37 PM


Re: bump
arachnophilia writes:


i think it's the other way around. it's people ascribing human qualities to god.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Ok, but you don't think this is what the Israelites themselves believed, do you?

arachnophilia writes:

no, but i think it's what they DID. or, rather, some of them did. different books seem to represent different philosophies about god, his personality, and how well he relates to human beings. the god of genesis is very human, but the god of exodus is so foreign that just the sight of him kills.

One might note that prior to Adam and Eve partaking in the tree, they could see God in very tangible human forms. However, after that time, God appears with human qualities for only the most brief and stupendous of accasions.

Perhaps something changed after Adam and Eve knew good and evil like the unique one did. The text prior to the flood does seem to indicate that God's spirit in humanity was winding down so to speak.

Although we are free to give our own personal thoughts on the matter, we are still ultimately trying to resolve what the ancient Israelites believed about their own Scriptures, correct?

arachnophilia writes:

well, we have to be able to step back for a second an analyze it in context. we don't have to totally look at it through their eyes, so that we fail to see what role this plays in their society. although, if we really wanted to get into it, i'm sure it could probably be argued that many DID believe that genesis humanized god. but this would take a little more knowledge of the talmud than i have, and it's not really the point of this debate.

Ok, we'll drop this for now.

Alright, God, in the case of the flood, apparently repents that he had ever made man. Yet, later on, several Scriptural verses also teach that God cannot repent. However, again, in I Samuel 15, God repents that he had made Saul king of Israel (in verses 11, 35 for example) and yet he also declares that he is not a man that he should repent (verse 29 for example).

Do you believe the Israelites beleived these things were contradictions in their own Scriptures, or do you believe the Israelites believed these statements were God's way of trying to force the Israelites to see subtle differences in the meanings of a word?

arachnophilia writes:

no, i think this goes back to the authority question we've been dealing with here. who does god have to repent TO?

I'm not sure but he apparently does repent, so it is an interesting question as to who he has to repent to, if anyone.

arachnophilia writes:

us? can we demand that god say he's sorry for something we percieve as evil? no. but god is apparently capable of regret.

Well, we do agree that God can regret his own actions. The Hebrew Scriptures are clear on this.

Or stating it differently, if you're studying Hebrew, could you take a look at the word for "repent" and see if it is used in more than one way? Are there any cases where the word repent is used in conjunction with someone performing what the Scriptures consider a "good action"?

I ask because I'm not sure if I have the proper resources to properly identify this at this time.

arachnophilia writes:

i'm not sure i do, either.

More specifically, for example, consider the case of a parent giving a child a toy. The toy is good. It is designed to give joy to the child. However, by some tragic mishap, the child ends up choking on the toy.

We'll pretend in this case that the child was rescued.

However, in real-life these kinds of accidents do unfortunately happen. If, in this hypothetical situation, the child perished due to the toy, would the parent be guilty of sinning -- even if their original intention was good?

arachnophilia writes:

...the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. or so they say; i don't really believe that. no, i don't think accidents should be counted as sin. i'm not sure of the specific biblical perspective of it, but if i recall accidents that you feel bad about and sins of ignorance have a different sacrifice/atonement than willful sin. i'm not totally sure.

There some passage which talk about a man being guilty of sin if he fails to warn and cover a pit, if I recall corectly.

arachnophilia writes:

but i do think that's a good analogy. god did something good that resulted in somethign bad, and he regretted it. in either case, it seems to prove two things: that god is fallible (might just be a byproduct of human will) and that god can do something that god himself considers bad (even if it was for good reasons).

I realy thought hard about that one analogy before I presented it to you. I was praying that the Spirit open a door so that we could understand each other better. I think this analogy might have done it.

arachnophilia writes:

saying god sinned is to say that god made some kind of trespass against something or someone. since god is the highest authority, no one has any right to say that god commited a trespass.

Mr. Ex nihilo writes:

But doesn't God have the ability to judge his own actions?

arachnophilia writes:

well, yes. i think we agree here, maybe. god can judge his own actions as bad -- and repent. but we can't judge god's actions as evil.

the fact that we do is something of a conundrum, i admit. but this, plus the subjectivity of evil and objectivity of good might explain why we attribute only good, or both good and evil to god, but never JUST evil.

