Religions > Atheism > Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
25 Jun 2006 10:12:29 PM |
| Object: |
Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times. For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans. In particular they could have instructed Cain,
for example, who didn't have the commandments to tell him that killing
was wrong. For that matter, god didn't tell him that things like
homosexuality might be wrong, so I guess it would have been okay for him
to buttfuck his brother as well.
That leads us to the sex thing. First off, why would Gawd allow Cain to
have a wife or allow them to have children? Why didn't he make Cain's
***** fall off, or make him impotent, or something? That might have
avoided the need to kill off the line of Cain in the Deluge. For that
matter, why didn't God kill Cain on the spot and resurrect Abel?
Wouldn't that have been he prudent thing to do, as opposed to letting the
wicked prosper, while the just suffer?
Then there's the whole incest thing. Fundies always say that God didn't
make "Adam and Steve", but he did make it so that you'd have to ***** your
sister or mother in order to breed. This seems to be an endorsement of
incest. For that matter, God's making of animals first suggests a whole
bestiality, fetish thing going on
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
26 Jun 2006 10:55:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time. None of the
Levitical laws applied to pre-Exodus people, including Abraham (and
Adam and Eve). (That Noah seems to have known about "clean" animals is
an interesting point, but one I will ignore.)
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times.
Sorry, but no. The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people. Following the law is right because God said to and
the people agreed, not because they are abstract eternally existing
laws.
For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans.
And one can wonder, but wondering is not a requirement upon HaShem.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
27 Jun 2006 12:46:21 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something? One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam. Instead, he choose to start the game without explaining the
rules. At the very least, he could have found an apparently righteous
man like Noah, who was seemingly accomplished at following directions,
and stated the Torah/Levitical rules to him. Instead, he waited until
far later, when it was much harder. Wouldn't it have been better to
explain it when the Earth's population was either 2 people (A & E) or a
handful of people (Noah and his family)? Yes, god is not required to
do something just because it would be the smartest thing, or make the
most sense. However, if he doesn't then we can still judge him an
inefficient, clumsy, dumbass.
None of the
Levitical laws applied to pre-Exodus
What was so magic about the time of the Exodus, compared to many other
times in the past? If these were good rules for people to follow after
that time, why were they not good rules before? Is it the case that
murder and stealing and adultery and lying and honoring your parents
weren't important before the Mosaic trek?
people, including Abraham (and
Adam and Eve). (That Noah seems to have known about "clean" animals is
an interesting point, but one I will ignore.)
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of compulsive liar apologetics to
explain it away.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times.
Sorry, but no.
But wait....the basis for the command is that God rested after
creation. Why then would it not be right, using the same standard to
ask Adam to rest?
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam. Instead of a voluntary
agreement, Yahweh produced a lying ultimatum about what would happen if
one consumed a particular piece of fruit.
Following the law is right because God said to
Then why didn't he say so earlier. That's the question. I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
, not because they are abstract eternally existing
laws.
I think that biblical absolutists might disagree.
For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans.
And one can wonder, but wondering is not a requirement upon HaShem.
Gesundheit. Anyway, yes, one can wonder. The question is why a
hairless monkeys like us think circles around the omniscient, all-wise
creator of the universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
27 Jun 2006 01:47:46 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam.
So you would think that. Different rules for different times.
Instead, he choose to start the game without explaining the
rules. At the very least, he could have found an apparently righteous
man like Noah, who was seemingly accomplished at following directions,
and stated the Torah/Levitical rules to him. Instead, he waited until
far later, when it was much harder. Wouldn't it have been better to
explain it when the Earth's population was either 2 people (A & E) or a
handful of people (Noah and his family)? Yes, god is not required to
do something just because it would be the smartest thing, or make the
most sense. However, if he doesn't then we can still judge him an
inefficient, clumsy, dumbass.
None of the
Levitical laws applied to pre-Exodus
What was so magic about the time of the Exodus, compared to many other
times in the past?
That Covenant thing, perhaps.
If these were good rules for people to follow after
that time, why were they not good rules before? Is it the case that
murder and stealing and adultery and lying and honoring your parents
weren't important before the Mosaic trek?
people, including Abraham (and
Adam and Eve). (That Noah seems to have known about "clean" animals is
an interesting point, but one I will ignore.)
