Freedom of thought

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



xmarksthespot
Higher thought processes are intrinsic to what makes us human. The ability to gain knowledge and experiences, and to apply this to our lives. Rightly so, freedom of thought has been formally institutionalised as a universal human right.

Intrinsically related to freedom of thought, is our freedom of expression. The right to convey the myriad of thoughts one may conjure in their lifetime.

However when freedom of thought and expression confront the status quo, and those of authority who wish to maintain it, they may be suppressed.

Although in the modern world, at least in the Western world, the authority of the multiple organised religions over the lives of its peoples is waning, throughout recorded history religion has had a prominent hold on the world and people's lives.

The freedom of thought and expression are essential to freedom of religion, from an external viewpoint. The former freedoms are vital to the allowance of the latter. But within a religion, are they valued? Are they promoted? Within an organised religion how do you think freedom of thought and expression come into play, both in the here-and-now, and the past?

lil bitchiness
Freedom of thought in organised religion does not exist, nor it is valued.

Freedom of thought in organised religion means its collapse and loss of control over the followers. That is why blind faith is required, as opposed to believing and following based on unrderstanding.

It is undobtedly true, that provided that religion was, a personal matter, as opoosed to communial and global, the religion would not be an issue at all, or a subject for debate.

For example -

Jewish people are very community orientated.
Christians are also - but they also have some global aspects. Due to reformation of Christianity, much of this is not evident anylonger.
Muslims are very global orientated - an ideology affecting anyone who is in a minority (as well as majority).

It is then naive to think that ''one true path'' ''God's chosen people'' and all the rest of the names which religions attribute to themselves are so out of overinflated egos, but out of their own insecurities.

As most of us know - truth is a pathless land. Freedom of thought allows us to recognise and embrace this, and it would not, at any rate, allow that for the followers of any strict organised religion.

lord xyz
I agree with lil b. Freedom only exists outside of organised religion. A free religion is an oxymoron.

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The freedom of thought and expression are essential to freedom of religion, from an external viewpoint. The former freedoms are vital to the allowance of the latter. But within a religion, are they valued? Are they promoted? Within an organised religion how do you think freedom of thought and expression come into play, both in the here-and-now, and the past?
It's a decent thread; must be a trap.

Yes, freedom of thought are valued and promoted within a religion (I don't really understand what you mean about "organized religion"; like, the Catholic church's rule in the past?).

Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools.

Since I'm assuming this is mostly directed at Christianity, I'll talk about that.

Paul specifically tells us to test everything to see if it is truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should relinquish our freedom of thought. Granted, we are taught that what is written in the Bible is truth, but we are not told not to think. And...I'm not sure what else to say.

DigiMark007
The very idea of freedom is deceiving. If we were completely free, we'd be living in anarchy, which isn't the riot-and-fire stuff most people imagine, but simply a lack of organized control.

In an enlightened society, such freedom would be fine, but in reality it would collapse into negative chaos.

So control, whether governmental, societal, media-related, or religious is still control....just in different guises, and we're all affected by it. Not having a religion doesn't imply "freedom" in a total sense.

Many proposed solutions, then, are to realize that the extrinsic world is secondary to one's inner self, and to relinquish desire for extrinsic control...and by doing so, acheive actual freedom.

Of course, freedom also implies choice and/or free will, which is directly opposed to many traditions that believed in conditioned reality or absolute pre-destination. Even the idea of freedom, in such schools of thought, is not removed from the causes which preceded it, thus making the whole discussion rather difficult.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by DigiMark007
The very idea of freedom is deceiving. If we were completely free, we'd be living in anarchy, which isn't the riot-and-fire stuff most people imagine, but simply a lack of organized control.

In an enlightened society, such freedom would be fine, but in reality it would collapse into negative chaos.

So control, whether governmental, societal, media-related, or religious is still control....just in different guises, and we're all affected by it. Not having a religion doesn't imply "freedom" in a total sense.

Many proposed solutions, then, are to realize that the extrinsic world is secondary to one's inner self, and to relinquish desire for extrinsic control...and by doing so, acheive actual freedom.

