independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Why does God's existence have to be synonymous with obedience? Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Can't even pretend I understand what you're reaching for. All I can compare the relationship to right now, is like a parent to a child (offspring). What parent doesn't want the love and admiration of their own children?
Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To answer the topic question, because God is bigger and more powerful than you. He could smite your little ass just by raising his eyebrow (this is all theoretical of course)
www.adamjames.net -official website
www.myspace.com/adamjames -check out my music "Sausage Fingers With His Guitar & Mullet" avatar made possible by a grant from BeingTheHero at chapelofresonance.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
All these storied debates about the possible existence of an omnipotent ruler. Atheists on the one hand often try to argue the absurdity of such a proposition as a basis for transgressing certain biblical laws, and theists on the other side sometimes try to theorize the existence of God vehemently as a means of defending their following of the holy word. Why follow it at all, even knowing full well that God exists and wants you to? Satan tried to elevate his status to that of a near-God and chose an evil path. Can one not do likewise but choose instead a path of morality and virtue? Can we not rebel without corrupting the goodness we so aspire towards? Must I really acquiesce once I believe? Food for thought on a lazy Sunday afternoon. what if the "obedience" is just to be in relationship with God? We are given free will, (at least that is my belief) and I think the largest portion of our "obedience" is just the relating to God as we were created. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on progress of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."-MLK, Jr. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bluesbaby said: PurpleKnight said: Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
All these storied debates about the possible existence of an omnipotent ruler. Atheists on the one hand often try to argue the absurdity of such a proposition as a basis for transgressing certain biblical laws, and theists on the other side sometimes try to theorize the existence of God vehemently as a means of defending their following of the holy word. Why follow it at all, even knowing full well that God exists and wants you to? Satan tried to elevate his status to that of a near-God and chose an evil path. Can one not do likewise but choose instead a path of morality and virtue? Can we not rebel without corrupting the goodness we so aspire towards? Must I really acquiesce once I believe? Food for thought on a lazy Sunday afternoon. what if the "obedience" is just to be in relationship with God? We are given free will, (at least that is my belief) and I think the largest portion of our "obedience" is just the relating to God as we were created. There is no free will if you have two choices and death is a punishment for one of them.  ONLY LOSERS FEAR A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD~~Sananda Maitreya Beware of men that will not go down! (I wish my momma had taught me all this)-BklynBabe | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i had a philosophy teacher state that God gave free will to do what ever you want. He wants to see what you do without the fear of reward or punishment. anything that established a moral rule or law was not of God. t is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them.
Dalai Lama | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bluesbaby said: PurpleKnight said: Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
All these storied debates about the possible existence of an omnipotent ruler. Atheists on the one hand often try to argue the absurdity of such a proposition as a basis for transgressing certain biblical laws, and theists on the other side sometimes try to theorize the existence of God vehemently as a means of defending their following of the holy word. Why follow it at all, even knowing full well that God exists and wants you to? Satan tried to elevate his status to that of a near-God and chose an evil path. Can one not do likewise but choose instead a path of morality and virtue? Can we not rebel without corrupting the goodness we so aspire towards? Must I really acquiesce once I believe? Food for thought on a lazy Sunday afternoon. what if the "obedience" is just to be in relationship with God? We are given free will, (at least that is my belief) and I think the largest portion of our "obedience" is just the relating to God as we were created. Obedience to God in this case is exactly what I am defying. People are missing the point. I'm saying that even if, just as a thought experiment, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism turned out to be 100% true, we would still not be obligated to follow it. morningsong said: Can't even pretend I understand what you're reaching for. All I can compare the relationship to right now, is like a parent to a child (offspring). What parent doesn't want the love and admiration of their own children?
One thing I find funny that atheist bring up often regarding the Abrahamic faiths, the question of can't someone be good without god, and then turn around a rail about the story of Adam & Eve, in the story man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that right there should answer the question. Yes, you have the ability to know how to be good it's ingrained. My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:[quote] bluesbaby said: Obedience to God in this case is exactly what I am defying. People are missing the point. I'm saying that even if, just as a thought experiment, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism turned out to be 100% true, we would still not be obligated to follow it. morningsong said: Can't even pretend I understand what you're reaching for. All I can compare the relationship to right now, is like a parent to a child (offspring). What parent doesn't want the love and admiration of their own children?