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of compulsive liar apologetics to
explain it away.
Yeah, accusing people of being liars, that is a great argument.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times.
Sorry, but no.
But wait....the basis for the command is that God rested after
creation. Why then would it not be right, using the same standard to
ask Adam to rest?
Which does not mean that the law was needed before then.
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam.
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? In fact God did make
a covenant with Adam.
Instead of a voluntary
agreement, Yahweh produced a lying ultimatum about what would happen if
one consumed a particular piece of fruit.
That is not the covenant. Here is a question: why should I consider
you an expert on this topic?
Following the law is right because God said to
Then why didn't he say so earlier. That's the question.
It is a question. The answer being that before that he did not give
those laws, so those actions were not required.
I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
Who is this "we", you got a rat in your pocket?
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
And they were not punished for breaking the law.
, not because they are abstract eternally existing
laws.
I think that biblical absolutists might disagree.
So? Am I to care?
For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans.
And one can wonder, but wondering is not a requirement upon HaShem.
Gesundheit. Anyway, yes, one can wonder. The question is why a
hairless monkeys like us think circles around the omniscient, all-wise
creator of the universe.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
27 Jun 2006 07:40:15 PM |
|
|
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam.
So you would think that. Different rules for different times.
More like no rules, at least the beginning. Like I say, Cain kills
Abel, but where was the injunction against it?
Instead, he choose to start the game without explaining the
rules. At the very least, he could have found an apparently righteous
man like Noah, who was seemingly accomplished at following directions,
and stated the Torah/Levitical rules to him. Instead, he waited until
far later, when it was much harder. Wouldn't it have been better to
explain it when the Earth's population was either 2 people (A & E) or a
handful of people (Noah and his family)? Yes, god is not required to
do something just because it would be the smartest thing, or make the
most sense. However, if he doesn't then we can still judge him an
inefficient, clumsy, dumbass.
None of the
Levitical laws applied to pre-Exodus
What was so magic about the time of the Exodus, compared to many other
times in the past?
That Covenant thing, perhaps.
Why couldn't he have made a covenant earlier, I suppose is the
question? A man like Noah seemed as righteous or more than Moses.
Neither were perfect. But Noah was arguably more diligent in his
observation of god's looney commands.
If these were good rules for people to follow after
that time, why were they not good rules before? Is it the case that
murder and stealing and adultery and lying and honoring your parents
weren't important before the Mosaic trek?
people, including Abraham (and
Adam and Eve). (That Noah seems to have known about "clean" animals is
an interesting point, but one I will ignore.)
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of compulsive liar apologetics to
explain it away.
Yeah, accusing people of being liars, that is a great argument.
I'm just saying that most apologetics sound like they're written by
Jon Lovitz Compulsive liar character.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times.
Sorry, but no.
But wait....the basis for the command is that God rested after
creation. Why then would it not be right, using the same standard to
ask Adam to rest?
Which does not mean that the law was needed before then.
Why should adam not have honored god in the same way that the exodus
generation and those afterward did, with respect to sabbath and
creation?
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam.
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? In fact God did make
a covenant with Adam.
Not really. He lyingly told him that in the day that Adam ate a
particular fruit, that he would die, and therefore enjoined him from
eating it. Where did he extract an agreement? Or are you talking
about some other event?
Instead of a voluntary
agreement, Yahweh produced a lying ultimatum about what would happen if
one consumed a particular piece of fruit.
That is not the covenant. Here is a question: why should I consider
you an expert on this topic?
Since when was that the issue?
Following the law is right because God said to
Then why didn't he say so earlier. That's the question.
It is a question. The answer being that before that he did not give
those laws, so those actions were not required.
That's just a restatement of what did happen, not why it happened.
If there wasn't a law, there wasn't a requirement, but that's not
the question. The question is why there wasn't a law.
I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
Who is this "we", you got a rat in your pocket?
No, I'm using the royal we, like old Yahweh.
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
And they were not punished for breaking the law.
You mean aside from being slaughtered as per Ex 32:27? I suppose
you could say that the ones who lives got off "scott free".
