Help me.

[razzelflabben]

God punished Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge. Does this not strike you as extremely contradictory?

Hosea was after the fall of man, wouldn't that give you a hint to why this isn't contradictory???? Have a go Nadiine, I'm enjoying your posts.

 

[Nadiine]

God punished Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge. Does this not strike you as extremely contradictory?

Knowledge of what tho? Good and Evil. Not that they would
somehow gain a literary education of some sort or know all there
is to know about God and His wonderful truths, etc.

I believe that tree held the only stipulation (or condition)
God gave them to obey. You can have everything, but just don't
take from this one tree.
Taking from that tree would change everything and bring evil into the world and the knowledge of their new condition (curses and all) -
they were immediately aware that they were naked; an innocence
was lost as it were.

There are all types of knowledge - good and bad.
We want children to gain knowledge, but do we want them to have knowledge of the inappropriate content world at 9 years old? Or gruesome violent stories
from the news?

The knowledge Adam & Eve gained was about evil and the changes
it would bring about in their surroundings, relationships and physical
bodies.

 

[Nadiine]

It is precisely our intellect that tells us so. It is people who lack intellect who don't know just how much they don't know.

Actually, both smart and dull people have arrogance / pride
when it comes to intellect.
And as a christian, I don't see nonChristians as very wise in some
of their approaches to things; altho they think they are.

The more I've learned, the more I realize I know so little.
(and my 'learning' is small compared to many).
We just scratch the surface of what can be known; especially
spiritually.

It is just the opposite. It is the illusion of familiarity with the present that causes us to think that past centuries were so much better than our own.

Well you can think what you'de like and hold that opinion -
I doubt anyone can prove that either way - what we can
know for sure is, evil is prevalent and lack of peace is
escalating around the world

 

[Eudaimonist]

Our intellect tends to make us arrogant and self righteous... Consider the mass murder in jail who does an interview and acts as if he is the smartest man in the world, or the criminal that does stupid things trying to defy the police, thinking they can get away with it.

Mass murderers and criminals have intellect?

Someone who acts like he is "the smartest man in the world", is suffering from low self-esteem, not intellect. Criminals who do stupid things are clearly lacking in intellect.

Or how about the elitists among us who think that because of their money and power they are above the law.

It is not my point that intellect prevents people from doing wrong, but only that it allows people to understand that what they are doing is wrong and that they can do better.

Face it, sin, or getting away with a sin, is a natural high, producing chemicals in our bodies that excite us and spur us to want more and more and more.

It is intellect that you are appealing to in me to convince me of this.

This stumps me, seldom have I ever heard anyone proclaim that the past was much better than our present, at least as far as intelligence goes. As far as sins against man, yeah, is that what you are referring to here?

I was responding to this:

"As I see it, the more knowledge man attains, the more depraved he's getting overall."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razzelflabben]

Mass murderers and criminals have intellect?



It is not my point that intellect prevents people from doing wrong, but only that it allows people to understand that what they are doing is wrong.



It is intellect that you are appealing to in me to convince me of this.



I was responding to this:

"As I see it, the more knowledge man attains, the more depraved
he's getting overall."


eudaimonia,

Mark

And what I showed you is that on both extremes, those who are well educated as well as those who might not be, evil reigns and is not detered by knowledge at least man's knowledge.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And what I showed you is that on both extremes, those who are well educated as well as those who might not be, evil reigns and is not detered by knowledge at least man's knowledge.

Evil is deterred. Not prevented entirely and in all cases, but light is shed on this evil, and on better ways to live.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Infernalfist]

Evil is most certainly deterred by knowledge that is based in fact. when you have pure and undeniable truths they are impenetrable by good and evil. they are exactly what they are.

 

[razzelflabben]

Evil is deterred. Not prevented entirely and in all cases, but light is shed on this evil, and on better ways to live.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In what way is it deterred? Look around you, well educated people are doing all kinds of evil all the time, Zimbabwe is a perfect example of this "knowledge" spurring evil acts.

