Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Debate
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 102 (238700)
08-30-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
08-30-2005 2:45 PM


Re: bump
Why did this surprise you?
because you've disagreed with just about every other step of my logic... surely i expected to have to demonstrate that from scripture, at the very least.
What exactly is your position? I've gone into lengthy detail about my own view. Could you at least present some idea on what you think might be the case according to the Scriptures?
to be totally honest, i'm not exactly sure. i think the position of scripture is that there is no real objective moral evil, because nothing can really be against god except by his will. but that all evils (plural) are created to allow us valid choice. so that would lead me to believe that god in essence created Evil capital e, as well as Good, with the intent of allow human free will.
this is somewhat analagous to god not being omni-present to allow for things like faith.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 08-30-2005 2:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 09-01-2005 4:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 40 of 102 (248643)
10-03-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-03-2005 10:00 AM


Re: Computer's Back
Everything ok there arachnophilia?
yeah, just been really busy with school lately. i'll try to reply shortly, though not tonight -- i've got a class in half an hour, and then an art project to finish and a hebrew assignment to write when i get home.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-03-2005 10:00 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 41 of 102 (250222)
10-09-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
09-01-2005 4:54 PM


Re: bump
I have demonstrated from Scripture my own views many times in this thread. We do disagree in some areas. However, we have agreed on a number of key points too.
ok, let me just run over those, as i've been a bit out of it lately, busy with school and whatnot.
we agree that:
  1. god does good and evil, speaks good and evil.
  2. evil is subjective, and depends on the recipient not god or objective moral standards
  3. god is in control of all things, including (all) evils
but as of right now, we do no agree that:
  1. god is the original source of evil
Yes, I understand your position. But ultimately where does evil come from, where is its source according to the Scriptures -- God or man?
well, this is kind of the debate. and i think we might actually be at the end of it, too. because i think we might agree here too, somewhat. like i said, i don't think the bible presents a view of an objective evil against god, but that it means a more relative kind of evil.
but i'd like to point out that this point is fundamentally moot. if the source is man, and god is responsible for man, then the ultimate origin of evil lies with god, doesn't it? now, i don't mean to somehow conflate man's misdeeds with actions of god, i'm simply saying that if god is omniscient, and knew man would be evil in some respect, yet created us anyways, then god bears some responsibility there.
so maybe a good question is whether or not the god of the bible is omniscient. i don't suspect he is. but anyways -- according to scriptures, the origin does in fact have to be with god. i won't quote genesis 2 and 3 back at you, i know you've read them. but the tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed in the garden of eden by god (not man) and granted man something godly.
so the premise here is that god knows both good and evil, and the first conclusion we must reach is that both good and evil therefor exist at this point. so we have two choices: either there is an objective moral evil that god is not responsible for (say, another god, that god did not create) or evil is merely a condition of creation. we've already ruled out the first option, and the option of man creating evil is not allowed be contraints of the premise. he just hasn't been around long enough.
the only remaining option, the one that evil is just a condition of existance, is entirely consistent with the subjectivity we've been discussing. at least, i think so.
Do you feel that God created the "potential" for evil to happen -- or do feel that he created the universe so that there was "inevitable" that evil would indeed happen?
i'm not sure. does it make a difference, really?
The Scripture do quite plainly state that God is good -- GOD IS GOOD. Yet it never says that God is evil.
The Scriptures also say that light dwells in God -- LIGHT DWELLS IN GOD. Yet it never says that darkness dwells in God.
does subjective evil rule out objective good? i know we've talked before about subjective evils being used for objective good purposes, in a kind of sacrificial way. the way i believe personally is that god is indeed good, even when doing things we might call "evil."
Let me put this another way -- when it says that God is "holy", what do you think the Scriptures mean? We both know that "holy" means to be "set apart" -- but what do you think that God is set apart from?
Edit for clarificatoin: I believe that the Hebrew's concept of God's holiness was intricately linked with their concept of God being inately good -- that is, that God was "set apart" from evil. I suspect that many of the "holy items" they used were viewed as intimately good by virtue of their ordination from God himself -- they were seen as a visible sign of his holiness.
If I'm understanding your position correctly, I think you believe that the Hebrew's concept of God's holiness was intricately linked with a concept of God being above judgement -- that is, that God's actions were "set apart" from human comdemnation. I suspect that, in this sense, you believe that good and evil were used arbitrarilly insomuch that one could relatively define good and evil -- that the concepts were spuriously used in juxtaposition to the whims and fancies of the Israelites themselves.
that's sort of it, i think. i think the holiness idea was really about a concept of god being fundamentally not human. genesis seems to be about god's commonality with us, and exodus seems to reflect the idea that god is also very different. in one book, god talks to and wrestles with mankind. in the other, mankind has to be kept at a safe distance.
i don't profess to totally understand the hebrew position on holiness. for instance, it's said that holy books make the hands dirty -- the hebrews that were debating over canonization of the tanakh would have to wash their hands in a cleansing ritual after reading the scrolls. the bits that were holy made them dirty, not vice-versa.
but i can tell you that "holiness" probably has more to do with ritual cleanliness than anything else.
Consequently, I think the later view (your view?) was exactly where many of the Israelites fell "off the mark" in the past. In this sense, as God's chosen people, some would seem to believe themselves as being above reproach simply because they were God's chosen people.
which is evidentally not the case. or at least the position of the bible. it does seem to be an axiom of the jewish faith that they can't, say, screw up "salvation" in their sense. they're god's people, what do they need to be saved from in the first place? but i think the mistake is to translate that as "above reproach." no one is above reproach, except of course god. and god, like any good parent, punishes his children when they need discipline.
Their own "holiness" was oftentimes linked with their ability to do good in God's eyes -- therefore staying under his watchful protection. When they collectively failed to do God's will on a large scale, the ramifications were often horrific to behold.
or at least not break any major rules. i think it's wrong to frame it in terms of good. it's when they do "evil in the sight of the lord." it's when they make an egregious trespass, hurting god in some respect. generally, it's when they forget god, and go off to follow other gods -- almost everytime you see this line of logic, it's basically because israel has been cheating.
here's a question though. does a subjective view of evil become objective because the view is that of god's?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 09-01-2005 4:54 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-09-2005 11:58 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 48 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 12:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 102 (250223)
10-09-2005 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
09-03-2005 7:45 PM