Of course, freedom also implies choice and/or free will, which is directly opposed to many traditions that believed in conditioned reality or absolute pre-destination. Even the idea of freedom, in such schools of thought, is not removed from the causes which preceded it, thus making the whole discussion rather difficult.

Great post. One could also make the argument that all ideologies fall under the religious category. But that's a different debate altogether.

Capt_Fantastic
I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.

However, if someone wants to look at this like a metaphore, rather than factual retelling of actual events, then you can view it as many of our modern problems are a direct result of no longer being animals in the strict sense of the term. Look at your dogs. They don't wear clothes or harvest grain or invent the wheel or create philosophy and mathematics. In the wild, they are driven by instinct and procreation. They don't concern themselves with thoughts of an afterlife, they exist in a blissful ignorance. So, it is really a metaphore for the burden of self-awareness in my opinion. Self-awareness and self-explaination.

But, for those who take it as a literal retelling of actual events, they have chosen the path of ignorant bliss. So, in that respect, yes, it does remove freedom of thought.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Freedom of thought in organised religion does not exist, nor it is valued.

Freedom of thought in organised religion means its collapse and loss of control over the followers. That is why blind faith is required, as opposed to believing and following based on unrderstanding.

It is undobtedly true, that provided that religion was, a personal matter, as opoosed to communial and global, the religion would not be an issue at all, or a subject for debate.

For example -

Jewish people are very community orientated.
Christians are also - but they also have some global aspects. Due to reformation of Christianity, much of this is not evident anylonger.
Muslims are very global orientated - an ideology affecting anyone who is in a minority (as well as majority).

It is then naive to think that ''one true path'' ''God's chosen people'' and all the rest of the names which religions attribute to themselves are so out of overinflated egos, but out of their own insecurities.

As most of us know - truth is a pathless land. Freedom of thought allows us to recognise and embrace this, and it would not, at any rate, allow that for the followers of any strict organised religion. I'm inclined to agree with this. Strict adherence to a religion and its precepts removes the allowance for alternative truths. Essentially freedom of thought is allowed only within the confines of pre-established ideas based on artifacts or hierarchy. Freedom of thought is only valued and promoted if it complies with the thoughts of the religious authority.Originally posted by FeceMan
It's a decent thread; must be a trap.

Yes, freedom of thought are valued and promoted within a religion (I don't really understand what you mean about "organized religion"; like, the Catholic church's rule in the past?).

Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools.

Since I'm assuming this is mostly directed at Christianity, I'll talk about that.

Paul specifically tells us to test everything to see if it is truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should relinquish our freedom of thought. Granted, we are taught that what is written in the Bible is truth, but we are not told not to think. And...I'm not sure what else to say. Organized religion is a relatively common term for the major religious faiths. You're inaccurate in your assumption, though I do assume most of the posts in this thread as with all threads will be with regards to Christianity, as it is the most represented religion on these forums.

"Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools."
If the religious is representative of the religion, this comment somewhat belies the intent of the post.

Therein lies the problem: when telling one to test everything to discern truth - who's truth is one referring to? In a religion the truth is that according to a religious precept - one is deferring to external authority, on some matters entirely.

Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries, as their truth was that man was created on the 6th day as is. And of course this would "reduce" humans to the level of just another animal, which was preposterous as man was made in god's image.

In a more modern context, on many social issues many religious people defer to the views of their religious texts and leaders unwaveringly.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries

to the point where they actually made up the story of him recanting his beliefs at the eleventh hour before his death.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.

However, if someone wants to look at this like a metaphore, rather than factual retelling of actual events, then you can view it as many of our modern problems are a direct result of no longer being animals in the strict sense of the term. Look at your dogs. They don't wear clothes or harvest grain or invent the wheel or create philosophy and mathematics. In the wild, they are driven by instinct and procreation. They don't concern themselves with thoughts of an afterlife, they exist in a blissful ignorance. So, it is really a metaphore for the burden of self-awareness in my opinion. Self-awareness and self-explaination.

