Confession of a former christian

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

There is no violation, only seperation of state and religion, and this comes from the OT.

---

Incorrect. The very first commandment: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.But the First Amendment directly contradicts that: You can have whatever god you want.And I think you are confused about what "the law" is. "The law" is the word of god telling Jews how to behave. That is, by definition, the equivalency of church and state.If your law comes from god, if your law tells you how to engage in religious activities, then it can never be claimed to be "separation."

quote:

---

There are no laws in the NT

---

(*chuckle*)Except for those that Jesus and Paul came up with.The law from the OT says you're supposed to be circumcised. Paul said you don't have to be.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Have you forgotten Isaac?

---

​

It says 'offer', not sacrifice, and this was stopped.

---

Irrelevant. If human sacrifice was never supposed to happen, then Abraham would never have taken Isaac up the mountain. The fact that it was stopped doesn't change the fact that god demanded it of Abraham and he obeyed.

quote:

---

Human sacrifice is forbidden in the OT.

---

What part of Jephthah sacrificing his own daughter to god makes us conclude it wasn't human sacrifice? Jephtah's daughter wasn't human?

quote:

---

That King made an error by swearing to God, when sacrifice was forbidden.

---

Incorrect. Jephthah did exactly what was required: Pray to god and sacrifice to god. That's what Cain and Abel were doing. That's why Cain killed his brother: God didn't like Cain's sacrifice.Jephthah prayed to god for victory and promised to sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house.It turned out to be his daughter.So he did what god demanded and sacrificed her.

quote:

---

This relates to spoils of war, not human sacrifice.

---

Incorrect. It refers to the people.

quote:

---

In fact, even animal sacrifice was forbidden as an anullment of sins and crimes.

---

Incorrect. The law provides very specific animal sacrifices for the expiation of sin. Leviticus 3 tells us how to carry out the animal sacrifices depending upon the type of animal being sacrificed. Not specific enough? Leviticus 5 is all about sin offerings, starting with the choice of a ewe, lamb, or kid. If you can't get one of those, then two turtledoves or two young pigeons can be substituted. And if you can't get that, then you can use flour.Leviticus 6 is also about sin offerings, for which the sacrifice is of a ram.Leviticus 7 is about trespass offerings. Kill any random animal and burn it.And just in case it isn't hammered home enough, we get the wonderful description of Moses doing exactly what god told him to do: So if Moses is killing animals for sin offerings, one wonders why you think it is forbidden.

quote:

---

and this ceased when the temple fell, ending humanity's tradition of this act.

---

Incorrect.Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Hmm...perhaps that's why you're so cranky: The world did end and this is hell.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

We keep spinning the merry-go-round, iano.Let's try again, shall we?Does god have free will?If so, and if god can always choose good even though he has free will, then why not everything else?But regardless of god's free will or lack thereof, if god can only do good, then how is creating a system that necessarily results in evil "good"?

quote:

---

1) See definition of evil.

---

See rebuttal.

quote:

---

2) See note on our different view on freewill.

---

See rebuttal.

quote:

---

3) See defintion of good.

---

See rebuttal.

quote:

---

4)/5) It can be Gods will to create beings who can freely act against his will. But we're stuck on the issue of free will.

---

See rebuttal.So far, all you've done is repeat the points I've refuted. Please come up with something original.

quote:

---

We know good and evil in our choices. They didn't before they made it.

---

Therefore, by definition, they didn't sin.Sin requires knowledge of good and evil. If you don't know good and evil, you are constitutionally incapable of sinning. That's why nobody seemed to mind about all the other sins Adam and Eve were committing. Even they had the decency to be ashamed about those other sins when they got around to eating from the tree of knowledge. In fact, the very first thing they panic about is not eating from the tree but rather the other sin they were committing.

quote:

---

Thus evil according to definition.

---

See rebuttal.Can you come up with something original, please?

quote:

---

They didn't need to be able to make moral choices in order to choose against his will

---

You do realize you just said that they don't need to be able to choose in order to be able to make a choice, yes?Either they can choose, and thus the tree of knowledge is a lie (compounding the lie that god told them about what it did), or they can't choose, and thus they didn't sin.

quote:

---

Evil is doing what God wills not.

---

See rebuttal.Can you come up with something original, please?

quote:

---

Remember (1): How sinning?