One thing I find funny that atheist bring up often regarding the Abrahamic faiths, the question of can't someone be good without god, and then turn around a rail about the story of Adam & Eve, in the story man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that right there should answer the question. Yes, you have the ability to know how to be good it's ingrained. My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. Its about choice always. The purpose of obedience is to follow God's Word which teaches one to love all others. If this doctrine were followed, peace to all makind would be realized and evil, while everpresent, would not be a consideration but still a factor. Eve's choice was disobedient and she and Adam were punished for their disobedience however they were granted the choice to follow or not even in a "perfect garden". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:[quote] bluesbaby said: Obedience to God in this case is exactly what I am defying. People are missing the point. I'm saying that even if, just as a thought experiment, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism turned out to be 100% true, we would still not be obligated to follow it. morningsong said: Can't even pretend I understand what you're reaching for. All I can compare the relationship to right now, is like a parent to a child (offspring). What parent doesn't want the love and admiration of their own children?
One thing I find funny that atheist bring up often regarding the Abrahamic faiths, the question of can't someone be good without god, and then turn around a rail about the story of Adam & Eve, in the story man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that right there should answer the question. Yes, you have the ability to know how to be good it's ingrained. My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. Been there, believe it or not, ideas change as one's life moves on. It's your choice to reject it just as it's my choice to accept it. As far as Adam & Eve, to me it's a simple story of trust and betrayal. I know if I entrust someone, especially someone I love and hold dear with something I consider valuable, and the minute I turn my back that person devalues my word over the word of a stranger (an outsider) over, the relationship is damaged and the trust is broken. As a parent, I have expectations of my children, no matter what they feel about it, our relationship is based on trust, if they don't trust me to guide them correctly, regardless of their innocence or what they don't know, there becomes a stress in the relationship especially as they mature. How can a good parent entrust a inheritance to a rebellious child no matter how cute the kid is? Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jill4life said: PurpleKnight said: My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. Its about choice always. The purpose of obedience is to follow God's Word which teaches one to love all others. If this doctrine were followed, peace to all makind would be realized and evil, while everpresent, would not be a consideration but still a factor. Eve's choice was disobedient and she and Adam were punished for their disobedience however they were granted the choice to follow or not even in a "perfect garden". A servant is a servant and a slave, a slave. Peace enjoined by a dictator rather than created by free actors is devoid of value. You can say that it is about choice, but that choice is conditional and practically illusory. The only meaningful peace can come from acting from the will in direct opposition to a superordinate symbol; in this case the God that is hypothetically now proven to exist. Eve's choice was disobedient, but how could God justifiably punish them when they were not taught the necessary morality to inform all their actions? That is mere cruelty. morningsong said: PurpleKnight said: My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. Been there, believe it or not, ideas change as one's life moves on. It's your choice to reject it just as it's my choice to accept it. As far as Adam & Eve, to me it's a simple story of trust and betrayal. I know if I entrust someone, especially someone I love and hold dear with something I consider valuable, and the minute I turn my back that person devalues my word over the word of a stranger (an outsider) over, the relationship is damaged and the trust is broken. As a parent, I have expectations of my children, no matter what they feel about it, our relationship is based on trust, if they don't trust me to guide them correctly, regardless of their innocence or what they don't know, there becomes a stress in the relationship especially as they mature. How can a good parent entrust a inheritance to a rebellious child no matter how cute the kid is? The analogy is fallacious because God does not co-exist with us. In the example of a parent and child or a pair of friends, we depend on reciprocity and act to the principle of wancantagnoka, or the fact that because we have been served we ought to serve others. If God created us, we are to be grateful to Him for that, but once that gratitude is extended, further submission entraps one in a cognitive state of weakness from which the will cannot recover. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: jill4life said: Been there, believe it or not, ideas change as one's life moves on. It's your choice to reject it just as it's my choice to accept it. As far as Adam & Eve, to me it's a simple story of trust and betrayal. I know if I entrust someone, especially someone I love and hold dear with something I consider valuable, and the minute I turn my back that person devalues my word over the word of a stranger (an outsider) over, the relationship is damaged and the trust is broken. As a parent, I have expectations of my children, no matter what they feel about it, our relationship is based on trust, if they don't trust me to guide them correctly, regardless of their innocence or what they don't know, there becomes a stress in the relationship especially as they mature. How can a good parent entrust a inheritance to a rebellious child no matter how cute the kid is? The analogy is fallacious because God does not co-exist with us. In the example of a parent and child or a pair of friends, we depend on reciprocity and act to the principle of wancantagnoka, or the fact that because we have been served we ought to serve others. If God created us, we are to be grateful to Him for that, but once that gratitude is extended, further submission entraps one in a cognitive state of weakness from which the will cannot recover. to the bolded part  Google don't know that word nor do I.