 

[razzelflabben]

Evil is most certainly deterred by knowledge that is based in fact. when you have pure and undeniable truths they are impenetrable by good and evil. they are exactly what they are.

What is truth? IS there such a thing as universal truth? Isn't it what we have seen throughout history and the world that what is one man's truth is another man's evil?

 

[Infernalfist]

truth - a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. i think you might be crossing the definition of truth with the definition of belief. I think that is where we run into roadblocks and trouble when we debate religion. people seem to place beliefs out on the table labeling them as truths. i think that is a huge problem facing all human societies. it is perfectly natural and even healthy to have a system of beliefs, but when you attempt to dress one thing up as another (ie beliefs as truths) that is a form of deception, whether intentional or unintentional, and can lead to evil.

 

[tanzanos]

truth - a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. i think you might be crossing the definition of truth with the definition of belief. I think that is where we run into roadblocks and trouble when we debate religion. people seem to place beliefs out on the table labeling them as truths. i think that is a huge problem facing all human societies. it is perfectly natural and even healthy to have a system of beliefs, but when you attempt to dress one thing up as another (ie beliefs as truths) that is a form of deception, whether intentional or unintentional, and can lead to evil.

That basically sums up how I feel also. Good post

 

[Nadiine]

In what way is it deterred? Look around you, well educated people are doing all kinds of evil all the time, Zimbabwe is a perfect example of this "knowledge" spurring evil acts.

The problem you would most likely run into here is the definition of evil.

I consider abortion and partial birth as evil as evil gets. But you won't
get everyone to agree that it's legalized infanticide.
So one good example of evil from an educated, knowledgable society will
not be any example to another who supports abortion.
The same can be true of many other controversial moral actions like stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanization, etc. etc.

Not that things aren't evil, just that you cannot get everyone to
agree that they are and that's how it's allowed into society
over time - one at a time. One gives way to the next to follow

 

[Nadiine]

truth - a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. i think you might be crossing the definition of truth with the definition of belief. I think that is where we run into roadblocks and trouble when we debate religion. people seem to place beliefs out on the table labeling them as truths. i think that is a huge problem facing all human societies. it is perfectly natural and even healthy to have a system of beliefs, but when you attempt to dress one thing up as another (ie beliefs as truths) that is a form of deception, whether intentional or unintentional, and can lead to evil.

The problem is that people reject truth too.
And the beliefs are based on true or untrue subjects/issues - what one believes
about something is either true or not.

Truth doesn't mean anything to the one who rejects it; disbelieves that it's true.
Let's use [non life threatening] abortion again - it's either true or false that it's heinous & evil.
It may be a 'belief' to all of us; how we view it, but the action itself
IS good or evil in reality.

So in a way, truth and belief are close companions & the belief
is based on something that is true or false.

If Christianity IS true (and I claim it is) lack of believing it is true
doesn't render it false. And if Christianity is true, then those who believe
it are in agreement with what is true. It doesn't make it just "belief".
And we could apply that to all the religions (or 'non religions') that exist.

I don't consider it a 'dressing' - belief is contingent upon a truth or falsity
at the source. One or the other.

 

[Infernalfist]

though a good argument, it has it's folly because the only people who agree with you will be people who want to believe that you are correct. anyone can logically dispute the validity of any religious text and the people who follow it. believing that religion is absolute truth is just the same as believing the earth is flat, and that man's trip to the moon is a lie. i'm sure that if you made those claims there are some who would agree, but that doesn't necessarily make it truth. if i take 5 steps and each step clears 2 feet. noone can logically dispute the fact that i would have traveled 10 feet. if someone were to say that a man who experiences love is a happy man at the moment of experiencing that feeling, that can't be disputed either. what can be disputed is the fact that several books written by people who had a very minimal viewpoint on science, psychology, and phylosophy were absolutely 100% correct in their assumption of the way life should be lived.

 

[Nadiine]

though a good argument, it has it's folly because the only people who agree with you will be people who want to believe that you are correct.

I disagree.
I used to be for capital punishment for many years, and it's only
within the past 2 yrs that I've begun to question that.