But, for those who take it as a literal retelling of actual events, they have chosen the path of ignorant bliss. So, in that respect, yes, it does remove freedom of thought.

Well, that's only one possible interpretation of the story of the Fall, and I'd honestly disagree with it. The original meaning of the tree, both in Christian and older traditions, was that of 'knowledge of good and evil', not just of knowledge in general, so the metaphor is one of learning the nature of duality, rather than "being one" with the divine aspect of all existence. It really has little to do with self awareness. Adam and Eve were aware of themselves, they just weren't aware of their differences (thus their shame when they realized they were naked).

Of course, this is simply another opinion, but I think comparing the state before the Fall with that of a dog is a bit simplistic, and it denies the larger meaning of the metaphor.

...sorry to get off track.

xmarksthespot
It's actually not that far off track, at least imo. The Fall to me has always seemed an allegory against defiance against "the word of god" i.e. those people of religious authority. Similar to Lucifer's story, to defy the word of those in power, to seek to put yourself on equal footing, is sacrilegious and will result in punishment. It can be extended to an allegory telling that thinking ideas that contradict those of the religious elite, and expressing those ideas is wrong.

Capt_Fantastic
Yes, but I'm not addressing how it was originally meant to be understood. We have moved past bronze age paranoia and fear. And modern christians should start looking at the biblical stories as fiction meant to guide you through life, not as actual events to be taken literally. They figured out they were naked and got embarassed. That's one of the things I'm addressing. And the knowledge of good and evil are examples of knowledge in general. Good and Evil are concepts. Do you think that lion considers itself evil? No, it's gotta kill that deer to feed itself, its young, the pride. Do you think the deer consideres itself good? The story of Adam and Eve are just another interpretation of a much older archetype. So, my interpretation is not meant to address adam and eve, but teh basic story represented in a variety of creation myths. I look at it through achems razor.

For every step forward, there is one step we loose at the beginning.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's actually not that far off track, at least imo. The Fall to me has always seemed an allegory against defiance against "the word of god" i.e. those people of religious authority. Similar to Lucifer's story, to defy the word of those in power, to seek to put yourself on equal footing, is sacrilegious and will result in punishment. It can be extended to an allegory telling that thinking ideas that contradict those of the religious elite, and expressing those ideas is wrong.

You know my opinion on religion. It is a personal thing. The moment it becomes a matter of the masses, it has failed those who follow it. So there's little point in me repeating myself again and again. Organized religion is a distraction from human progression. However, if you want to subscribe to it, then perhaps looking at the situation as I stated in my first post is a more reasonable and conducive manner in which progress and faith can both be accommodated.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yes, but I'm not addressing how it was originally meant to be understood. We have moved past bronze age paranoia and fear. And modern christians should start looking at the biblical stories as fiction meant to guide you through life, not as actual events to be taken literally. They figured out they were naked and got embarassed. That's one of the things I'm addressing. And the knowledge of good and evil are examples of knowledge in general. Good and Evil are concepts. Do you think that lion considers itself evil? No, it's gotta kill that deer to feed itself, its young, the pride. Do you think the deer consideres itself good? The story of Adam and Eve are just another interpretation of a much older archetype. So, my interpretation is not meant to address adam and eve, but teh basic story represented in a variety of creation myths. I look at it through achems razor.

For every step forward, there is one step we loose at the beginning.

Well, at least you and I are in agreement that Christian myth should be taken metaphorically rather than literally.

But good and evil simply represent duality in the story. Duality is the "one" broken into "the many." Light/dark, good/evil, male/female, even things like language and naming things....all contributes to division of the totality of existence. This is the knowledge given.

The point is to realize that the division is false. Good and evil don't exist as we traditionally perceive them. God placed 2 cherubim at the gates of Eden in the story, represent the duality. To re-enter paradise we must walk between the guardians (metaphoric for becoming one with the father, the "atonement" (at-one-ment) with the father that Jesus experiences). Walking between them is seeing God in everything, and seeing all as one.