Re: Finer Details
You seem to be mixing up the concept of measuring "time" with the concept of mixing up "value".
The concept of "day" and "night" comprise one 24 hour day -- but "light" and "dark" do not comprise one of anything in the Scriptures.
they are often used ing conjunction, though, as parallels, like day and night. they are also often used as synonyms for day and night, so the application is totally acceptable.
Furthermore, a 24 hour day in certain parts of the world can and do often comprise entirely of daylight or else entirely of evening -- such as in the extreme poles of the earth. A 24 hour day can be solely one or the other -- and neither is required to measure the 24 hour time frame.
as far as i know, the hebrews did not live anywhere close to either pole at the time the bible was written.
Alright, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with this logic then. If man if created in the image of God, and man is naive to evil, does this also mean that God is naive to evil?
i don't think it's acceptable to read "in the image of god" as "exactly like god." they evidently are not. (besides, this bit's from the other creation story -- don't expect it to fit perfectly).
God, for example, is apparently looking for Adam and Eve after they partake in the tree. Certainly, if God indeed knows all things, he shouldn't have been surprised by this, correct?
God, likewise, is apparently surprised by Adams' loneliness. Again, certainly, if God indeed knows all things, he shouldn't have been surprised by this, correct?
if god does indeed know all things. i'm not totally sure the god of genesis does -- but i think that's just the way he's presented there: more like us.
Some would say that God was testing them, giving them the chance to confess so to speak. Others would say that God indeed didn't "know evil" until he discovered it.
i think the first is far more likely. it doesn't seem that god is unaware of evil, rather that he creates a tree called "knowledge of good and evil" that makes man like god. knowing evil is part of that. but i think my view of the text as a whole -- that it tries to present god in human terms -- is probably the most accurate.
For the record, the Scriptures do sometimes make statments which seem to indicate that God can possibly be caught off gaurd.
For example, Jeremiah speaks as follows:
NIV writes:
Why are you like a man taken by surprise,
like a warrior powerless to save?
You are among us, O LORD,
and we bear your name;
do not forsake us!
Admittedly, I suspect that this passsage is more used in a metephorical sense. However, bearing in mind the passages in the earliest chapters of the Genesis account, the Scriptures do seem to indicate that God can indeed be caught off gaurd.
well, let's look at that statement for a second. is god a warrior powerless to save? do you think he was caught off gaurd?
If God indeed cannot look upon sin (cf. is naive to evil), then many parts of the Scriptures would make sense.
well, i've already pointed out numerous occasions where it would not make sense. in fact, i don't think very much of it would make sense at all. how do you explain god punishing people for any sin? how do you explain the exile? how do you explain how every king of israel (as opposed to judah) did "evil in the sight of the lord?"
Who said the universe is naturally evil?
you did.
god creates from the deep, symbolic chaos = evil. so prior to god's intervention, and without god's intervention, the universe is naturally evil. it takes the supernatural good to do otherwise. that's what this particular position boils down to. and i don't think that's a strawman, just a logical conclusion.
you can probably see why i don't agree.
I think the Scriptures indicate over and over again that the creation, while in pain, is still fundamentally good - just as God ordained it.
god's creation is fundamentally good, yes. god says so a number of times. but what about before he did anything?
Again, you seem to be invoking a dualism that, in my opinion, the Scriptures do not actually argue for.
i'm not, really. i don't think the bible represents a dualism at all. i was just carrying that particular premise to its logical end. if god is good, and only god is god is good, then all else must have been initially evil, and revert to evil without his presence.
i don't feel this is the case, and i suspect you don't either.
They can. If all teams join together and play on the same team, there will be no more opposing teams to be rivals against. In this instance everyone wins and nobody loses.
that's not winning. that's defaulting.
I certainly think that there were minor strains of Jewish thought which sought to exalt their own Jewish identity above the Lord they worshipped -- but I'm fairly sure that God's ultimate purpose went way above the "primitive" ideas of "good guys" and "bad guys".
i'm sure. that takes us back to the verse that started this. god decides.
Yes, but creation can be like a mirror which reflects God's goodness. In all honestly, creation appears to be basically neutral, altough it leans in its Creators direction.
i agree here. i do not think creation is good, nor do i think it's evil. but to be truly neutral and subjective, both sides must exist, right?
arachnophilia writes:
logic does not side with maimonides.
Sure it does.
well, let's look at this discussion again. you wrote originally that:
quote:
In other words, in Maimonides' view, since God is totally "set apart", he also needs to be something "distinct from creation itself".
to which i replied that it was inconsistent for maimonides to say god was thoroughly good, and totally unlike his creation, which was also thoroughly good. in your view, abscence of god = evil. so if god were to disappear, creation would be evil, would it not?
therefore the natural tendency of creation, according to you, is evil. which makes it not thoroughly good. even if evil merely exists, creation is not thoroughly good.
i think we basically agree that the universe is generally neutral, although i suspect we're using the word in different ways.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 09-03-2005 7:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 102 (251617)
10-13-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-09-2005 11:58 PM