Your statement basically rules out honesty. Honest people will dig for honest info
to form beliefs & opinions. Now if they're not honest,
they'll stick to the bias & prejudice unapologetically. (but even in
bias & prejudice, they CAN be right if the issue they agree with or
believe IS true/truth).

Additionally, this is basically stating that God (and I'll even broaden
it to gods from other religions) cannot convert/regenerate people
to change them inwardly.

I didn't WANT to be a Christian most of my life. I am a Christian
today becuz I know I had a personal confrontation with God who
has changed me this way.
Most Christians I know didn't want God or Christianity either - quite
the contrary. But we were changed.

anyone can logically dispute the validity of any religious text and the people who follow it. believing that religion is absolute truth is just the same as believing the earth is flat, and that man's trip to the moon is a lie.

But again, either the religion they're promoting is TRUE, or it's FALSE.

Either the earth is flat or it's not. Either man went to the moon,
or it was a big hoax.

Each belief is about a truth claim - it's either true or it's false.
Their belief in it/about it is either right or wrong.
Basically what we see today is this "if people disagree, then we
can't know if something is true or not".
As if disagreement makes us unable to know anything is true anymore.

I think this is a fundamental error that is seriously harming humanity
and their worldviews.

i'm sure that if you made those claims there are some who would agree, but that doesn't necessarily make it truth.

Right, and it doesn't necessarily make it false just becuz I might
believe they are true.

Look how many people believe global warming is true. We actually
don't have much proof of it - alot of it is manipulated information.
Other information contradicts it....
But it's either true or false in reality - one side is right and one isn't.
It's still predicated on what is fact or not.

So again, I don't see belief as "dressing" for truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

truth - a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

right, so is what is truth for me, the same as what is truth for you or the guy in Timbuktu? What about science, what do they define as truth? Hint: in science there is no truth, only theories. Truth is somewhat varies by many things including but not limited to culture and place in history.

i think you might be crossing the definition of truth with the definition of belief. I think that is where we run into roadblocks and trouble when we debate religion. people seem to place beliefs out on the table labeling them as truths.

Only I'm not asking anyone to accept what I am saying as truth. Your comments here only work if I ask you to believe that everything I am telling you is truth. In fact, I am not, in fact, I have plainly stated that the views I am presenting are from the bible (you can believe the bible is false if you want, but the answers are still coming from there) As well as me saying to you all that it is a matter of perspective. Keep in mind that perspectives vary, they are not absolutes, in fact, it is why truth is so relative, because truth primarily relies on the premise or perspective one approaches the topic with.

i think that is a huge problem facing all human societies. it is perfectly natural and even healthy to have a system of beliefs, but when you attempt to dress one thing up as another (ie beliefs as truths) that is a form of deception, whether intentional or unintentional, and can lead to evil.

as in holy wars, many of such have and are being fought here on this thread.

 

[razzelflabben]

The problem you would most likely run into here is the definition of evil.

I consider abortion and partial birth as evil as evil gets. But you won't
get everyone to agree that it's legalized infanticide.
So one good example of evil from an educated, knowledgable society will
not be any example to another who supports abortion.
The same can be true of many other controversial moral actions like stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanization, etc. etc.

which goes right back to the definition of truth. Is truth as absolute as we would like to think it is. If truth is nothing more than the facts of something that already happened, then we can agree on truths, I already typed the word truths in the post, that is fact, but if we try to apply "truth" to anything else, we fail because in those instances, truth is whatever we want to make it, it's relative.