You are right to look to nature (with the lion and such) to find a more primal aspect of the truth. But it's deeper than that. The lion is one with the animal it kills. Life sustains life universally. God is sacrificed to himself in this manner (like Jesus to the Father).

...

The story is often construed as a parable about obeying God. This is unfortunate, because it uses common Christian fear tactics all while losing the central meaning of the story.

Capt_Fantastic
I appreciate that. And once I think of a way to explain it to everyone in a manner they'll understand, because I'm clearly not expressing myself correctly, I'll do so.

I'm not talking about the specific christian myth. I'm talking about where these creation stories come from in regards to how they exist for all religions. Religion is as old as modern man, maybe older. Don't get caught up in my example being judaeo-christian specific.

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools."
If the religious is representative of the religion, this comment somewhat belies the intent of the post.

Therein lies the problem: when telling one to test everything to discern truth - who's truth is one referring to? In a religion the truth is that according to a religious precept - one is deferring to external authority, on some matters entirely.

Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries, as their truth was that man was created on the 6th day as is. And of course this would "reduce" humans to the level of just another animal, which was preposterous as man was made in god's image.

In a more modern context, on many social issues many religious people defer to the views of their religious texts and leaders unwaveringly.
Many people may demonstrate it, but Christianity does not require that we adhere to the beliefs of the religious leaders. However, standing by what is written in the Bible as being truth does not mean we are not allowed to have free thought.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.
It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by FeceMan
It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

Nah.

FeceMan
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nah.
kk

Robtard
Originally posted by FeceMan
Many people may demonstrate it, but Christianity does not require that we adhere to the beliefs of the religious leaders. However, standing by what is written in the Bible as being truth does not mean we are not allowed to have free thought.

It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

Yes and no... If you listen to any religious roller who takes the Bible literally, they will say that everything you need to know about Christianity has already been written and one not need think outside the box. Every time I have heard a priest or preacher speak, they do not leave room for interpretation or free thought, it boils to "it is written, so this is how it is." period.

So as Xmarksthespot posted the question, I do not see how one could have free thought and follow the Bible within the boundaries of religion if Christianity is the Bible itself. (?) Same goes for Islam as the Qur'an is Islam or any other main stream religion.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

I was thinking metaphorically. So, it was really free will that screwed them over. Which I think is kind of X's point.

Adam_PoE

FeceMan

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
They wanted to become like God (which, incidentally, involved knowing good and evil), which was the same sin that caused the fall of Lucifer.

which is why "Lucifer" pulled the bitter card from his sleeve and convinced Eve that god was trying to "keep her down". Which should illustrate that no one likes to be kept in the dark or treated like a pet.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
They wanted to become like God (which, incidentally, involved knowing good and evil), which was the same sin that caused the fall of Lucifer. I.e. an allegory that to act independently of religious authority and to strive to put oneself on equal footing with said authority is bad.

(Notwithstanding the inherent illogic and hypocrisy of apparently being omniscient, engaging in the entrapment of placing the tree of knowledge in the garden, and then punishing the pair for doing something "evil", when the two lack any knowledge of good and evil.)

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I.e. an allegory that to act independently of religious authority and to strive to put oneself on equal footing with said authority is bad.

(Notwithstanding the inherent illogic and hypocrisy of apparently being omniscient, engaging in the entrapment of placing the tree of knowledge in the garden, and then punishing the pair for doing something "evil", when the two lack any knowledge of good and evil.)


yes, much like I said to JIA, why put the tree there in the first place? It's just the diabolical villain twisting his mustache while telling the hero the terrible plot he has in store for the world and then leaving him to die without making sure the job is done before wanding off to acheive his evil goals.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
yes, much like I said to JIA, why put the tree there in the first place? It's just the diabolical villain twisting his mustache while telling the hero the terrible plot he has in store for the world and then leaving him to die without making sure the job is done before wanding off to acheive his evil goals.