Sounds like you have the "Who is John Galt?" philosophy. It almost sounds plausible that one can live just for themselves and be completely self sufficient but I find holes in that way of thinking. Nobody does anything completely on their own. Besides, I'm not basing my belief on your definitions. I see a co-exist with God just as with parent and child, even as a child matures, in most societies at least the parent remains dominant, in a good relationship there is mutual respect. The whole dominant/submission thing doesn't negate love and honor. How can one show love for God? To care for our own brethren and to be good stewards of the gifts we've received. We aren't doing such a good job of that and never have been. Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: PurpleKnight said: The analogy is fallacious because God does not co-exist with us. In the example of a parent and child or a pair of friends, we depend on reciprocity and act to the principle of wancantagnoka, or the fact that because we have been served we ought to serve others. If God created us, we are to be grateful to Him for that, but once that gratitude is extended, further submission entraps one in a cognitive state of weakness from which the will cannot recover. to the bolded part Google don't know that word nor do I.
Sounds like you have the "Who is John Galt?" philosophy. It almost sounds plausible that one can live just for themselves and be completely self sufficient but I find holes in that way of thinking. Nobody does anything completely on their own. Besides, I'm not basing my belief on your definitions. I see a co-exist with God just as with parent and child, even as a child matures, in most societies at least the parent remains dominant, in a good relationship there is mutual respect. The whole dominant/submission thing doesn't negate love and honor. How can one show love for God? To care for our own brethren and to be good stewards of the gifts we've received. We aren't doing such a good job of that and never have been. That is a false assumption. I am not wholly Emersonian in my philosophy and do not argue for the relative fallacy of self-reliance. That is where wancantagnoka comes into play. I agree that the parent remains dominant, and that subordination is exactly what I'm challenging; I'm merely extending it to the ultimate parent. You don't need God's fiat to show love to your brethren. Simply by analogy I can see that I am not the only of my kind. The law of reciprocity affirms that I have been given to in the past and thus deserve to give to others in return. This still doesn't change the fact that humanity as a species does not need to concern itself with God's fiat, but rather create its own collectively and approach the greatness God epitomized when He created His conception of morality. Greatness lies in the innovative crafting, and not the merely passive following, of law. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Okay, I got it wrong, I apologize but it sure sounded like you were headed there. So this word is some kind of acronym you don't care to share, that's cool, I ain't mad at you.
Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: Okay, I got it wrong, I apologize but it sure sounded like you were headed there. So this word is some kind of acronym you don't care to share, that's cool, I ain't mad at you.
Anyway your last sentence I agree, but then you use the law of reciprocity as a means, at least it read to me, to base a life upon. Are you living a law or not, I'm confused? Sounds quite mechanical to me. The was a scientist, I forgot his name, that tried to equate "man" as a computer, of course, he was proven we aren't, we have ebbs and flow and nuisances that defy any sense of reason and that is what must be dealt with. If we assume, as you say, the Abrahamic faiths are truth then man is a by-product of the "breathe of God", I don't see how we can understand ourselves outside of the presence of God, and accept the nature of this world as our guide. I already defined it. It's the theory that because you have been given to in the past by others, you ought to give to others. Its origins are Native American. As part of this thought experiment, I am not rejecting the existence of God at all; merely His fiat. People in my scenario would be using Him as a definitional symbol to resist and thereby contextualize the glory of their own power-of-will (to create, interpret, and enact the moral law). Every child comes to resist its parent at some point in order to assert its claim as a unique creature with individuating characteristics of value. God should be no different. We will not bow down to that from which we came. If God should strike us down, let Him strike us while we stand, and let the others be saved while they kneel. [Edited 6/24/09 21:10pm] The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Its about choice always. The purpose of obedience is to follow God's Word which teaches one to love all others. If this doctrine were followed, peace to all makind would be realized and evil, while everpresent, would not be a consideration but still a factor. Eve's choice was disobedient and she and Adam were punished for their disobedience however they were granted the choice to follow or not even in a "perfect garden".
A servant is a servant and a slave, a slave. Peace enjoined by a dictator rather than created by free actors is devoid of value. You can say that it is about choice, but that choice is conditional and practically illusory. The only meaningful peace can come from acting from the will in direct opposition to a superordinate symbol; in this case the God that is hypothetically now proven to exist.
Eve's choice was disobedient, but how could God justifiably punish them when they were not taught the necessary morality to inform all their actions? That is mere cruelty. I disagree and the Bible clearly indcates otherwise. Although Adam and Eve were not taught "morality" (as there was no such need at that time) they were instructed specifically to not eat from the tree. Furthermore they were given a clear distinction between good trees vs. bad tree and told of a consequence. This is directly related to obedience. Edit: Spelling  [Edited 6/24/09 22:45pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jill4life said: Its about choice always. The purpose of obedience is to follow God's Word which teaches one to love all others. If this doctrine were followed, peace to all makind would be realized and evil, while everpresent, would not be a consideration but still a factor. Eve's choice was disobedient and she and Adam were punished for their disobedience however they were granted the choice to follow or not even in a "perfect garden".