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
27 Jun 2006 08:40:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:40:15 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0b7dd63b40c85d989756@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
I am not arguing with the Bible. When I argue with the Bible or with
Fundamentalists or with theists I will critique their arguments.
One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam.
So you would think that. Different rules for different times.
More like no rules, at least the beginning. Like I say, Cain kills
Abel, but where was the injunction against it?
Do you have a point? The issue was dealing with the Sabbath. I am not
about to defend any issue you happen to think of.
Instead, he choose to start the game without explaining the
rules. At the very least, he could have found an apparently righteous
man like Noah, who was seemingly accomplished at following directions,
and stated the Torah/Levitical rules to him. Instead, he waited until
far later, when it was much harder. Wouldn't it have been better to
explain it when the Earth's population was either 2 people (A & E) or a
handful of people (Noah and his family)? Yes, god is not required to
do something just because it would be the smartest thing, or make the
most sense. However, if he doesn't then we can still judge him an
inefficient, clumsy, dumbass.
None of the
Levitical laws applied to pre-Exodus
What was so magic about the time of the Exodus, compared to many other
times in the past?
That Covenant thing, perhaps.
Why couldn't he have made a covenant earlier, I suppose is the
question?
Why? I really don't understand this. This is not even an issue of "God
works in mysterious ways", it is more an issue of "some things happen
after other things".
A man like Noah seemed as righteous or more than Moses.
So? How is that relevant?
Neither were perfect. But Noah was arguably more diligent in his
observation of god's looney commands.
By what argument? We know very little about Noah while most of the
Torah is about Moses.
If these were good rules for people to follow after
that time, why were they not good rules before? Is it the case that
murder and stealing and adultery and lying and honoring your parents
weren't important before the Mosaic trek?
people, including Abraham (and
Adam and Eve). (That Noah seems to have known about "clean" animals is
an interesting point, but one I will ignore.)
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of compulsive liar apologetics to
explain it away.
Yeah, accusing people of being liars, that is a great argument.
I'm just saying that most apologetics sound like they're written by
Jon Lovitz Compulsive liar character.
I know. Plenty of people here seem to think that disagreeing with them
is the same as lying.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times.
Sorry, but no.
But wait....the basis for the command is that God rested after
creation. Why then would it not be right, using the same standard to
ask Adam to rest?
Which does not mean that the law was needed before then.
Why should adam not have honored god in the same way that the exodus
generation and those afterward did, with respect to sabbath and
creation?
I don't know. So?
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam.
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? In fact God did make
a covenant with Adam.
Not really. He lyingly told him that in the day that Adam ate a
particular fruit, that he would die, and therefore enjoined him from
eating it. Where did he extract an agreement? Or are you talking
about some other event?
Yes, I am. Have you actually read the text or do you just look at the
anti-Bible snippets? There are three covenants in the Bible. Adam,
Noah, and the biggie at Sinai.
Instead of a voluntary
agreement, Yahweh produced a lying ultimatum about what would happen if
one consumed a particular piece of fruit.
That is not the covenant. Here is a question: why should I consider
you an expert on this topic?
Since when was that the issue?
When you offer your opinion.
Following the law is right because God said to
Then why didn't he say so earlier. That's the question.
It is a question. The answer being that before that he did not give
those laws, so those actions were not required.
That's just a restatement of what did happen, not why it happened.
No, it is an answer to the first question.
If there wasn't a law, there wasn't a requirement, but that's not
the question. The question is why there wasn't a law.
Do you actually care or are you just searching for a flaw?
I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
Who is this "we", you got a rat in your pocket?
No, I'm using the royal we, like old Yahweh.
So that is how you came to doubt?
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
And they were not punished for breaking the law.
You mean aside from being slaughtered as per Ex 32:27? I suppose
you could say that the ones who lives got off "scott free".
They were not punished for breaking the law.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
28 Jun 2006 11:18:04 AM |
|
|
In article <03n3a2l7bst520kvfep0hos8l20fg65cam@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:40:15 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0b7dd63b40c85d989756@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
I am not arguing with the Bible. When I argue with the Bible or with
Fundamentalists or with theists I will critique their arguments.