---

What's the first thing they panic over? What is the last sentence of Genesis 2?

quote:

---

Remember (2) A knowledge of good and evil is something that seeps in gradually?

---

Huh? What is this "gradually"? It comes on them suddenly (Gen 3:7).

quote:

---

They had temporal life - which, going on one second at a time forever is not eternal life.

---

I never said that. I said they were going to die. That's what the tree of life was for. Imagine the panic of god if they had eaten from that one first.

quote:

---

The tree of life could be seen as offering eternal life.

---

That's not what the text says. God panics over the possibility that they would eat of it. Imagine the hissy fit if they had managed to do so.

quote:

---

Care to point out the morality in her understanding of this prohibition?

---

Irrelevant. This is about Adam and Eve, not god.They hadn't eaten from the tree, therefore they were constitutionally incapable of understanding good and evil and therefore were incapable of sinning.That's why god didn't care about all the other sins they were committing.

quote:

---

I'll leave out repeating the same points

---

(*chuckle*)Your entire response was nothing but re-iteration of the same rebutted points.Can you come up with something original, please?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

But regardless of god's free will or lack thereof, if god can only do good, then how is creating a system that necessarily results in evil "good"?

---

By affording a contrast of the two - else we cannot differentiate between the two. Hot is not hot w/o cold. If this factor was not the foundation matrix, why issue laws, and how come humans inherently know the difference between good and bad, and hot and cold?

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

No 'alphabtical' writings. Picture writings can be seen much before greece existed, like in the pyramids. The OT marks the first alphabetical books.

---

Incorrect.Greek, in fact, has had multiple alphabets over the years. The oldest one we know is "Linear B." Then there's "Linear A," which is similary, but distinct.An example of Linear B:We still haven't been able to translate Linear A.Linear B and A were from around the 13th century, BCE and died out.Another script is the Cypriot syllabary from about the 11th century, BCE. It, too, died out.The Cypriot syllabary is considered to be descended from Linear A.The Greek alphabet as we can trace it to modern times was developed around the 9th/8th centuries BCE.It is, in fact, the oldest alphabetic script in the world that is still used. It is descended from the Phonecian alphabet.Hebrew can also be traced back to Phonecian, but it dates from the 2nd century, BCE.Thus, Greek is nearly 1000 years older than Hebrew.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

By affording a contrast of the two - else we cannot differentiate between the two.

---

Incorrect. I don't need to experience something in order to know it is evil. I have never murdered someone. I don't need to murder someone to know that it is bad.

quote:

---

how come humans inherently know the difference between good and bad, and hot and cold?

---

Well, if one goes along with the Bible, it is because we are descended from Adam and Eve who ate from the tree of knowledge and became as gods, knowing good and evil.According to your holy book, it's built-in.But, this doesn't answer the question: Just because one has the capability of choosing evil doesn't mean that he ever does or will.If god can do it, why can't god create others who can do it?Or are you saying god doesn't have free will?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Knock, knock!Is there a problem having no follow-up or transit books between 13C BCE and 300 BCE? I say, knock-knock, because no such problem is seen in the OT Hebrew writings: at least two copious prophetic alphabetial books per 100 years! That's an anomoly. It becomes compunded when we know that all those nations supposedly having alphabetical writings, prevailed upto a 1000 years AFTER Israel emerged! Eg. Phonecia was still an active, mighty nation till 2500 years ago - yet no alphabetical books!?I humbly reject your evidence - and would be more convinced with some actual alphabetical greek writings pre-300 BCE, the date they translated the OT to Greek. Shocking that this is not available: Greek was a mighty empire which conquered the world and had access to many cultures and nations; they even built a vast Library in Alexander - so there is no excuse here for the vacancy. FYI, there are no alphabetical books any other place too - perhaps being the reason you cannot come up with greek alphabeticals?I find the OT writings the most historically vindicated among all narratives, having more scientific back-up proof of its verses than any other. Now I see no motive here for the book of Exodus to include in its texts, that the ancient Hebrews entered canaan with five alphabetical books already in hand: I mean, there was no agenda here to impress with writings, but a belief only, and this verse is an incidental stray one. Add to this factor that except for some stray alphabets which are said to look similar to Hebrew [prototypes], we have not a single canaanite or phonecian alphabetical book. How do you account for it? And we now know that canaanite alphabeticals predate the phoenecian. I reject on historical basis that the canaanites had an alphabetical writing before Abraham came here - because then there would be no reason for it not having a vast or any measure of alphabetical books: we have not one. And if canaanites spoke Hebrew before Abraham or the Israelites - then for sure ancient Egypt would have also - these were sister nations.I use this factor to show that Hebrew predates the canaanite alphabeticals, which contradicts with the widespread historical portrayal. But we know that almost every historical/archeological critic of Israel's history has mud on his face. We also know, there are no canaanite, sumerian, phoenecian or any other alphabetical books ever found.Although we have no hard copy alphabetical books of the hebrew of that period - we have irrefutable evidence of hebrew alphabetical writings 3000 years old, and this is vested in absolutely vindicated historical data which is authentically contemporary of its space times. From one view, it appears Hebrew appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state, there is no equivalence in Ur - where Abraham hailed from, even as this was one of the mostadvanced cultures of that world; thus I use the term 'sudden' here. Hebrew is an enigma; it is the only language to be resurrected after a 2000 year domancy [the other max is 120 years]. There is no positive, evolutionary thread here - the prototype alphabets are wanting, because they do not yield an evolutionary thread of gradual outputs.It has been suggested the Hebrew language escaped the diffusion of the Babel languages [some groups of early humans were not involved in that episode], and it remains closest to the first Edenite language.