A servant is a servant and a slave, a slave. Peace enjoined by a dictator rather than created by free actors is devoid of value. You can say that it is about choice, but that choice is conditional and practically illusory. The only meaningful peace can come from acting from the will in direct opposition to a superordinate symbol; in this case the God that is hypothetically now proven to exist.
Eve's choice was disobedient, but how could God justifiably punish them when they were not taught the necessary morality to inform all their actions? That is mere cruelty. I disagree and the Bible clearly indcates otherwise. Although Adam and Eve were not taught "morality" (as there was no such need at that time) they were instructed specifically to not eat from the tree. Furthermore they were given a clear distinction between good trees vs. bad tree and told of a consequence. This is directly related to obedience. Edit: Spelling
[Edited 6/24/09 22:45pm] They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught. Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: morningsong said: Okay, I got it wrong, I apologize but it sure sounded like you were headed there. So this word is some kind of acronym you don't care to share, that's cool, I ain't mad at you.
Anyway your last sentence I agree, but then you use the law of reciprocity as a means, at least it read to me, to base a life upon. Are you living a law or not, I'm confused? Sounds quite mechanical to me. The was a scientist, I forgot his name, that tried to equate "man" as a computer, of course, he was proven we aren't, we have ebbs and flow and nuisances that defy any sense of reason and that is what must be dealt with. If we assume, as you say, the Abrahamic faiths are truth then man is a by-product of the "breathe of God", I don't see how we can understand ourselves outside of the presence of God, and accept the nature of this world as our guide. I already defined it. It's the theory that because you have been given to in the past by others, you ought to give to others. Its origins are Native American. As part of this thought experiment, I am not rejecting the existence of God at all; merely His fiat. People in my scenario would be using Him as a definitional symbol to resist and thereby contextualize the glory of their own power-of-will (to create, interpret, and enact the moral law). Every child comes to resist its parent at some point in order to assert its claim as a unique creature with individuating characteristics of value. God should be no different. We will not bow down to that from which we came. If God should strike us down, let Him strike us while we stand, and let the others be saved while they kneel I see what you're saying but I don't agree. A rebelling child needs to get their own, or else there is no peace in the home. If you can create your own world that operates by your own rules it would be interesting to see. Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: PurpleKnight said: I already defined it. It's the theory that because you have been given to in the past by others, you ought to give to others. Its origins are Native American. As part of this thought experiment, I am not rejecting the existence of God at all; merely His fiat. People in my scenario would be using Him as a definitional symbol to resist and thereby contextualize the glory of their own power-of-will (to create, interpret, and enact the moral law). Every child comes to resist its parent at some point in order to assert its claim as a unique creature with individuating characteristics of value. God should be no different. We will not bow down to that from which we came. If God should strike us down, let Him strike us while we stand, and let the others be saved while they kneel I see what you're saying but I don't agree. A rebelling child needs to get their own, or else there is no peace in the home. If you can create your own world that operates by your own rules it would be interesting to see. Well, the difference is that a child by itself is rather weak and frail. It literally cannot survive without the parent, and it is this incontrovertible fact of dependence that demands its obedience to its master, the parent. Many religions are often quick to belittle humankind in their conception. The thing is, while we are diminutive relative to the omnipotence of God, we are not weak and frail in and of ourselves like the child is in the absence of the parent's care. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: jill4life said: [/b]
I disagree and the Bible clearly indcates otherwise. Although Adam and Eve were not taught "morality" (as there was no such need at that time) they were instructed specifically to not eat from the tree. Furthermore they were given a clear distinction between good trees vs. bad tree and told of a consequence. This is directly related to obedience. Edit: Spelling
[Edited 6/24/09 22:45pm] They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught. Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] They were instructed not to eat from and given the freedom to choose, had they not had the option of choosing, that would signify a command. Had they been told the intricacies and/or ramifications it would defeat Jehova's purpose to provide for and to teach the value of obedience, besides, Adam and Eve could not have conceptualized anyway because they had nothing to compare it to. If you have small children, tell them not to.....and sure enough they will. When I was a child I stuck a bobby pin in a socket to see what would happen; I stuck my finger in an idled car's lighter to see if the lighter was hot--one part of me rationalized that it was not because the car had been turned off but I always knew there was a chance that it would be hot. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: morningsong said: I see what you're saying but I don't agree. A rebelling child needs to get their own, or else there is no peace in the home. If you can create your own world that operates by your own rules it would be interesting to see. Well, the difference is that a child by itself is rather weak and frail. It literally cannot survive without the parent, and it is this incontrovertible fact of dependence that demands its obedience to its master, the parent. Many religions are often quick to belittle humankind in their conception. The thing is, while we are diminutive relative to the omnipotence of God, we are not weak and frail in and of ourselves like the child is in the absence of the parent's care. Child is always a "child" to a parent regardless of age, so I wasn't gearing what I was saying about a small child I was thinking an adult child in the same home still must show reverence on some degree to a parent regardless, especially in a healthy relationship. As a believer, I would see God as my life giver, not I his, so there is reverence. It's all nice to say you believe but words are empty symbols without any actions to back them up. If someone says they love you but do absolutely nothing in their actions to show it, is that really love or mindless appeasement? Never again, not I. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught.
Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] Adam and Eve were created perfect and thus would have a perfect understanding of not only the instructions given them, but also of the "intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order", therefore they were in fact NOT "devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following" said commands. They were free moral agents and willfully chose to disobey... just as we are free moral agents and have that same choice. We, as imperfect humans have the ability to discern right and wrong, as taught to us by our imperfect parents and the imperfect generations before them. Assuming we are physically and mentally capable (despite our inherited imperfections), we can choose to obey God, our parents or any who may influence us, or our own internal moral compass or lack thereof. God's existence is not synonymous with obedience, just as our parents' nor any others' in positions of authority existence is synonymous with obedience. It is a fact that our parents exist, and yet we still have the choice to obey them or not. It is not unreasonable for a loving parent to expect obedience from their children, and well taught children - even the now many generations removed imperfect ones - understand very clearly the consequences for disobedience. http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm [Edited 6/27/09 9:23am] http://prince.org/msg/105/307615
"Eternity is just one kiss away" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jill4life said: PurpleKnight said: They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught. Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] They were instructed not to eat from and given the freedom to choose, had they not had the option of choosing, that would signify a command. Had they been told the intricacies and/or ramifications it would defeat Jehova's purpose to provide for and to teach the value of obedience, besides, Adam and Eve could not have conceptualized anyway because they had nothing to compare it to. If you have small children, tell them not to.....and sure enough they will. When I was a child I stuck a bobby pin in a socket to see what would happen; I stuck my finger in an idled car's lighter to see if the lighter was hot--one part of me rationalized that it was not because the car had been turned off but I always knew there was a chance that it would be hot. First of all, if they had nothing to compare it to, then their choice was already determined to a certain extent from the onset. That means God should have been sympathetic to their vulnerability rather than punish them despotically. It is their not being told the ramifications that defeats the purpose. That places the blame on the parent (in this case, God). If I as a parent tell my child not to touch something that is hot but fail to explain in sufficient detail why they should listen to me, I am acting irresponsibly. I know the child, being curious and failing to understand why I should be listened to, will likely touch the hot surface. It is up to me to explain what the consequence will be, so they will know not to touch the hot surface when the time comes that I am not there to supervise. morningsong said: PurpleKnight said: Well, the difference is that a child by itself is rather weak and frail. It literally cannot survive without the parent, and it is this incontrovertible fact of dependence that demands its obedience to its master, the parent. Many religions are often quick to belittle humankind in their conception. The thing is, while we are diminutive relative to the omnipotence of God, we are not weak and frail in and of ourselves like the child is in the absence of the parent's care. Child is always a "child" to a parent regardless of age, so I wasn't gearing what I was saying about a small child I was thinking an adult child in the same home still must show reverence on some degree to a parent regardless, especially in a healthy relationship. As a believer, I would see God as my life giver, not I his, so there is reverence. It's all nice to say you believe but words are empty symbols without any actions to back them up. If someone says they love you but do absolutely nothing in their actions to show it, is that really love or mindless appeasement? I would think that obedience is the mindless manifestation of love. The problem I have is that you are equating reverence with obedience, as if the absence of the latter negates the presence of the former. All obedience negates is the potentiality of the human spirit itself. God endowed me with agency and imagination. What a waste of such gifts when they are set aside for the sake of conforming, as the rest of His followers do, to the same set of rules and conceptions of the good. Why all this obsession with pleasing the creator anyway? Are we so self-loathing that we cannot entertain the idea of creating our own visions of greatness instead of passively following that of a deity's? Are we really so scared of such boundless freedom? Are we so timid that we wouldn't know what to do with it? It requires creativity and boldness, and I think the lack of both is what leads one to accept God's fiat without hesitation. spiritandtruth said: PurpleKnight said: They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught.
Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] Adam and Eve were created perfect and thus would have a perfect understanding of not only the instructions given them, but also of the "intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order", therefore they were in fact NOT "devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following" said commands. They were free moral agents and willfully chose to disobey... just as we are free moral agents and have that same choice. We, as imperfect humans have the ability to discern right and wrong, as taught to us by our imperfect parents and the imperfect generations before them. Assuming we are physically and mentally capable (despite our inherited imperfections), we can choose to obey God, our parents or any who may influence us, or our own internal moral compass or lack thereof. God's existence is not synonymous with obedience, just as our parents' nor any others' in positions of authority existence is synonymous with obedience. It is a fact that our parents exist, and yet we still have the choice to obey them or not. It is not unreasonable for a loving parent to expect obedience from their children, and well taught children - even the now many generations removed imperfect ones - understand very clearly the consequences for disobedience. http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm [Edited 6/27/09 9:23am] Clearly, they were not created perfect if they had a capacity to act against the good, which negates your entire argument's foundation. If the perfection that was passed down from God includes a propensity to make wrong choices, as Adam and Eve did, that would mean that God Himself is flawed. If God is flawed, then God needn't be obeyed absolutely. If, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were indeed created imperfect then it was inevitable that they would disobey without a moral framework to follow. Thus, God punished them arbitrarily. I'm not sure you understand what a moral framework means. You say that they were free moral agents, but how can the breaking of a law exist prior to the establishment of one? Is it wrong to steal in a society that has yet to agree that stealing is wrong? God did not explain to his first creatures why disobedience is wrong. He simply handed down a command that would then seem perfectly fine to disregard. Not only this, but He allowed the brilliant manipulator, Satan, to deceive His creations and left them to their own primitive faculties of reason to make the final choice. In any court of law, if a defendant was deprived of an attorney and had no knowledge of the laws they had broken, we would not call that a just proceeding. God's Eden was not just. It is not unreasonable for a parent to ask obedience from its child, but this is only so because the child depends on the parent for its very survival. On the contrary, we do not need God in any meaningful sense. He has already demonstrated that He does not intervene in the world, so why not actualize our full potential for creative interpretation of moral laws and visions of the good life and be truly great until the day of reckoning? I'm not sure you understand my initial argument though. I'm not putting forth a determinist argument saying that God existing means we automatically obey. I'm saying that one ought not to, even whilst knowing that God exists. One becomes an individual to the fullest extent only once one resists an aggregate and establishes oneself as a unique creature with thoughts and values of value above and beyond merely what has already been instituted as such. Yet we tend to believe we ought to cease that process of individualization once it reaches Heaven. This, I see as terribly unfortunate. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Clearly, they were not created perfect if they had a capacity to act against the good, which negates your entire argument's foundation. If the perfection that was passed down from God includes a propensity to make wrong choices, as Adam and Eve did, that would mean that God Himself is flawed. If God is flawed, then God needn't be obeyed absolutely. If, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were indeed created imperfect then it was inevitable that they would disobey without a moral framework to follow. Thus, God punished them arbitrarily.
I totally agree with this. Simple logic says they were doomed to fail from the get-go. ONLY LOSERS FEAR A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD~~Sananda Maitreya Beware of men that will not go down! (I wish my momma had taught me all this)-BklynBabe | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Clearly, they were not created perfect if they had a capacity to act against the good, which negates your entire argument's foundation. If the perfection that was passed down from God includes a propensity to make wrong choices, as Adam and Eve did, that would mean that God Himself is flawed. If God is flawed, then God needn't be obeyed absolutely. If, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were indeed created imperfect then it was inevitable that they would disobey without a moral framework to follow. Thus, God punished them arbitrarily.
Why does being created perfect preclude the ability to CHOOSE to act towards "the good" or not? It would not be logical to create a perfect being and then not allow that one to utilize their free will. They were in fact created as perfect beings and subsequently chose to disobey - they lost their perfection and ultimately their lives when they made that choice. I'm not sure you understand what a moral framework means. You say that they were free moral agents, but how can the breaking of a law exist prior to the establishment of one? Is it wrong to steal in a society that has yet to agree that stealing is wrong? God did not explain to his first creatures why disobedience is wrong. He simply handed down a command that would then seem perfectly fine to disregard. Not only this, but He allowed the brilliant manipulator, Satan, to deceive His creations and left them to their own primitive faculties of reason to make the final choice. In any court of law, if a defendant was deprived of an attorney and had no knowledge of the laws they had broken, we would not call that a just proceeding. God's Eden was not just.
But the law was broken AFTER the establishment of said law. Eve herself acknowledged: "At this the woman said to the serpent: "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’" - Gen 3:2,3. As a perfect being, she did not have "primitive faculties of reason." She clearly did understand the command and the consequences for disobedience, she had perfect knowledge of the law. Doesn't seem perfectly fine to disregard to me. The fact that she CHOSE to give into Satan's deception speaks to her stunningly bad decision, as a perfect being. Keep in mind that Satan too, was created a perfect spirit creature and he CHOSE to rebel, as he was jealous of God's sovereignty and coveted the worship of His creation. It is not unreasonable for a parent to ask obedience from its child, but this is only so because the child depends on the parent for its very survival. On the contrary, we do not need God in any meaningful sense. He has already demonstrated that He does not intervene in the world, so why not actualize our full potential for creative interpretation of moral laws and visions of the good life and be truly great until the day of reckoning?