Ok, so we also agree that God never does something that is just evil.

arachnophilia writes:

therefore, god cannot sin, even if he can do things we call evil, and even if he can do things he calls mistakes.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Well, let's take a look at this statement for a minute.

First of all, God is apparently doing something that has a direct effect on humanity, something that he should be able to hold himself accountable for, correct?

Is God not aware of his own actions -- or is he simply above condemning himself?

arachnophilia writes:

i don't understand what you mean. why would god hold himself accountable for something?

If God is indeed a fair and good God, it seems reasonable that God would allow himself to be held accountable to us -- or at least seek some way to make amends.

arachnophilia writes:

i mean, granted, he seems to keep his promises and covenants, and i guess that's sort of the same thing. but what's he gonna do, punish himself?

Maybe that's why Christ came to earth.

arachnophilia writes:

the simple principle of the judeo-christian-islamic faith is that there is no higher authority than god. there is no one for him to repent to, or to condemn him. god is aware of his actions, and capable of feeling bad about them, too. in some manner, god could even say he sinned against us if he wanted to -- but for us to say so would be blasphemy, right?

I don;t know about that. Moses actually faced off against God and petitioned for Israel so that God would not destroy them all and start over.

arachnophilia writes:

(i'm convinced, btw, that there are a good many things in the bible that amount to blasphemy. i've been accused of blasphemy on this board for paraphrasing them before, too. but that's another debate, i think)

But I'm not accusing you of blasphemy, am I?

wow.

Do you agree that this is what the Israelites believed as well?

arachnophilia writes:

i think they used the word evil very differently than we do today -- the entire purpose of this debate, really. to them, evil seems to have had a few meanings, against god (the street example) or general misfortune. god is, of course, capable of causing misfortune. one needs only to read the bible to see that. but i don't think god can go against god.

Why were ten of the 613 commandments written by God's own finger on stone tablet's -- twice I might add?

arachnophilia writes:

today, we use evil as an objective moral standard, whole opposite and mutually exclusive to good. we've adapted this "against god" idea into a much larger one, involving a whole patron spirit as god's opponent. so god rules the good and the devil the bad, like the sun rules the day and the moon the night.

we have a simplistic dualistic standard for night and day, but it's really not as clear as that, is it? the analogy doesn't quite hold up: we've all seen the moon out in the daytime, right? but the sun is never out at night in most parts of the world (let's ignore alaska...)

normally we define the daytime by the presence of the sun. if it's out, it's daytime. but we don't define the night by the presence of the moon. it's the abscence of the sun. -- this is basically the standard you're presenting in this debate: evil is the abscence of god.

what i'm saying is that to the hebrews, evil would correlate with the moon in this analogy, not the abscence of the sun. it can be in the presence of the sun, but not make the day any less bright. the abscence of god can be seen as evil, but is just part of that subjective understanding.

Interesting thoughts. I'll have to meditate on this for a bit and get back to you.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

To be honest, I think it's not so much about good and evil. I think it's more probably about shame -- and the laying of blame to others who do not deserve it. It's about figuring out who is responsble for what and what's going to be done in response to each other's actions.

More importantly, although many tend to think of the account of the garden as a story of good vs. evil, I think it's more a story of how a loving God was willing to subject himself to the scrunity and judgements of his own creation.

arachnophilia writes:

well, i don't mean to say it's about good VERSUS evil. it's not. but evil is there in the story. it's the origin of mans' tendency to decide what is good and what is evil. something which the bible considers bad, like playing god, yet many people in the bible seem to do it anyways. leading by counterexample, i think.

So you do admit that good and evil is a fundamental paradigm of the story -- although not an exclusive element of it?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

As the late Pope John Paul II said,

Pope John Paul II writes:

"...in a certain sense one could say that confronted with our human freedom, God decided to make Himself 'impotent.' And one could say that God is paying for the great gift bestowed upon a being He created 'in his image, after his likeness' (cf. Gn 1:26). Before this gift, He remains consistent, and places Himself before the judgment of man..."

arachnophilia writes:

that sounds about like what i think to be the case personally (thought i don't know abotu scripturally). it makes sense that god would not have to not be omnipotent if we are to be truly free -- thus we are "given" the ability to judge, and choose right from wrong.