I'm game if you are..- If free will involves being able to choose against Gods will then clearly God has not got a free will so assembled. You might want to ask an "if not.." question in that case.- I don't agree you've refuted anything. See various rebuttals- Not correct.

quote:

---

Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

---

You don't need to know it is wrong to disobey God in order to sin. You only need to know a) what Gods will is b) deliberately choose to disobey it.- I didn't say anything of the sort. The above definition of sin should make things clearer. Not all choices are moral choices - they can be consequential choices too. Without a knowledge of good and evil, moral choices were out for Adam and Eve. But not consequential choices.Consequential choices can lead to sin if they involve the aspects demanded by the definition of sin.- The last sentence of Gen 2 is:

quote:

---

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

---

Did you see the definition of sin above? The word deliberate is involved. Could you point out deliberateness in their nakedness in Genesis 2? If not deliberately disobeying Gods expressed will then they are not sinning.After eating the forbidden fruit they find themselves standing on a hot tin roof of nakedness. Apparently, Gods will is that they not be naked and they immmediately seek to conform to his will. Which is not to say they were sinning in being uncovered - given that there was no deliberateness in their disobedience in the matter of nakednessThis is a good illustration of why the law was given, however. By having the law at your disposal (God's will, made known in writing or better still delivered direct to your door through conscience) you can act deliberately in your disobedience, rendering your choices sinful. And justly condemnable.- What comes suddenly is a realisation that they were naked. What we don't know is how a total knowledge of good and evil was revealed to them. All at once and at that moment (as in knowledge of murder, stealing, envy etc., etc., etc. - all being evil) or gradually over time.Which is why I merely suggest "gradually" as an answer to your question. Neither of us know.- Which kind of dying are you talking about, temporal or eternal? And which kind of life was the tree offering, temporal or eternal? And how do you conclude what you conclude.- The "her" I was referring to was Eve. Her understanding. You can have a fresh bite of this cherry if you like.Hopefully you have already seen what the definition of sin does to this fig leaf of an argument of yours. -Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

the Dipylon inscription is dated around 720 BC.It's also a great example of the evolutionary descent of the modern Greek alphabet from its phoenician roots.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

While there are contradicting reports about this issue, which means all cannot be correct, one has to ask for additional evidence to back a link, or find some other valid reasonings to discredit some reports. Here are 2 examples which say Hebrew alphabeticals either rate alongside the oldest, or predates all. Also note, Greek is part of Europe, and no alphabeticals appeared there till much later:

quote:

---

The alphabet was invented in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon about 1700 years after the first continuous writing, and it took another 1000 years before it reached Europe's outskirts. Examples of Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite and Ugaritic alphabetic writing and the earliest known Greek alphabet are listed below. http://www.schoyencollection.com/firstalpha.htm

---

This says canaanite preceded phoenecien. My issue is, where is the thread of the canaanite writings or books aside from a stray bit of '30 pictographs/letters', and why no historical data of dates, names and placed - because there have been many errors of C14, which is not accurate to small margins?

quote:

---

4.1.7. The first alphabets

​

MS 5180

​

PROTO-CAANANITE NAME: PUHIK OR PIHAK

​

MS in Canaanite West Semitic on bronze, Israel/Palestine, 18th - 17th c. BC, 1 axe, 19x5 cm, (2x3 cm), 1 line with 3 letters P or G, H and K in Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite consonantal alphabetic script.