Not that things aren't evil, just that you cannot get everyone to
agree that they are and that's how it's allowed into society
over time - one at a time. One gives way to the next to follow

Which is why it is always good to have a standard by which to measure. In my posts, I base all my comments unless otherwise stated on the bible. This gives us an absolute by which to measure sin and the evilness of man. (Sin equal to evil). Without that measure truth or evil, or even sin is relative to what we personally deem truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

though a good argument, it has it's folly because the only people who agree with you will be people who want to believe that you are correct. anyone can logically dispute the validity of any religious text and the people who follow it. believing that religion is absolute truth is just the same as believing the earth is flat, and that man's trip to the moon is a lie. i'm sure that if you made those claims there are some who would agree, but that doesn't necessarily make it truth. if i take 5 steps and each step clears 2 feet. noone can logically dispute the fact that i would have traveled 10 feet. if someone were to say that a man who experiences love is a happy man at the moment of experiencing that feeling, that can't be disputed either. what can be disputed is the fact that several books written by people who had a very minimal viewpoint on science, psychology, and phylosophy were absolutely 100% correct in their assumption of the way life should be lived.

Exactly what I said, if truth is based on something already that happened, we can verify that, as in I already typed the word truth, it is testable, verifiable, truth. But when we try to apply the word and concept to things that are subjective, it looses all meaning. That is why premise or perspective is so vital to such a discussion. That is why we need to look beyond our own bias and into the ideas of others. Because our truth is not necessarily the truth of another. When we have a measuring stick, all that changes. If let's say that my premise is that according to the constitution of the US X is truth. We can take the constitution of the US and measure X to see if it is truth. X may or may not be truth, but that is is truth according to the constitution can be verified or falsified as truth. The same is true for the bible, we can use the bible as a measure to know if the things being spoken are truth according to that measure.

 

[razzelflabben]

I disagree.
I used to be for capital punishment for many years, and it's only
within the past 2 yrs that I've begun to question that.

Your statement basically rules out honesty. Honest people will dig for honest info
to form beliefs & opinions. Now if they're not honest,
they'll stick to the bias & prejudice unapologetically. (but even in
bias & prejudice, they CAN be right if the issue they agree with or
believe IS true/truth).

Additionally, this is basically stating that God (and I'll even broaden
it to gods from other religions) cannot convert/regenerate people
to change them inwardly.

I didn't WANT to be a Christian most of my life. I am a Christian
today becuz I know I had a personal confrontation with God who
has changed me this way.
Most Christians I know didn't want God or Christianity either - quite
the contrary. But we were changed.


But again, either the religion they're promoting is TRUE, or it's FALSE.

Either the earth is flat or it's not. Either man went to the moon,
or it was a big hoax.

Each belief is about a truth claim - it's either true or it's false.
Their belief in it/about it is either right or wrong.
Basically what we see today is this "if people disagree, then we
can't know if something is true or not".
As if disagreement makes us unable to know anything is true anymore.

I think this is a fundamental error that is seriously harming humanity
and their worldviews.


Right, and it doesn't necessarily make it false just becuz I might
believe they are true.

Look how many people believe global warming is true. We actually
don't have much proof of it - alot of it is manipulated information.
Other information contradicts it....
But it's either true or false in reality - one side is right and one isn't.
It's still predicated on what is fact or not.

So again, I don't see belief as "dressing" for truth.

So maybe the idea of truth is in the revelation, for example, this discussion is revealing the truth of what each individual here believes truth to be?

 

[Infernalfist]

Nadiine, I have to admit that i have a great respect for your response.
that being said, how do you test honesty in people? can you use those same methods to test those who wrote all religious text? i believe it is doubtful that you can. no human is 100% honest, even those who follow a particular religion closely. bearing that in mind, how can you tell that the parts of those religious texts that are held in high regard were written at an honest point in that person's life? how do you know that they were not written in bias toward a particular idea of which that person felt to be true? i mean, i personally don't think you can tell the most about an artist by reading a biography written by a second party, you truly get a feel for an artist by observing, studying and appreciating his work.
when a statement is disputed to be untrue you are able to defend it by providing evidence to prove the statement. for instance if someone were to say that the earth is flat you could show them a picture of the earth taken from a nearby satellite(not to mention a number of other methods), or when someone says that we never went to the moon you can show them video of the lunar landing. when someone tries to defend a particular religious ideal, then proof is rarely ever, if not, never able to be presented. so why stand behind it with more conviction than a scientific idea? why not look at it with as much scrutiny as you would the idea that human kind is causing the drastic global climate change?