Yes but...

Did we ever have a choice in choosing?

Let me rephrse that. In order for something to truly be free, they have to have had the choice of whether they wanted to be free laid out before them.

Technically speaking, Adam and Eve were never given the choice of whether they wanted to make a choice in the first place -- since the choice was thrust upon them.

In other words, having the ability to choose, it could be argued, is actually more akin to a curse when juxtopositioned beside the ability to do God's will -- which doesn't appear to involve the option of going against his will.

In comparison to doing God's will, once one makes a choice, they are basically condemned to be free -- even if they choose to do good.

God, however, doesn't apear to have this ability to choose -- if indeed he already knows what he's going to do (since he apparently already knows the future, including his own). So, in a sense, the one who realizes they don't actually have a choice in doing good appears to be the one who is truly doing good in God's eyes.

I'd also like to get back to the concept of the "void" which existed prior to God's creation.

Is that ok?

arachnophilia writes:

oh dear god no, let's not. it was an analogy, and failed miserably. the genesis reading implies that god did not create the void, but does seem to imply god creating evil. so the analogy breaks down. it's also seemingly inconsistent with later books, that list god as creating everything includign evil.

but if we get on this again, we'll sit here and argue it until we both turn blue, and it's not really even on topic. i don't think there's a clear way to make sense of it -- how about we come back to it when we decide on a clear interpretation of the rest of it, and if choas really EQUALS evil, or is just a parallel.

Ok, we'll come back to it later.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-18-2005 02:38 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 1:37 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 3:52 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 102 (252603)
10-18-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-18-2005 2:38 AM


Re: bump
one short reply before i go to bed. you'll have to forgive the massive typos and grammatical errors i'm sure will be present, as i'm really really tired.

One might note that prior to Adam and Eve partaking in the tree, they could see God in very tangible human forms. However, after that time, God appears with human qualities for only the most brief and stupendous of accasions.

Perhaps something changed after Adam and Eve knew good and evil like the unique one did. The text prior to the flood does seem to indicate that God's spirit in humanity was winding down so to speak.

i don't agree. god appears in tangible form more often post-flood and pre-flood, though most of these instances are in genesis (and one in exodus, if i recall). i am willing to say, however, that it is clear that god is withdrawing, and becoming less human in the eyes of the eyes of the authors, as the story progresses.

personally, i think it's some combination of the author's biases regarding patriarchal v. "modern" times, and god actually finding balance to allow the full extent of free will. kind of like the shallow end of the pool with waterwings vs. the deep end without when you're teaching a kid to swim.

I'm not sure but he apparently does repent, so it is an interesting question as to who he has to repent to, if anyone.

well, he doesn't appear to be apologizing to us, at least in this instance. i think the word is just being used in a regret sense. strictly speaking, repenting is only feeling sorry and changing. it's only the colloquial usage that has to have an object to repent to.

There some passage which talk about a man being guilty of sin if he fails to warn and cover a pit, if I recall corectly.

same as neglecting a child.

I realy thought hard about that one analogy before I presented it to you. I was praying that the Spirit open a door so that we could understand each other better. I think this analogy might have done it.

it brings up a question, though. my basic claim is that god can (and does) do "bad" that turns out good. here we have a scriptural example of god doing good, and it turning out bad. do you think my view is inconsistent with the fallible god of genesis? i don't think so, but i'm not sure. i'll think about it.

Ok, so we also agree that God never does something that is just evil.

as a matter of faith, i don't believe he does. i suppose he COULD, but i trust that god is also a pretty nice guy.

If God is indeed a fair and good God, it seems reasonable that God would allow himself to be held accountable to us -- or at least seek some way to make amends.

well, i dunno about holding god accountable. it's not really our place. but i do think parts of the bible contain something of a history of god's attempts to get through to, and make amends with man. it could be said that jesus was one such attempt, god's gift to us. but then, of course, we'd have the sacrifice issue backwards, right? :P

i mean, granted, he seems to keep his promises and covenants, and i guess that's sort of the same thing. but what's he gonna do, punish himself?