We probably shouldn't be arguing to begin with. I'm trying to explore
hypotheticals about why the bible said one thing or another. I'm aware
of what it said, so you don't need to just parrot that back.
One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam.
So you would think that. Different rules for different times.
More like no rules, at least the beginning. Like I say, Cain kills
Abel, but where was the injunction against it?
Do you have a point?
Yes, it was a comparison. If Cain could be punished for the "sin" of
murder, when that wasn't yet defined, then why couldn't he also be
punished for breaking sabbath (which also wasn't yet defined)?
One imagines God saying, "You're a very naughty boy, Cain. You killed
your brother, and you did it on sabbath too! Bad Cain, Bad, Bad, BAD."
Why couldn't he have made a covenant earlier, I suppose is the
question?
Why? I really don't understand this.
That's the point. What was special about the time he chose? Why did hid
his happy ***** decide that he only needed a covenant after thousands of
years of creation had already passed. He judged the world in the
antediluvian world, all without clear standards of conduct.
This is not even an issue of "God
works in mysterious ways", it is more an issue of "some things happen
after other things".
No, these could have been done at any time. If god cares about moral
conduct and prevention of evil, then the most logical thing is to
establish ethical guidelines from the very beginning, rather than waiting
thousands of years to reveal them to some crazy desert nomad.
A man like Noah seemed as righteous or more than Moses.
So? How is that relevant?
It's another missed opportunity that I clearly explained. The advantage
of using Noah, rather than Moses is that Noah could have established
codes of conduct that were passed down to each new generation, as
repopulation occurred.
Neither were perfect. But Noah was arguably more diligent in his
observation of god's looney commands.
By what argument?
By the argument that he helped collect and tend most of the animals of
the earth, engaged in one of the largest carpentry projects in history
and generally kissed god's ***** 24/7. Even moses didn't have that brown a
nose.
We know very little about Noah
I'd say we Noah nuff <yuck, yuck, yuck> :)
I'm just saying that most apologetics sound like they're written by
Jon Lovitz Compulsive liar character.
I know. Plenty of people here seem to think that disagreeing with them
is the same as lying.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the field of
apologetics, which is basically sophistry in the service one's pet creed.
Why should adam not have honored god in the same way that the exodus
generation and those afterward did, with respect to sabbath and
creation?
I don't know. So?
You don't know because the bible dropped the ball on an important issue
like this. We can't ignore the glaring hole between the time of Adam and
at least Abraham, in which God's moral standards were about as clear as
mud.
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam.
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? In fact God did make
a covenant with Adam.
Not really. He lyingly told him that in the day that Adam ate a
particular fruit, that he would die, and therefore enjoined him from
eating it. Where did he extract an agreement? Or are you talking
about some other event?
Yes, I am. Have you actually read the text
Yep, I certainly have.
or do you just look at the
anti-Bible snippets? There are three covenants in the Bible. Adam,
You're talking about the whole dominion and "be fruity and multiply"
thingy. That ain't much of a contract. There was a bit more an agreement
between Abraham and the unnamed gawd critter, but it was short on
specifics an basically said he would be rewarded for blindly and
psychotically following the voices in his head.
Noah, and the biggie at Sinai.
Instead of a voluntary
agreement, Yahweh produced a lying ultimatum about what would happen if
one consumed a particular piece of fruit.
That is not the covenant. Here is a question: why should I consider
you an expert on this topic?
Since when was that the issue?
When you offer your opinion.
Whatever. Would you like three references and letters of recommendation
too? I didn't realize you were running an interview.
Following the law is right because God said to
Then why didn't he say so earlier. That's the question.
It is a question. The answer being that before that he did not give
those laws, so those actions were not required.
That's just a restatement of what did happen, not why it happened.
No, it is an answer to the first question.
Where does it answer the question of why the law wasn't required earlier?
If there wasn't a law, there wasn't a requirement, but that's not
the question. The question is why there wasn't a law.
Do you actually care or are you just searching for a flaw?
Does it actually matter? Just curious.
I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
Who is this "we", you got a rat in your pocket?
No, I'm using the royal we, like old Yahweh.
So that is how you came to doubt?
If you say so.