Re: bump
I still think God does only good. However, I think that he speaks to humans on a level that they can understand. Therefore, if he calls the end results of his actions "evil", it's seems to me more the case that he's simply using a phrase that others will immediately grasp.
i think it's the other way around. it's people ascribing human qualities to god.
Even in the case of someone "repenting", like God apparently did with his creating of humanity during the flood, this doesn't necessarilly imply that God sinned. Repentance, in it's most basic sense, simply means to turn 180 degrees from what you were formerly doing. In others words, one can still be left feeling guilt even for doing good if the good that you started eventually becomes corrupt.
yes, and no. to say that god sinned is a little more than to say god made a mistake (which god himself will say he did, ala the passage you refered to). 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.
therefore, god cannot sin, even if he can do things we call evil, and even if he can do things he calls mistakes.
Yes and no.
I think, technically speaking, the subjective value of good and evil is intimately related to the people God is apparently speaking to. As I said above, I think that he speaks to humans on a level that they can understand. In this sense it's a question of language.
sure, it probably is. i agree here. but it's this subjectivity that is the basis for the first point (i really should have put them the other way around). since the language is in question, and what we call evil is subjective, it can besaid that god does evil and speaks evil.
this "evil" may well be good from the eyes of god, or someone who speaks for god:
However, if you are still suggesting that God can do evil, as I noted above, the Israelites unquestionably believed that God is good. The evil part is what we are still debating.
the idea being that even when god does something someone might consider evil, there is a good purpose behind it.
There is no question about this one. We agree.
However, I would like to note that, similar to your street analogy used earlier, doing evil is like going down the wrong way of a one-way street.
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.
ok, agreed.
It was almost kind of rambling.
sorry, i do that.
If you're really busy right now arach, take a break and let me know when you've got time to come back and realy focus on this debate. I'd rather talk with a very focussed arachnophilia, because I think we can learn a lot more from each other then.
i'll be ok.
the sum of the argument is that evil existed before man, and god knew good and evil before man did. i think this "knowing good and evil" bit is, as holmes put it, divine judgement -- it's us making those specific subjective quality judgements we've been talking about. it's use choosing what to call good, and what to call evil.
the other point is that for the things we call evil, or if some objective evil DOES exist, god has to be responsible for it if he's omniscient.
shall we proceed from one of these two points?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-13-2005 10:48 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-09-2005 11:58 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-16-2005 8:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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 replied