Maybe that's why Christ came to earth.

i don't think that particular view makes much sense, personally. but this has been my crisis of faith for the last few years. i can't make christianity's foundation line up with judaism no matter how hard i try. but anyways, i suppose that's a separate great debate, right? feel free to weigh in on the atonement thread. mostly, i'm just bugging the hell out of iano, but i think the questions are legitimate in a devil's advocate kind of way.

I don;t know about that. Moses actually faced off against God and petitioned for Israel so that God would not destroy them all and start over.

well, moses seems to have had a special relationship with god. not all of us are prophets, and not all prophets are moses or david. but even then, i don't think he was accusing god -- he have lots of other examples of people convincing god to not do something they would be bad. for instance, abraham pleas for sodom to save lot.

i don't remember the specifics of the story offhand -- were they much different than that? i'll probably remember in the morning, too...

But I'm not accusing you of blasphemy, am I?

no, i don't think so, though some others could have. saying god does evil could be considered blasphemy, couldn't it? yet there it is in isaiah. i think the bible records a good many things that people consider blasphemy. read as accusations, there would be much we could accuse god of -- i had a pretty long list and i didn't get out of exodus.

so the question is -- are these thing evil because we think they are? is it blasphemy to say god did something we think is evil, or to say what god does is evil? or is it just our judgement that's the problem?

i think i opt for the last option.

Why were ten of the 613 commandments written by God's own finger on stone tablet's -- twice I might add?

(and different the second time)

i covered this recently in the aforemention atonement thread with iano. the 10 commandments are a covenant, and agreement -- a contract. it's modelled after an ancient suzerainty treaty. the larger, occupying power identifies itself, lists its graces, and then the terms that the smaller power must adhere to. it's very one sided.

so, the commandments identify god as the larger power, israel as the lesser. god brought them out of egypt, therefor israel owes god obedience to the law. god isn't held to it, just israel.

but look at a few of the laws. "no other gods before me." doesn't really apply to god, does it? can god worship another god before himself? doesn't make much sense, i think. how about "thou shalt not kill?" god kills all the time -- it's part of his job description. the point is that WE aren't supposed to take that authority without permission from god.

So you do admit that good and evil is a fundamental paradigm of the story -- although not an exclusive element of it?

good AND evil, and good FROM evil. but not good VS evil.

Yes but...

Did we ever have a choice in choosing?

Let me rephrse that. In order for something to truly be free, they have to have had the choice of whether they wanted to be free laid out before them.

Technically speaking, Adam and Eve were never given the choice of whether they wanted to make a choice in the first place -- since the choice was thrust upon them.

i think this kind of a like a "non-functional transitional species" argument. adam MUST have had a choice to start with, because he did not blindly obey god. he was presented with two influences; god who says "stay away" and a snake who says "god's wrong." those two options represent something similar to a choice.

i think much of this is really the path to true free will -- something which basically requires us to be on equal standing with god. i don't think we have that even today. but god's withdrawl or increasing impotence seems to be the cause.

anyways, i think we're mostly agreeing again.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 2:38 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 1:35 PM arachnophilia has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 55 of 102 (253075)
10-19-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
10-18-2005 3:52 AM


Re: bump
arachnophilia writes:

one short reply before i go to bed. you'll have to forgive the massive typos and grammatical errors i'm sure will be present, as i'm really really tired.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

One might note that prior to Adam and Eve partaking in the tree, they could see God in very tangible human forms. However, after that time, God appears with human qualities for only the most brief and stupendous of accasions.

Perhaps something changed after Adam and Eve knew good and evil like the unique one did. The text prior to the flood does seem to indicate that God's spirit in humanity was winding down so to speak.

arachnophilia writes:

i don't agree. god appears in tangible form more often post-flood and pre-flood, though most of these instances are in genesis (and one in exodus, if i recall). i am willing to say, however, that it is clear that god is withdrawing, and becoming less human in the eyes of the eyes of the authors, as the story progresses.

Ok. You say you don't agree -- but yet you do agree that it is clear that god is withdrawing, and becoming less human in the eyes of the eyes of the authors, as the story progresses.

Aside form the timing of the flood, what's the difference?