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
And they were not punished for breaking the law.
You mean aside from being slaughtered as per Ex 32:27? I suppose
you could say that the ones who lives got off "scott free".
They were not punished for breaking the law.
It was called a "great sin", and technically moses did have law tablets
that said it was wrong. ***** all if anybody else except him knew it, but
there it is.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
29 Jun 2006 05:07:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:18:04 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0c59aaf893530b989a93@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <03n3a2l7bst520kvfep0hos8l20fg65cam@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:40:15 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0b7dd63b40c85d989756@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
I am not arguing with the Bible. When I argue with the Bible or with
Fundamentalists or with theists I will critique their arguments.
We probably shouldn't be arguing to begin with. I'm trying to explore
hypotheticals about why the bible said one thing or another. I'm aware
of what it said, so you don't need to just parrot that back.
As to the whys, there are lots of answers from different traditions.
The questions you ask are answered by Christians with some form of "it
was to prepare for Christ". For Jews it is a bit more complex. There
is a notion that things take time, that events have to happen for
other events to take place. But the real question is whether you are
trying to understand or trying to poke holes. (At least understand
that "understand" is not a synonym for "believe".)
One would think
that, if he had important rules to impart to people, that he would have
availed himself of revealing these rules, up front, to individuals like
Adam.
So you would think that. Different rules for different times.
More like no rules, at least the beginning. Like I say, Cain kills
Abel, but where was the injunction against it?
Do you have a point?
Yes, it was a comparison. If Cain could be punished for the "sin" of
murder, when that wasn't yet defined, then why couldn't he also be
punished for breaking sabbath (which also wasn't yet defined)?
One imagines God saying, "You're a very naughty boy, Cain. You killed
your brother, and you did it on sabbath too! Bad Cain, Bad, Bad, BAD."
There is a frequent confusion over this. The bulk of the Levitical
laws are not moral precepts, they are just the laws. Following God's
law is important, but it is not that Leviticus exposes some underlying
moral principle. Honoring the Sabbath is important because and when
God said so.
Why couldn't he have made a covenant earlier, I suppose is the
question?
Why? I really don't understand this.
That's the point. What was special about the time he chose?
That is a key issue regarding Judaism. Are you actually interested?
Why did hid
his happy *****
I would guess not.
decide that he only needed a covenant after thousands of
years of creation had already passed. He judged the world in the
antediluvian world, all without clear standards of conduct.
And by different standards. Perhaps the people of the Exodus were so
far from Adam that they needed something explicit. Until Joseph God
speaks directly, after that there is a gap until Moses.
This is not even an issue of "God
works in mysterious ways", it is more an issue of "some things happen
after other things".
No, these could have been done at any time.
So? Again, time is that thing that prevents everything from happening
all at once. Without the Captivity there is no Exodus, without the
Exodus there is no Revelation at Sinai. Without the Revelation there
is no Covenant.
If god cares about moral
conduct and prevention of evil, then the most logical thing is to
establish ethical guidelines from the very beginning, rather than waiting
thousands of years to reveal them to some crazy desert nomad.
That it is logical to you does not make it a requirement on God. I
really don't see this as a meaningful objection. And I don't see that
you are interested in actual learning.
[snip]
We know very little about Noah
I'd say we Noah nuff <yuck, yuck, yuck> :)
I am not sure you deserve a response after that. (Of course I am going
to use it at my first opportunity, but it is ok when I do it.)
I'm just saying that most apologetics sound like they're written by
Jon Lovitz Compulsive liar character.
I know. Plenty of people here seem to think that disagreeing with them
is the same as lying.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the field of
apologetics, which is basically sophistry in the service one's pet creed.
No, it is not. Disagreement is not lying.
[snip]
The Levitical laws exist as a Covenant between God and
the Jewish people.
Why didn't god demand a covenant from Adam.
Is that supposed to be an argument of some sort? In fact God did make
a covenant with Adam.
Not really. He lyingly told him that in the day that Adam ate a
particular fruit, that he would die, and therefore enjoined him from
eating it. Where did he extract an agreement? Or are you talking
about some other event?
Yes, I am. Have you actually read the text
Yep, I certainly have.
That is not the agreement I had in mind.