Spoken like a true person lacking knowledge (I actually had another word for this but the Lord told me not to call you that, you might have misconstrued me). I have already explained this to you. The Lord God put that tree there so that Adam and Eve's volition (i.e. power to choose) could be legitimized. If the only alternative is good then you don't truly have a choice now do you. So it is believable that the Lord put that tree there to cause there free wills to go into force legally. There wills were now in force, but: do they obey God out of love or do they choose to disobey? That is the question. We all know the story: they chose to disobey.

xmarksthespot
So you're saying god isn't omniscient? Cool, glad we have that clear.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I actually had another word for this but the Lord told me not to call you that, you might have misconstrued me "No - you talk to God - you're religious. God talks to you - you're psychotic." House

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you're saying god isn't omniscient? Cool, glad we have that clear.
"No - you talk to God - you're religious. God talks to you - you're psychotic." House

House? Is that another medieval word!...aw, I got my hopes up for nothing. It is just another mundane word. Could you use some more antiquated words, you see, I am trying to build a list of the weirdest words to ever grace this forum. So could ya throw in a couple a plebians and troglodytes and ilks next time you respond to my posts? Thanks x your the best!.

big grin

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
House? Is that another medieval word!...aw, I got my hopes up for nothing. It is just another mundane word. Could you use some more antiquated words, you see, I am trying to build a list of the weirdest words to ever grace this forum. So could ya throw in a couple a plebians and troglodytes and ilks next time you respond to my posts? Thanks x your the best!.

big grin House is a TV show. See how easy it is to answer direct questions.

Now you try:
Are you saying that your god is not omniscient? Or that he's simply a hypocrite?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
House is a TV show. See how easy it is to answer direct questions.

Now you try:
Are you saying that your god is not omniscient? Or that he's simply a hypocrite?

Who are you? What have you done with x (looks at you with a mean stare). Just kidding. But seriously, I almost do not recognize you. The x that I know can't go a post without insulting me or using outmoded words that only you understand. (Looks at you with a sideways glance and asks) Have you been readin' the Bible?

xmarksthespot
Hmm, JIA sidesteps a simple question. Must Saturday, i.e. dies Saturni.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I.e. an allegory that to act independently of religious authority and to strive to put oneself on equal footing with said authority is bad.

Indeed, I honestly don't know where "made in his image" comes into our lives - I mean it doesn't make us equal with God, doesn't really give us any power, doesn't make God want to look at us with equal.

Like having a child "Child, by reproduction you are in my image, but that is all. I won't consider you human, I wont consider you an equal, and you will never understand me or what I do. Now get under the stairs and go to sleep."

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Spoken like a true person lacking knowledge (I actually had another word for this but the Lord told me not to call you that, you might have misconstrued me). I have already explained this to you. The Lord God put that tree there so that Adam and Eve's volition (i.e. power to choose) could be legitimized. If the only alternative is good then you don't truly have a choice now do you. So it is believable that the Lord put that tree there to cause there free wills to go into force legally. There wills were now in force, but: do they obey God out of love or do they choose to disobey? That is the question. We all know the story: they chose to disobey.

By all means, call me anything you want. I do it to you. I will continue to do it to you.

"god" put this pratfall in place, or "god" put that pratfall in place. It's all the same. "God" got out of the situation exactly what "he" wanted. Just like sin, evil and temptation, god created free will as an excuse. At least as far as your world view is concerned. (If not, then "God" didn't create everything, nor is he all-knowing)

"So it is believable"? An interesting choice of words. I'd think pigs could fly....if "it were believable".

you want to blame everyting on temptation and free will and Satan? Go ahead. I do. "God" gave them free will. And it seems to me that "he's" spent the last 2000 years being pissed they decided to give his self-righteous, over-indulgent, hypocritical ass the middle finger. I do the same to you. To you and your outdated world view. I'd also like to point out that there's a wonderful kool-aid cocktail waiting for you on the ass-end of this comet we're all hoping will take us to heaven.

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I.e. an allegory that to act independently of religious authority and to strive to put oneself on equal footing with said authority is bad.
There's a large difference between disobeying religious authority and disobeying God, not to mention that they had one restriction--only one--and they still managed to **** it up.


They knew better than to disobey God.