​

Context: There are about 50 short inscriptions carved by miners at the turquoise mines at Serabit al-Khadim in Sinai, and less than 20 inscriptions found in Israel/Palestine (Shechem, Gezer, Lachish), all except 3 in public collections.

​

Provenance: 1. The Gil Chaya Collection, Jerusalem and Geneve.

​

Commentary: This is the earliest alphabetical writing known. There are less than 30 pictographs/letters. The invention might have come from knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs, which had signs for consonants, but the Egyptians never used these alphabetically. Since the language is Canaanite West Semitic and not Egyptian, the invention probably took place in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. This might have been the only script and language available in Sinai (apart from Egyptian) when the 10 Commandments were written down 16th-13th c. BC. Phoenician alphabetical script, ca. 12th c. BC, is the direct descendant of the Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite alphabetical script (see MS 715), which again, developed into the Greek alphabet around 800 BC (see MS 108), that was the basis of the Latin alphabet. The developments of 1. language (spoken communication), 2. writing, 3. the alphabet, and 4. printing, are among the highest achievements and milestones in the evolution of humanity.

​

Published: To be published by Andr Lemaire.

​

Exibited: The Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology (PHI), Oslo, 13.10.2003-06.2005. 4.1 Early Writing - The Schoyen Collection

---

Josephus was right. His writings say the greeks got their alphabeticals from the hebrew, and that the vowels were seperated from the Hebrew with the Septuagint translation in 300 BCE:

quote:

---

The modern Greek alphabet contains 24 letters. Ancient Greeks only used the capital letters; the lower case letters were not invented until the time of Alexander the Great. http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/GreekLetters.html

---

This says the numerals were also seperated, which also represent numerlas in the Hebrew; also, the use of seperate 'symbols' [pictures?] for each alphabet [as opposed the enjoining effect of phonation sounds in true alphabeticals] - is not seen in early greek:

quote:

---

Greek alphabet (Greek: ‘ ) is a set of twenty-four letters that has been used to write the Greek language since the late 9th or early 8th century BC. It was the first alphabet in the narrow sense, that is a writing system that uses a separate symbol for each vowel and consonant.[2] It is the oldest alphabetic script in continuous use today. The letters were also used to represent Greek numerals, beginning in the 2nd century BC.

---

Another telling factor is, the greeks did not possess the exclusive Hebrew alphabet of 'V' - thus the original Avraham is spelled with a 'B' [Abraham]:

quote:

---

Greek alphabet
‘ Alpha Nu
’ Beta Xi
Gamma Omicron
Delta Pi
Epsilon Rho
— Zeta ‘ Sigma
Eta Tau
Theta Upsilon
Iota Phi
Kappa Chi
Lambda Psi
— Mu Omega
Obsolete letters
Digamma Qoppa
San Sampi