Let me rephrase that: Humanity is naked and unashamed with God in the beginning. Yet, by the time the flood stroy arrives, God is ready to utterly destroy the world and start over again with his "chosen people" -- ie., Noah and his family.

Something has definitely changed there -- and even though God does appear in the humanistic way like he did prior to Adam and Eve partaking in the tree, his appearance is still rather dramatic and usually a very fearful even traumatic experience for those who observe.

arachnophilia writes:

personally, i think it's some combination of the author's biases regarding patriarchal v. "modern" times, and god actually finding balance to allow the full extent of free will. kind of like the shallow end of the pool with waterwings vs. the deep end without when you're teaching a kid to swim.

Ok, fair enough for personal opinions -- but do you think this is what the Israelites believed?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

I'm not sure but he apparently does repent, so it is an interesting question as to who he has to repent to, if anyone.

arachnophilia writes:

well, he doesn't appear to be apologizing to us, at least in this instance. i think the word is just being used in a regret sense. strictly speaking, repenting is only feeling sorry and changing. it's only the colloquial usage that has to have an object to repent to.

Well, he does eventually remember Noah and his family. He does eventually stop the destruction that is "recreating" the world.

Mr. Ex nihilo writes:

There some passage which talk about a man being guilty of sin if he fails to warn and cover a pit, if I recall corectly.

arachnophilia writes:

same as neglecting a child.

But yet the Scriptures do say that God cares for his children -- so I'm not sure if neglecting a child would be a proper analogy in this sense.

Mr. Ex nihilo writes:

I realy thought hard about that one analogy before I presented it to you. I was praying that the Spirit open a door so that we could understand each other better. I think this analogy might have done it.

arachnophilia writes:

it brings up a question, though. my basic claim is that god can (and does) do "bad" that turns out good. here we have a scriptural example of god doing good, and it turning out bad. do you think my view is inconsistent with the fallible god of genesis? i don't think so, but i'm not sure. i'll think about it.

I think the initial pattern displayed in Genesis fairly well reads throughout the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah portrays God as a Father -- and the Scriptures seem to portray God as a parent from beginning to end doing his best to lead his children along the correct path.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Ok, so we also agree that God never does something that is just evil.

arachnophilia writes:

as a matter of faith, i don't believe he does. i suppose he COULD, but i trust that god is also a pretty nice guy.

And, as a matter of concensus, the Scriptures never do come out and state that God is outright evil -- even if they do describe the end result of his actions in that manner.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

If God is indeed a fair and good God, it seems reasonable that God would allow himself to be held accountable to us -- or at least seek some way to make amends.

arachnophilia writes:

well, i dunno about holding god accountable. it's not really our place.

And yet God does inded ask the Israelites to hold him accountable to his words. I sometimes wonder if their failures were more of a result to of them failing to act as his conscience by proxy at times.

arachnophilia writes:

but i do think parts of the bible contain something of a history of god's attempts to get through to, and make amends with man. it could be said that jesus was one such attempt, god's gift to us. but then, of course, we'd have the sacrifice issue backwards, right? :P

Maybe...and maybe not.

arachnophilia writes:

i mean, granted, he seems to keep his promises and covenants, and i guess that's sort of the same thing. but what's he gonna do, punish himself?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Maybe that's why Christ came to earth.

arachnophilia writes:

i don't think that particular view makes much sense, personally.

Why not?

arachnophilia writes:

but this has been my crisis of faith for the last few years. i can't make christianity's foundation line up with judaism no matter how hard i try. but anyways, i suppose that's a separate great debate, right? feel free to weigh in on the atonement thread. mostly, i'm just bugging the hell out of iano, but i think the questions are legitimate in a devil's advocate kind of way.

I'll read through the thread and see what's going on there.

arachnophilia writes:

I don't know about that. Moses actually faced off against God and petitioned for Israel so that God would not destroy them all and start over.

arachnophilia writes:

well, moses seems to have had a special relationship with god. not all of us are prophets, and not all prophets are moses or david. but even then, i don't think he was accusing god -- he have lots of other examples of people convincing god to not do something they would be bad. for instance, abraham pleas for sodom to save lot.

But yet that is another possible example of humanity being God's conscience by proxy. Or, perhaps restated, God trusting man to make the correct choices for him when led by his Spirit.

arachnophilia writes:

i don't remember the specifics of the story offhand -- were they much different than that? i'll probably remember in the morning, too...