Ah, this reminds me of Satan's challenge to God concerning Job... he asserted something similar. I personally believe that we DO need God, in every sense. Mankind has already demonstrated that they can not successfully live independently from Him, as started with the initial act of disobedience by the first human pair. "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned" - Rom 5:12 I'm not sure you understand my initial argument though. I'm not putting forth a determinist argument saying that God existing means we automatically obey. I'm saying that one ought not to, even whilst knowing that God exists.
That's what Satan said to Eve, and she decided to go with that... it didn't work out very well 
One becomes an individual to the fullest extent only once one resists an aggregate and establishes oneself as a unique creature with thoughts and values of value above and beyond merely what has already been instituted as such. Yet we tend to believe we ought to cease that process of individualization once it reaches Heaven. This, I see as terribly unfortunate.
I am an individual to the fullest extent in that I have made MY choice to love, obey and serve God to the best of my ability, when I could just as easily choose not to do so. The fact that I am a unique creature with thoughts and values are gifts endowed to me by our Creator, but I certainly would NEVER presume that my thoughts and values are above what God himself has instituted. I personally do not believe that "we ought to cease that process of individualization once it reaches Heaven" and if you believe this, then I see that to be terribly unfortunate. http://prince.org/msg/105/307615
"Eternity is just one kiss away" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
All these storied debates about the possible existence of an omnipotent ruler. Atheists on the one hand often try to argue the absurdity of such a proposition as a basis for transgressing certain biblical laws, and theists on the other side sometimes try to theorize the existence of God vehemently as a means of defending their following of the holy word. Why follow it at all, even knowing full well that God exists and wants you to? Satan tried to elevate his status to that of a near-God and chose an evil path. Can one not do likewise but choose instead a path of morality and virtue? Can we not rebel without corrupting the goodness we so aspire towards? Must I really acquiesce once I believe? Food for thought on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Nice. First, let me state that I really do think that the christian "tree" has so many branches because noone wants to follow it's original roots.... Nonmetaphorically speaking, people just choose whatever denomination fits to their preferences and life style. I had a friend who converted to catholic simply because she thought hail marys were cool. People don't get it, if you have to take the life of another to prove your faith then there are problems in general with both you and whatever entity you are following. If you have to go though another human who is just as flawed in order to get to the omnipotent being then know that you will be manipulated....and not by god. If you have to talk down about someone who is not like you in the name of whatever god you serve in order to gain his favor, then aparently that entity is not worth following. Same goes if you talk about someone with a highminded attitude. Everyone, you are responsible for yourselves, and your choices. I'm not saying that it is impossible for the creator to communicate with us humans, but use common sense. If you hear a voice telling you to kill your own children, it's not god it's YOU. If you have this tingling urge to spend your money at the casino and you truly believe it is god, ignore the voice actually do what makes sense (walk away from the poker table). I don't necessarily believe in this obedience, however I do believe in something greater than that: common sense, compassion, love, kindness, selflessness, and open mindedness. That is greater than any commandment, law, etc. I'm am very nondenominational in thought. I don't have a problem accepting that I don't know anything, I don't know the truth, and there is more to the spirit life than words written by men on paper to supress minorities (you know what I'm talking about, sexism). I do believe in god though (just not in our conventional standards). Let's have a little fun....
If you win, I'll give you 50$ If I win, you have to get a lobotomy. A win win situation your you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
guitarslinger44 said: To answer the topic question, because God is bigger and more powerful than you. He could smite your little ass just by raising his eyebrow (this is all theoretical of course)
If God were proven, then it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. So therefore, if you chose to disbelieve something that everyone knew to be fact, you'd be an idiot. And if, given the chance to spend eternity in heaven or hell, and you chose hell, well, I can't help you there. But because we don't have any proof of the existence of god, then there's no point in doing things that you wouldn't normally do "just in case." Does that make sense? You can go to church every sunday, but the building itself will crumble in time. You can go through a priest to talk to god, but the priest will also die. You can take pilgrimages (spelled wrong?) to the hill that connects the spirit world and the human world, but the hill will slowly erode. I don't think doing anything, if I had to imagine, would get you in good graces with god. I think it all has to do with the actual heart of the person. Let's have a little fun....