Here is the thing, despite the claim I keep seeing here the Torah does
actually have an interesting and informative structure. There are,
among other things, a series of agreements between God and man. In the
first story, God promises that the land will produce food. In the
second (Noah) God promises that he won't flood the world. In the third
major story (Abraham's family) God promises no human sacrifice. These
all build up to the biggie, the Covenant at Sinai between God and the
Jews.
Now don't take that to mean that I am asserted that God did this. Or
that I think you should believe it. I am pointing out the structure.
So the answer to your question of why "then", is that before that
people were not ready.
[snip]
If there wasn't a law, there wasn't a requirement, but that's not
the question. The question is why there wasn't a law.
Do you actually care or are you just searching for a flaw?
Does it actually matter? Just curious.
Sure it matters. I am not interested in explaining some views. And
other views are interesting, but if you want to find flaws it is easy.
The question is do you want to understand (again, I am not interested
in getting you to dis/believe anything) I can try to explain. If you
are not interested there is no way I can explain.
I suppose we
don't necessarily have any way to find out the answer, since it's all a
bunch of made up ***** anyway. But the point is, by questioning the
logic of the story of when Torah is revealed, we can come to doubt the
reasonableness of it being revealed on Sinai, for example.
Who is this "we", you got a rat in your pocket?
No, I'm using the royal we, like old Yahweh.
So that is how you came to doubt?
If you say so.
No, you said so. I am asking if you told the truth. You said "we",
then said the "we" meant "I". So I am interested if that is really how
you came to doubt. Or is your goal to get others to doubt. If so, then
as much as I am not interested in evangelizing anything I am not
interested in supporting evangelizing.
and
the people agreed
Their representatives agreed. However, the guys who ended later
breaking it, some accidentally and some perhaps through ignorance,
certainly didn't know the law. Even in the whole Golden Calf incident,
the people didn't yet have a Law which forbade them worshipping other
gods.
And they were not punished for breaking the law.
You mean aside from being slaughtered as per Ex 32:27? I suppose
you could say that the ones who lives got off "scott free".
They were not punished for breaking the law.
It was called a "great sin", and technically moses did have law tablets
that said it was wrong. ***** all if anybody else except him knew it, but
there it is.
They were punished, but not for breaking the law.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
29 Jun 2006 07:36:39 PM |
|
|
In article <fbj8a2tb12viecd55q512dmrkbonjn814n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:18:04 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0c59aaf893530b989a93@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <03n3a2l7bst520kvfep0hos8l20fg65cam@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:40:15 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0b7dd63b40c85d989756@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
I am not arguing with the Bible. When I argue with the Bible or with
Fundamentalists or with theists I will critique their arguments.
We probably shouldn't be arguing to begin with. I'm trying to explore
hypotheticals about why the bible said one thing or another. I'm aware
of what it said, so you don't need to just parrot that back.
As to the whys, there are lots of answers from different traditions.
The questions you ask are answered by Christians with some form of "it
was to prepare for Christ".
But there would be no need to "prepare for Christ" if God had made
smarter decisions in the first place.
For Jews it is a bit more complex.
That's a bit of an understatement.
There
is a notion that things take time, that events have to happen for
other events to take place. But the real question is whether you are
trying to understand or trying to poke holes.
I am not just trying to poke holes. I do want to know what the best
argument believers have for a particular arrangement is.
Yes, it was a comparison. If Cain could be punished for the "sin" of
murder, when that wasn't yet defined, then why couldn't he also be
punished for breaking sabbath (which also wasn't yet defined)?
One imagines God saying, "You're a very naughty boy, Cain. You killed
your brother, and you did it on sabbath too! Bad Cain, Bad, Bad, BAD."
There is a frequent confusion over this. The bulk of the Levitical
laws are not moral precepts, they are just the laws. Following God's
law is important, but it is not that Leviticus exposes some underlying
moral principle. Honoring the Sabbath is important because and when
God said so.
God still needs to learn to make up his fucking mind in advance. He
at least needs to tell Cain, "Yo dawg, just in case you might be
thinking about bashing someone's skull in with a big damn rock and
***** like that. Don't do that, awiiight"
And by different standards. Perhaps the people of the Exodus were so
far from Adam that they needed something explicit. Until Joseph God
speaks directly, after that there is a gap until Moses.