Did you remember it?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

But I'm not accusing you of blasphemy, am I?

arachnophilia writes:

no, i don't think so, though some others could have.

BLASPHEMER!!!

just joking ;)

arachnophilia writes:

saying god does evil could be considered blasphemy, couldn't it? yet there it is in isaiah. i think the bible records a good many things that people consider blasphemy. read as accusations, there would be much we could accuse god of -- i had a pretty long list and i didn't get out of exodus.

so the question is -- are these thing evil because we think they are? is it blasphemy to say god did something we think is evil, or to say what god does is evil? or is it just our judgement that's the problem?

Well, I still think it's an issue of language at times.

arachnophilia writes:

i think i opt for the last option.

The ambiguousness of some statements could be read either way. I think the true test is validated when one is led by the Spirit to defend God from accusation.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Why were ten of the 613 commandments written by God's own finger on stone tablet's -- twice I might add?

arachnophilia writes:


(and different the second time)

i covered this recently in the aforemention atonement thread with iano. the 10 commandments are a covenant, and agreement -- a contract. it's modelled after an ancient suzerainty treaty. the larger, occupying power identifies itself, lists its graces, and then the terms that the smaller power must adhere to. it's very one sided.

so, the commandments identify god as the larger power, israel as the lesser. god brought them out of egypt, therefor israel owes god obedience to the law. god isn't held to it, just israel.

And yet some passages do state that God cannot lie.

Yes, but the commandments are usually divided into two -- our duties to God and our duties to man. I agree that God cannot break the commandments which are related to our duty to him -- because God is the embodiment of these commandments:

Depending on how you break them down (and I'm not looking to argue about how one breaks down The Ten), one could note the following:

1: He is our God
2: He is our Image
3: He is our Sabbath

Therefore, God cannot break these commandments because he is these commandments.

When one looks at the duties toward man, one can note some examples:

1: Do not murder
2: Do not commit adultery
3: Do not steal

Now, interestingly enough, I don't recall God ever doing these things. I do see God apparently controlling the events which lead to these things, and I do see God allowing unclean spirits to do these things, but I do not see God coming down and directly doing these things to people himself.

My personal opinion is that God embodies these commandments as well:

1: God is everlasting life
2: God is our husband
3: God is the giver of all things

arachnophilia writes:

how about "thou shalt not kill?" god kills all the time --

Could you point out a passage of Scripture which actually says that God himself came down and killed someone?

arachnophilia writes:

it's part of his job description. the point is that WE aren't supposed to take that authority without permission from god.

I agree -- yet I've never seen a passage where God directly broke a commandment. In all cases, an angel or a person or nature is apparently causing these things according to God's will.

Again I will note the motion of the Spirit of the Lord -- going against it causes suffering -- even though God is apparnetly attempting to do good.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

So you do admit that good and evil is a fundamental paradigm of the story -- although not an exclusive element of it?

arachnophilia writes:

good AND evil, and good FROM evil. but not good VS evil.

What about evil coming from good?

Mr. Ex nihilo writes:

Yes but...

Did we ever have a choice in choosing?

Let me rephrse that. In order for something to truly be free, they have to have had the choice of whether they wanted to be free laid out before them.

Technically speaking, Adam and Eve were never given the choice of whether they wanted to make a choice in the first place -- since the choice was thrust upon them.

arachnophilia writes:

i think this kind of a like a "non-functional transitional species" argument. adam MUST have had a choice to start with, because he did not blindly obey god. he was presented with two influences; god who says "stay away" and a snake who says "god's wrong." those two options represent something similar to a choice.

i think much of this is really the path to true free will -- something which basically requires us to be on equal standing with god. i don't think we have that even today. but god's withdrawl or increasing impotence seems to be the cause.

I think you might be missing my point. I agree that Adam and Eve had a choice. But did they have a choice in choosing?

Let me rephrase it from a totally different perspective: The choice was apparently thrust upon Adam and Eve -- they never had a choice as to whether they actually wanted to choose in the first place

God however, being a supposedly everlasting, self-existant and unchanging being (who already knows the future I might add), most likely didn't have a choice as far as I'm able to determine.

