Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:...
You imagine Adam and Eve is about corrupt Earthly knowledge (there was no such "knowledge": there was only what the Bible says there was, which was the possibility of the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.) ...

Don't forget the fruit from the Tree of Life(which was why Eve and Adam were expelled).

Immanuel Can wrote:You've misread. They were never expelled for taking the fruit of the Tree of Life...only for that of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Au contraire, they were kept out of the garden so that they would not subsequently eat of the Tree of the Life, and thus live forever as perpetually evil.

Apparently God wanted to limit evil's lease

thedoc wrote:There is another interpretation, that the knowledge of good and evil was actually the stage of evolution when the animal that was to become human actually evolved into human beings, because at that point humans became self aware, and understood that some actions were good and others were bad. They understood that killing another human or animal would hurt that human or animal, rather than just killing a piece of food to eat. That is why there was so much ritual involved in butchering an animal, humans realized the need to kill as quickly as possible so as to reduce the suffering to a minimum.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Apparently God wanted to limit evil's lease

Nah! Just a jealous old 'man' hoarding it all for 'himself' and brooking no peers. Look what he did to his favourite 'angel'.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Because if you love one thing more, choosing it over another that is less loved, then that can only be characterized as being selfish, as you're serving that which you love the most. Your being unselfish would be you picking that which you loved less, sacrificing that which you loved more.

You really need to look up the definition of sacrifice.
No, I don't! Instead you need to think about it, unbiased, if that's even possible in this context. Some will do almost anything to save their religion.

It is not "giving up the thing you love most."
I never said that! I implied that when given a choice, as in this case, between ONLY "two" options, i.e., to either kill your son, or obey your, so called, god, ones REASON for choosing either of the two, spells out whether they can be said to have self sacrificed or not. If one weighs the two choices then chooses the least offensive as their course of action, (the one they can live with the easiest), then they RELATIVELY have made no self sacrifice. Because to REALLY SELF sacrifice, ones SELF would have to be denied, not served. If Abraham loved his, so called, god more than his son, then chose to obey his god and kill his son, he made no REAL self sacrifice, because BETWEEN the TWO, he chose his PREFERENCE. To choose you preference is no real self sacrifice. To instead choose to defy an ALL POWERFUL god, believing full well that he will smite you into oblivion, (HELL), so as to allow your son his own life, for his sake alone, would be the only TRUE SELF sacrifice. PERIOD!!!!! Because the other choice allows you to live your life unfettered by the fear of hell, TRULY SELF SERVING indeed. So in the end I really don't care what you say, you are wrong and I am right, not because I'm hard headed, though indeed I am, rather because LOGIC dictates it, TRULY!

Here's the truth of it, people often frame that which they do not like, that opposes something they hold more dear, with other word choices, so as to fool themselves, and others into believing there was no opposition. This is where Arising finds dictionary circular reference, IMHO. To me, it's the contradiction that humans build into their language so they can side step the truth of the matter, to sooth their self image. For instance someone here, I'll not mention their nym, chose to frame cowardice as common sense, (rational thought), when in fact at it's core it was simply cowardice, because he could not face his own cowardice, he could not sacrifice himSELF, especially in such a public way. We all do it because the language of such HAIR-SPLITTING words meanings are built by us to serve such SELFISH wants/desires. Don't like what it is, choose another hair splitting word and you're free. Or so you believe...

...but deep down in your conscience, (subconsciously)...

...it drives some crazy, though one could argue, they already were!

It is "the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone." Now, if you think Abraham didn't want to keep Isaac, then yes, that's not sacrifice. If he did want to keep Isaac (as I would my son), but sacrificed him anyway, that is absolutely the meaning of the word. Abraham gives up something precious (or was willing to). But fine. Maybe you can't understand how that constitutes a sacrifice. At this point, what's clear is that we're not going to get anywhere further. You've made up your mind and, to be honest, that's fine. Me, I just don't have the time to keep at this. Would that there were 100 hours in a day.

thedoc wrote:I really don't see a problem with God sending Lucifer out to test and tempt people into committing a sin. I know it was a dirty job, but someone had to do it.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:I really don't see a problem with God sending Lucifer out to test and tempt people into committing a sin. I know it was a dirty job, but someone had to do it.

I think 'Lucifer' sounded pretty pissed with it and it was hardly a request from the sounds of it. Me, I think, fuck 'em all and the horses they rode in on and the same pretty much for the all the godbothering sheep.

thedoc wrote:Well if that's your preference, go for it, but not if they don't want to, that would be rape, especially the horses.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:So let's see...

You don't know what a Christian is.

Don't be silly. Do you accept that people who interpret the new testament differently to you, who are not 'Trinitarians', can also be Christians?

Immanuel Can wrote:You don't believe in, or understand the historical importance of Trinitarianism.

I think I understand it better than you. I repeat, it is the Romans attempt to create a catholic answer to the fundamental questions addressed by all creation myths. You, I believe, take it literally.

Immanuel Can wrote:You don't understand agape love, or God's love, as it is described in the Bible.

You equated love with sacrifice; your god sacrificed nothing. To repeat; I would surrender all possible future experience for my children; something your god couldn't and didn't do. It is drivel on your part to accuse me of not understanding agape.

Immanuel Can wrote:You have an incomplete recall of the story of the widow's mite, and think it was non-sacrificial ( it was two copper coins, the disciples did not say anything there, and in terms of sacrifice, Christ says, "she gave all that she had to live on, all that she had")

But I remember it. You are the one using statistics to make your point; love for your fellow human is not about statistics.

Immanuel Can wrote:You imagine Adam and Eve is about corrupt Earthly knowledge (there was no such "knowledge": there was only what the Bible says there was, which was the possibility of the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.)

So what knowledge did Eve gain by eating the apple? Why were the two of them ashamed of their nakedness? I think I understand Christianity better than you, hence the contempt. I'm not a Nietzschean, but I think he got this one right.

Immanuel Can wrote:You think the crucifixion was a sort of three day vacation.

Yes, I do. I assume you take your god to be immortal, omniscient and omnipotent. What is three days out of eternity?

Immanuel Can wrote:And you think human evil amounts to "flaws."

Then what is it?

Immanuel Can wrote:I can't really get debating these things with you without denying all of these assumptions of yours.

Just saying 'You're wrong' is not debating.

Immanuel Can wrote:You're quite wrong on all accounts, of course.

Then have the conviction to tell me why.

Immanuel Can wrote:But you're also making it really dubious it's worth pursuing any of these with you. To understand, one has to have something more than mere contempt and dismissiveness for the facts, you need a modicum of knowledge about the subject you're discussing, and some willingness to consider alternate possibilities.

This is cowardly. I will consider anything you say. If you have nothing to give that could persuade someone like me, you should question whether you have anything of value to anyone.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not sensing any of that here, and so I haven't much to draw on with you. Really nothing in your wording shows even the least real interest, despite your protestation of sincerity.

Then I can only repeat that I am completely sincere. I can only say it; if you chose to doubt, or deny it, that's your problem

Immanuel Can wrote:So I get it: you're uninterested in anything but mockery, misrepresentation and reductionism.

I am deeply interested in why a human being would not take the physical world seriously. Why do the religious shun sensuality? What is it about being sentient that some people cannot embrace? I don't think you mean 'reductionism'; I doubt you could make a plausible case against me, in that regard.

Immanuel Can wrote:I think we'll call it a day.

Do as you wish; but you do not decide what 'we' do.