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

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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?
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.[/edit] 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/...ardi_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 replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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 replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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?
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 replied

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

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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 replied

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

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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 replied

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

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
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 replied

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

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 66 of 102 (255508)
10-29-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-26-2005 2:20 AM


hurricane wilma -- i'm still alive
Everything ok down there?
i don't have long to reply right now, i'm at an internet cafe in orlando/kissimmee. i'm up here for a wedding at the moment, but i suspect that i will probably still not have power when i get back down home.
everything's ok, yes. we lost a few trees and some fence. everyone with a screen enclosure no longer has one. one of the trees in the front yard came down and took up a water main, so we were without the ability to flush toilets for a while. but other than that, we escaped pretty much unscathed.
it'll probably be a little while before i can get to the debate again; i'm really just on now to update people, let them know i'm ok and whatnot.
I might be stepping out of the debate arach. I'm not sure but I think that I was warned in another thread by a mod about my posts being too long. If I can't really express my full thoughts on the matter, then I'm not really interested in persuing this.
well, unless the mods say someting in here then i'm not really concerned about length.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-29-2005 05:22 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-26-2005 2:20 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 6:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 102 (256291)
11-02-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by love4oneanother
10-30-2005 12:58 AM


wrong place
hi, welcome to evc. since nobody's officially mentioned it to you yet, this is a "great debate" which means it's me, mr. ex, and the moderators -- and nobody else.
i think you'll find it kind of moot anyways:
This verse has been badly translated from the Hebrew text.
if you go back to this post on page 4, you will kindly note that i, myself, have re-translated the verse from the masoretic hebrew. i'm not personally fluent, yet -- but this was an easy one. it's a very, very straightforward translation.
God brings calamity into our lives as the inevitable consequences of the sin that is committed.
this is essentially the bit that mr. ex and i are debating. i won't actually comment further on this, because it's not the place.
anyways, again, welcome to evc.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by love4oneanother, posted 10-30-2005 12:58 AM love4oneanother has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 78 of 102 (256292)
11-02-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-29-2005 6:42 PM


Re: hurricane wilma -- i'm still alive
arach writes:
it'll probably be a little while before i can get to the debate again; i'm really just on now to update people, let them know i'm ok and whatnot.
No problem.
can't spend too much time right now. mooching internet from a friend with electricity, don't wanna overstay my welcome. i'll get back to the debate when i have electricity and internet again, which might be a while.
so far, it's been 9 days. it looks like the cable is down in the backyard, so even when we get electricity, it might be a while before my cable (isp) is working.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-29-2005 6:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024