Therefore, for Adam and Eve to have truly been like God, they would have had to have been in a position where "no choice" was even present -- and yet their eating from the tree apparently did not produce this result.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

arachnophilia writes:

anyways, i think we're mostly agreeing again.

Mostly.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-19-2005 01:40 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 3:52 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 10:37 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 102 (253558)
10-20-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-19-2005 1:35 PM


Re: bump
Ok. You say you don't agree -- but yet you do agree that it is clear that god is withdrawing, and becoming less human in the eyes of the eyes of the authors, as the story progresses.

Aside form the timing of the flood, what's the difference?

that's pretty much it.

Let me rephrase that: Humanity is naked and unashamed with God in the beginning. Yet, by the time the flood stroy arrives, God is ready to utterly destroy the world and start over again with his "chosen people" -- ie., Noah and his family.

Something has definitely changed there -- and even though God does appear in the humanistic way like he did prior to Adam and Eve partaking in the tree, his appearance is still rather dramatic and usually a very fearful even traumatic experience for those who observe.

yeah, but he's still THERE. change in how acts may be one thing, but it's not a withdawl.

Ok, fair enough for personal opinions -- but do you think this is what the Israelites believed?

no, that's why i said personally. it's a trend i've noticed in literature -- the same trend that seems to be the major point of julian jaynes' "origin of concious... etc" which we were talking about in chat the other day.

for some reason, people all over the world tend to view man as withdrawing from god or vice versa. i think what the hebrews thought is evident from the text: god must have been around before, but he's not now because we're doing bad things.

Mr. Ex nihilo writes:

There some passage which talk about a man being guilty of sin if he fails to warn and cover a pit, if I recall corectly.

arachnophilia writes:

same as neglecting a child.

But yet the Scriptures do say that God cares for his children -- so I'm not sure if neglecting a child would be a proper analogy in this sense.

err, no that's not what i meant. sorry. of course god cares for his children. lilies of the field, etc. what i meant is that neglecting a child is a crime, same as failing to cover a pit someone might fall into. neglect is not really ignorance, but not doing something that SHOULD be done.

in which case, of course, ignorance can't be an excuse. "oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize i had to feed my children" probably doesn't fly in court.

arachnophilia writes:

it brings up a question, though. my basic claim is that god can (and does) do "bad" that turns out good. here we have a scriptural example of god doing good, and it turning out bad. do you think my view is inconsistent with the fallible god of genesis? i don't think so, but i'm not sure. i'll think about it.

I think the initial pattern displayed in Genesis fairly well reads throughout the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah portrays God as a Father -- and the Scriptures seem to portray God as a parent from beginning to end doing his best to lead his children along the correct path.

well, the question is really about the fallibility of god. is god fallible? the bible seems to say he is, at least in genesis. is the idea that if god does "bad" then it's really good inconsistent with that?

anyways, about the withdrawl. as a parent, a certain level of withdrawl is needed. if you baby your kids for their entire lives, they'll never grow up. i think that's what's going on. but if abscence of god = evil, then is this action evil?

And, as a matter of concensus, the Scriptures never do come out and state that God is outright evil -- even if they do describe the end result of his actions in that manner.

no, they don't. what would be the point if they did? it's a book in favor of god, really. and calling him out is kind of like tugging on superman's cape -- he may be a good guy, but it's still a bad idea.

And yet God does inded ask the Israelites to hold him accountable to his words. I sometimes wonder if their failures were more of a result to of them failing to act as his conscience by proxy at times.

arachnophilia writes:

i mean, granted, he seems to keep his promises and covenants, and i guess that's sort of the same thing. but what's he gonna do, punish himself?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Maybe that's why Christ came to earth.

arachnophilia writes:

i don't think that particular view makes much sense, personally.

Why not?

i don't think here's the place to get into -- but feel free to jump into the atonement thread. although, be warned, i'm playing devil's advocate there.

i think the second half of that view would be consistent with the bible, yes. where does god ask them to hold him accountable?

arachnophilia writes:

i don't remember the specifics of the story offhand -- were they much different than that? i'll probably remember in the morning, too...