---

We have no greek alphabetical books pre-300 BCE. All the above relates to stray bits of letters. Even in the greek library of Alexander, which began in 300 BCE to house all writings - no alphabetical books were found - indicating that all of Alexander's empire of conquered nations, except Israel, possessed no alphabetical or historical books.Additionally, we have a clear thread of evidence that the Gospels was mainly a greek enterprise, because of the negation of the OT laws [as being fullfilled]; the use of B for Abraham; a host of rituals and names which were of the hellinist period - this signifies that the Greeks understood the OT laws and narratives after 300 BCE, rejected it via numerous wars with the jews; then became a Roman partner, and contributed much to the NT. This also explains why the NT was written in greek and latin, as opposed Hebrew - the more credible premise if this originated in Judea.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The Q of God's will and free choice given man is a hedy subject and not able to be deciphered within the scope of this thread.What I find enigmatic is that if the Q was asked, what is the greatest asset or prize which a human can aspire to? Before reading ahead, try and think what this would be? Many would say, love, health, spiritual elevation, beauty, power, knowledge, etc.But genesis lists two things, namely immortality [1st], and ultimate knowledge [2nd]. When one considers it well, these are surely the correct answer, and consitutues an awareness from the POV of all conditions in the universe. These two factors are also the closest one can describe as Godlike attributes, namely EVERLASTING, and KNOWLEDGE TO DISCERN BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD, which is 'WISDOM' [else one cannot claim to have wise knowledge, as the discernment is the factor which makes it transcendent of the good and the bad]. Ultimate knowledge incorporates all other faculties, including love, beauty, power, fame, health, etc. Interestingly, King Solomon is said to have been given a choice to choose one trait, and he chose the 2nd factor, namely wisdom.The point is, Genesis zooms into the exact, core answer, as if it anticipates all generations of mankind, and delivers the right answer on the most pivotal question of all. This is also an indication how overwhelming the temptation must have been for adam and eve: how many of us would pass that test - for how long?

Without reading ahead. To be holy. For holiness is what God desires above all and I want what God desires above all. Interesting. I would see ultimate knowledge as resulting in holiness.Rrhain was talking about skewed choice earlier in which perfect knowledge would result in a person always choosing "good" - even though there was a theoretical ability for choosing for evil. Clearly perfect knowledge means access to perfect truth. And seeing as truth frees from lies, perfect truth would free perfectly from lie. Its not so much knowledge of good and evil as knowledge of good causing evil to shrink to something like the singularity.It effectively vanishes from existance. I can't see how the word overwhelm can be used - the fruit was described as desirable only. Nor can I see how a comparison can be made between them and us. We have a knowledge of good and evil and might appreciate what perfect knowledge would bring (from above: holiness desired by me - someone who isn't holy but knows enough of it to want it totally).They didn't have that knowledge and couldn't have the same appreciation of what it means.

Oh. Let's see you quote chapter and verse on that.And, you are quote wrong about the Joesphus reference. You are misreading it. THat is not unexpected from you.

I agree Holiness is a good response; the bible states God is Holy, and this trait should be pursued. However, what is the meaning of holy is subjective. In the OT, it means only the observance of the 613 laws, this being the only antidote to unholy/evil, etc. In the NT, a generic term of love is used, but love is only one part of the laws, honesty and respect being transcendent of it. The laws are the mechanical processing of holiness.The eden assets are what is the reward of being holy, or the ultimate treshold attained thereafter. We aspire holiness because it can culminate in an immortality - its antithesis of death not being seen as a good thing.

quote:

---

Interesting. I would see ultimate knowledge as resulting in holiness.

---

This equates with the eden inference, namely immortal and ultimate knowledge is a Godlike trait; The Lord is Holy - you shall be Holy. Interestingly, man was given superior dominant knowledge [vindicated]; man was not given immortality [vindicated]. The eden narratives appear vested in vindicated truth. One cannot feel ashamed/naked unless he knows the differential from no shame, thus the knowledge of both factors become the operative conclusion. Genesis is an exacting, pristine, mathematical treatise here.

quote:

---

They didn't have that knowledge and couldn't have the same appreciation of what it means.

---

The OT, being exacting and pristine, uses fewest words possible [the ultimate in grammar], which work as factors in a maths equation. There is the deliberation with Eve and the serpent, whereby the advantages of the fruit are given in powerful, taunting narratives, namely eating of the fruit will enable eve to be as God, one fruit giving immortality, he other ultimate knowledge. There is nothing more overwhelming temptation than thatConsider these two verses, which promise immortality; and ultimate knowledge:

quote:

---

Gen 3/ 4 And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;

​

for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.'

---

Consider this most sublime but explosive verse, packed with pivotal adjectives, affirming the overwhelming temptation eve seccumbed to - well after putting up a most powerful defense to the serpent. This contains words such as good for food [not to be confused with normal food from other trees]; delight; desired; wisdom:

quote:

---

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

---

So yes, I call that overwhelming temptation.

I did read it, I dont believe I'm quoting wrongly. I will try to find it for you. Meanwhile, one has to agree that a 2000 year stat from Josephus beats a link of 2008.

Actually, no.. we know so much more than Josephus ever did. We have this little thing known as 'archeology' and evidence, while Josephus has hearsay