Robtard
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who are you? What have you done with x (looks at you with a mean stare). Just kidding. But seriously, I almost do not recognize you. The x that I know can't go a post without insulting me or using outmoded words that only you understand. (Looks at you with a sideways glance and asks) Have you been readin' the Bible?

Answer the question Mr. Dodge, it is simple and straight forward. So, knowing that God knew what would certainly happen beforehand, why place the tree in the garden to test the couple if God already knew the outcome? It is more on the lines of entrapment if anything and it would certainly nullify the 'free will' clause.

lord xyz
Originally posted by FeceMan
They wanted to become like God (which, incidentally, involved knowing good and evil), which was the same sin that caused the fall of Lucifer. How could they want that if they didn't know what the apple did? And if they were just like God for eating it, couldn't they stop him?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
There's a large difference between disobeying religious authority and disobeying God, not to mention that they had one restriction--only one--and they still managed to **** it up.I'm an agnostic. Thus I view it as an allegory, rather than literally.
Originally posted by FeceMan
They knew better than to disobey God. So you're saying lacking any knowledge of good and evil, they would still somehow have the knowledge that Lucifer had malicious intent, and knowledge that to disobey is evil.

debbiejo
And, they didn't know what evil was. Just as kids would pull a kittens tail would know that it is not a good thing...Harming.....Yes, how would they know the judgement on them along with all their descendants if never told that...never told...never told......never told...never told.....

Echo...echo...echo....echo...

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
They wanted to become like God (which, incidentally, involved knowing good and evil), which was the same sin that caused the fall of Lucifer.

What is wrong with recognizing that your present state is unsatisfactory, and striving to be better?

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm an agnostic. Thus I view it as an allegory, rather than literally.
So you're saying lacking any knowledge of good and evil, they would still somehow have the knowledge that Lucifer had malicious intent, and knowledge that to disobey is evil.
They did not know that Lucifer had malicious intent, but they would have known not to disobey God. Even if they had not known, they were content to obey. But then Satan came along...

Notice that, up until the point when Eve was deceived--oh, my, a partial rhyme--she did not yet know that the tree was "good for food," "pleasant to the eyes," and "a tree to be desired to make one wise."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is wrong with recognizing that your present state is unsatisfactory, and striving to be better?
They were drawn to the allure of power, to be "as gods."

lord xyz
Why are all fundamentalists the same?

Alliance
They are not.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
They did not know that Lucifer had malicious intent, but they would have known not to disobey God.Based on their lack of knowledge of right and wrong?Originally posted by FeceMan
Even if they had not known, they were content to obey. But then Satan came along...And which supposedly omniscient god purportedly created the bearer of light?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/630562285X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Originally posted by FeceMan
Notice that, up until the point when Eve was deceived--oh, my, a partial rhyme--she did not yet know that the tree was "good for food," "pleasant to the eyes," and "a tree to be desired to make one wise."

They were drawn to the allure of power, to be "as gods." It doesn't matter their motive; they know nothing of good and evil, nothing of right and wrong. Therefore to categorize certain actions as wrong or right, without giving others the knowledge of how things are divided into those categories; and to punish those actions one deems wrong, when one should have full knowledge of the outcome, is simply hypocritical and illogical.

Diminished capacity and entrapment.

FeceMan
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why are all fundamentalists the same?
Because you're dumb.

That is the appropriate reply for insinuating that I am a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Based on their lack of knowledge of right and wrong?And which supposedly omniscient god purportedly created the bearer of light?
If they did not know that it was wrong, then surely they would have already eaten from the tree.

And, yes, God did know what would happen with Satan, but He did not stop him.

Whob-tacular.


That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

xmarksthespot
Oh come now, everyone loves Catherine Zeta Jones. She's a better use of space than "KK" "Kthx" spam in lieu of actual rebuttal.

If they did know that it was wrong, then surely they would not need to eat from the tree in the first place?

Unless you're saying that lacking all knowledge of good and bad, they still had knowledge that eating from the tree was bad and/or should have been expected to know that eating from the tree was bad.