Did you remember it?

i think so. are you talking abotu exodus 33, just after the golden calf, just before the second set of ten commandments, where moses asks to SEE god?

was god going to destroy israel? he punished them with a plague, i see. it's been half a year since i last read exodus...

Well, I still think it's an issue of language at times.

arachnophilia writes:

i think i opt for the last option.

The ambiguousness of some statements could be read either way.

this is sort of the reason i'm trying to learn hebrew. it'll help me sort out the language issues. when something's ambiguous, i'd like to know the hebrew connotations and the intracies of how the words are used.

And yet some passages do state that God cannot lie.

they do, but it's an ambiguous issue. technically, god does use lies (see the lying spirit thing) and god does say a thing or two that doesn't happen, like in eden. but there it's more of god not going through with the punishment he said he would. i dunno if we'd call that a "lie" as much as "generosity."

Yes, but the commandments are usually divided into two -- our duties to God and our duties to man. I agree that God cannot break the commandments which are related to our duty to him -- because God is the embodiment of these commandments:

Depending on how you break them down (and I'm not looking to argue about how one breaks down The Ten), one could note the following:

1: He is our God
2: He is our Image
3: He is our Sabbath

Therefore, God cannot break these commandments because he is these commandments.

well, yeah. they just don't even apply.

Could you point out a passage of Scripture which actually says that God himself came down and killed someone?

here's a good one:

quote:
2Sa 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

1Ch 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.


arachnophilia writes:

it's part of his job description. the point is that WE aren't supposed to take that authority without permission from god.

I agree -- yet I've never seen a passage where God directly broke a commandment. In all cases, an angel or a person or nature is apparently causing these things according to God's will.

is't a big difference? if it's god's will, it's god's will. (also, i think bab-el could loosely be described as coveting, but that's debatable)

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

So you do admit that good and evil is a fundamental paradigm of the story -- although not an exclusive element of it?

arachnophilia writes:

good AND evil, and good FROM evil. but not good VS evil.

What about evil coming from good?

hopefully that doesn't happen, but as we talked about it seems to. the idea of it is that there is some greater good, and that all evils no matter how large are contained within it. strictly philosophical, though -- i don't think the bible makes a lot of comment on it.

just the verses we've been discussing.

I think you might be missing my point. I agree that Adam and Eve had a choice. But did they have a choice in choosing?

Let me rephrase it from a totally different perspective: The choice was apparently thrust upon Adam and Eve -- they never had a choice as to whether they actually wanted to choose in the first place

how do you ask someone if they want to choose, though? even if they say no, they just made a choice. it's kind of a logical absurdity.

but it had to start somewhere -- and i don't really think the ancient hebrews thought about it in that way at all.

God however, being a supposedly everlasting, self-existant and unchanging being (who already knows the future I might add), most likely didn't have a choice as far as I'm able to determine.

Therefore, for Adam and Eve to have truly been like God, they would have had to have been in a position where "no choice" was even present -- and yet their eating from the tree apparently did not produce this result.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

no, not really. is it important to the topic?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 1:35 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-21-2005 2:36 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 63 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-27-2005 2:57 AM arachnophilia has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 57 of 102 (253591)
10-21-2005 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by arachnophilia
10-20-2005 10:37 PM


Re: bump
I started to cut and paste and then I said to myself, "Gah! It's 3:38 in the morning!"

I'll edit this post tomorrow and respond then. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 10:37 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 10-21-2005 7:06 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 102 (253849)
10-21-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-21-2005 2:36 AM


Re: bump
no rush. i've been known to do that too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-21-2005 2:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-22-2005 2:39 AM arachnophilia has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 3932 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 59 of 102 (253941)
10-22-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
10-21-2005 7:06 PM


Re: bump
thanks.

It's 3:42 in the morning tonight. *yawn*

I just got done with a mega-post in another thread. I'll try to respond tomorrow. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 10-21-2005 7:06 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2005 5:55 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 102 (254126)
10-23-2005 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-22-2005 2:39 AM


Re: bump
take your time. hurricane wilma's gonna be here somewhat soon, and it might knock out our power grid for a while. i just hope that it's not as long as the week of darkness frances brought.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-22-2005 2:39 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-26-2005 2:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017