If you win, I'll give you 50$ If I win, you have to get a lobotomy. A win win situation your you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jill4life said: PurpleKnight said: My problem is equating obedience to love. Even if, say, Christianity was 100% true, I would hope I could be brave enough to still reject the Christian moral doctrine. Even if it meant not going to heaven when I die. It is better to live by one's own defined means of morality and happiness than obey; even if your master is a deity. For what it's worth though, the Adam & Eve story is an example of God punishing arbitrarily. Eve could not possibly have sinned because there was no existing moral doctrine. God created Adam & Eve without any kind of established moral code to live by and punished them for behaviour we only "know" to be immoral now because of the laws he later handed down to Moses. Why should a power disparity justify my submission? The fact that God has the power to destroy me at any moment is itself not a moral justification for me to obey. That is simply a practical reason to do so. Once again, people: this is a thought experiment. Its about choice always. The purpose of obedience is to follow God's Word which teaches one to love all others. If this doctrine were followed, peace to all makind would be realized and evil, while everpresent, would not be a consideration but still a factor. Eve's choice was disobedient and she and Adam were punished for their disobedience however they were granted the choice to follow or not even in a "perfect garden". The problem is though that the doctrine that is taught in the books do indeed support things that can beget evil, for example, stoning a woman. There isn't any love in killing nor is there any love in giving the directive to kill, No matter who or where it comes from. Also, I would like to ask why Eve was made to be the one to eat the apple (and share with Adam, so he is just as guilty  ).....Let's have a little fun....
If you win, I'll give you 50$ If I win, you have to get a lobotomy. A win win situation your you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jill4life said: PurpleKnight said: They were told of a consequence but not taught the intricacies of why it is wrong to disobey an order. All they were given were commands. Commands only work insofar as one either has the power of fear over another or establishes a moral framework that one can willingly agree to upon being taught. Adam & Eve were given commands devoid of a moral framework on which to base the rightness of following them. That is unfair. [Edited 6/24/09 23:13pm] They were instructed not to eat from and given the freedom to choose, had they not had the option of choosing, that would signify a command. Had they been told the intricacies and/or ramifications it would defeat Jehova's purpose to provide for and to teach the value of obedience, besides, Adam and Eve could not have conceptualized anyway because they had nothing to compare it to. If you have small children, tell them not to.....and sure enough they will. When I was a child I stuck a bobby pin in a socket to see what would happen; I stuck my finger in an idled car's lighter to see if the lighter was hot--one part of me rationalized that it was not because the car had been turned off but I always knew there was a chance that it would be hot. You can have free will but not the experience to develop a certain amount of wisdom to make an individual "I" decision that is the essential/notable attribute of free will. You stuck a bobby pin in the socket out of curiosity. The natural order of things punished you for that (or didn't, you never told us.). You had a feeling that it would be hot, but was not 100% sure, so you touched the car's lighter out of curiosity. Once again, nature punished you. You got burnt (or didn't, you never told us.). You wouldn't do this again today, because you know better. You grew wiser. Adam and eve didn't have that. Let's have a little fun....
If you win, I'll give you 50$ If I win, you have to get a lobotomy. A win win situation your you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
noimageatall said: bluesbaby said: what if the "obedience" is just to be in relationship with God? We are given free will, (at least that is my belief) and I think the largest portion of our "obedience" is just the relating to God as we were created. There is no free will if you have two choices and death is a punishment for one of them. You just answered the question No different than society, You can kill if you want, rob and rape Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed 2 be Our clothes, our hair, we don't care It's all about being there... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: Let's imagine that science miraculously finds a way to prove that one of the Abrahamic faiths is indeed true. It can be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam that hypothetically turns out to be the verified word of God. Even then, why should one submit their will? For want of reward in an afterlife, or more crudely, fear of punishment past the material world? Is that not a fanciful way of confessing cowardice? Maybe out of a love of one's divine creator? That could be it, but has love ever had to mean absolute rule over a subordinate other? Has it ever been so non-negotiable as it is outlined in the holy books of the Abrahamic traditions?
All these storied debates about the possible existence of an omnipotent ruler. Atheists on the one hand often try to argue the absurdity of such a proposition as a basis for transgressing certain biblical laws, and theists on the other side sometimes try to theorize the existence of God vehemently as a means of defending their following of the holy word. Why follow it at all, even knowing full well that God exists and wants you to? Satan tried to elevate his status to that of a near-God and chose an evil path. Can one not do likewise but choose instead a path of morality and virtue? Can we not rebel without corrupting the goodness we so aspire towards? Must I really acquiesce once I believe? Food for thought on a lazy Sunday afternoon. the Abrahamic Judaic (Christian)isssues only came about after Adam & Woman ate of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. What other rules of obedience were there? but that? Be fruitful & multiply all the tree of the garden freely eat keep the garden(any lovers of outdoors, forestry, arborist, landscapers, gardeners?) Don't labor on the sabbath(saturday) which probably mean they could set their own work days and hours(how sweet is that?) naked, didn't have to worry about fashion and they communed with the Creator(he came down 2 visit) the animal kingdom was tame, no worrys there, can you imaging playing with grizzlies, elephants, lions, orcas, even snakes with no worry of harm? What was so hard about that? [Edited 6/29/09 11:07am] Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed 2 be Our clothes, our hair, we don't care It's all about being there... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