I know. But what exactly was the point of that lovely verse? Are you saying Lucifer gave her awareness? Increased her perceptions? I.e. shifting the "blame."

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh come now, everyone loves Catherine Zeta Jones. She's a better use of space than "KK" "Kthx" spam in lieu of actual rebuttal.
I find the use of "kk" and "kthx" appropriate when responding to a large degree of idiocy. It prevents me from getting a headache by formulating an appropriate response.


Like children, they obeyed God without question. The tree was, as the quoted Scripture indicates, "out of sight, out of mind."


That's precisely what I'm saying. It seems to me that God made them aware of it but it was, in a way, obscured from their thoughts.

DigiMark007
Sean Connery's the absolute sh*t.

cool

xmarksthespot
Indeed Digi. Indeed.Originally posted by FeceMan
I find the use of "kk" and "kthx" appropriate when responding to a large degree of idiocy. It prevents me from getting a headache by formulating an appropriate response.To each their own. I find Catherine Zeta Jones a turn on.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Like children, they obeyed God without question. The tree was, as the quoted Scripture indicates, "out of sight, out of mind."
In response to the question of how exactly without any knowledge of right and wrong, they would know that to disobey god is wrong you said:
If they did not know that it was wrong, then surely they would have already eaten from the tree.
To which I said:
If they did know that it was wrong, then surely they would not need to eat from the tree in the first place?
I.e. if they know that it is wrong, they have knowledge of right and wrong, therefore they don't need to eat from the tree.

So do they or do they not have knowledge of right and wrong prior to eating from the tree that is supposed to grant them knowledge of right and wrong?
Originally posted by FeceMan
That's precisely what I'm saying. It seems to me that God made them aware of it but it was, in a way, obscured from their thoughts. Aware of the tree or aware of the knowledge of right and wrong?

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In response to the question of how exactly without any knowledge of right and wrong, they would know that to disobey god is wrong you said:
If they did not know that it was wrong, then surely they would have already eaten from the tree.
To which I said:
If they did know that it was wrong, then surely they would not need to eat from the tree in the first place?
I.e. if they know that it is wrong, they have knowledge of right and wrong, therefore they don't need to eat from the tree.

So do they or do they not have knowledge of right and wrong prior to eating from the tree that is supposed to grant them knowledge of right and wrong?
Not knowledge of it, I think, but a sense of that they ought to obey God and not do what He said not to do.

The tree itself.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
Not knowledge of it, I think, but a sense of that they ought to obey God and not do what He said not to do.


So God sends them to a life of misery, an afterlife of eternal torment, and sentences thier future generations to damnation?

Seems very irrational for a supposedly mature, wise, and loving God. But then again....since when is Christianity rational ?


Originally posted by FeceMan
The tree itself.

Reminds me of Pandora's Box smile

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
Not knowledge of it, I think, but a sense of that they ought to obey God and not do what He said not to do.That would imply that they had conscience, which would imply that they could feel guilt, which would imply they had knowledge of right and wrong.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So God sends them to a life of misery, an afterlife of eternal torment, and sentences thier future generations to damnation?

Seems very irrational for a supposedly mature, wise, and loving God. But then again....since when is Christianity rational ?
You just don't get it.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That would imply that they had conscience, which would imply that they could feel guilt, which would imply they had knowledge of right and wrong.
Then maybe she did not knowingly sin. Maybe she had no idea she was doing wrong. Maybe she obeyed God up until that point simply because God said so and she had no idea that to do otherwise was wrong. Satan, however, tricked her into doing wrong.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
You just don't get it.

Then maybe she did not knowingly sin. Maybe she had no idea she was doing wrong. Maybe she obeyed God up until that point simply because God said so and she had no idea that to do otherwise was wrong. Satan, however, tricked her into doing wrong. Then her actions are not a result of her choices, but of god's. Again which omniscient god created Lucifer?

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Again which omniscient god created Lucifer?
The one true God.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
The one true God. Shiva?

FeceMan
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Shiva?
Close, but more Yahweh Elohim and less Ifrit.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.