That's on god. He could talk to more people if he chose to.
This is not even an issue of "God
works in mysterious ways", it is more an issue of "some things happen
after other things".
No, these could have been done at any time.
So? Again, time is that thing that prevents everything from happening
all at once.
Here I thought that this god critter wasn't confided by normal time
and space. Now you're telling me that he's pretty much a strictly
linear dude.
Without the Captivity there is no Exodus
The Jews shouldn't have gone and lived in Goshen if they didn't want
to be under the thumb of the Pharaoh's. If god hadn't caused a
famine at the time, then Jacob might have never sought to live down
there.
, without the
Exodus there is no Revelation at Sinai.
Except that he could have revealed the commandments in a different
way. They didn't particularly need the exodus. It just happened
that it was a convenient storytelling device.
Without the Revelation there
is no Covenant.
He could have made the revelation and the covenant without exodus
events.
If god cares about moral
conduct and prevention of evil, then the most logical thing is to
establish ethical guidelines from the very beginning, rather than waiting
thousands of years to reveal them to some crazy desert nomad.
That it is logical to you does not make it a requirement on God.
Perhaps, if god is an illogical dumbass, you might have a point. If
we require that god be logical, then it's more of an issue.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the field of
apologetics, which is basically sophistry in the service one's pet creed.
No, it is not. Disagreement is not lying.
It's not just disagreement. It's the art of lying for gawd. At
least that's the ethic that many apologists seem to employ.
Do you actually care or are you just searching for a flaw?
Does it actually matter? Just curious.
Sure it matters. I am not interested in explaining some views. And
other views are interesting, but if you want to find flaws it is easy.
Maybe that's because the sacred text is a poorly written piece of
*****.
The question is do you want to understand (again, I am not interested
in getting you to dis/believe anything) I can try to explain. If you
are not interested there is no way I can explain.
I want to understand what adherents think are compelling answers to
some of these problems. Unfortunately, very few theists are capable
of providing compelling answers.
So that is how you came to doubt?
If you say so.
No, you said so. I am asking if you told the truth. You said "we",
then said the "we" meant "I". So I am interested if that is really how
you came to doubt.
I'm to really sure about the exact "Genesis" of my doubt. I guess
I'm not a Hebrew scribe in that regard. But I did once find some
old journals from my pre-teen years in which I wrote about my
skepticism relating to certain biblical matters. So I think I was
always underwhelmed by the biblical narratives.
Or is your goal to get others to doubt.
That would be a bonus, but not necessarily in an evangelical sense.
I would just tell people the way I see it, the same as people do
with non-religious matters. Nobody considers it evangelism when one
sports fan tries to encourage others to support his favorite team.
In any event, what's so bad about evangelism? It seems that it's
been pretty profitable for theists.
They were not punished for breaking the law.
It was called a "great sin", and technically moses did have law tablets
that said it was wrong. ***** all if anybody else except him knew it, but
there it is.
They were punished, but not for breaking the law.
Moses broke the law, both literally and in more specific terms.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
07 Jul 2006 10:56:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:36:39 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0e20062aa97c2989758@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <fbj8a2tb12viecd55q512dmrkbonjn814n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:18:04 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0c59aaf893530b989a93@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <03n3a2l7bst520kvfep0hos8l20fg65cam@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:40:15 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f0b7dd63b40c85d989756@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <efu2a2p43901vu8v1tbrkhba8u3ba1561t@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:21 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
"quibbler247@yahoo.com" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<1151430381.277716.314740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1f08fe85496938c3989a86@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
God's Covenant, and so God's rules, developed over time.
Why, did he need time to make them up, or something?
Silly arguments don't do much for me.
One imagines that the bible doesn't do anything at all, by that
standard.
I am not arguing with the Bible. When I argue with the Bible or with
Fundamentalists or with theists I will critique their arguments.
We probably shouldn't be arguing to begin with. I'm trying to explore
hypotheticals about why the bible said one thing or another. I'm aware
of what it said, so you don't need to just parrot that back.
As to the whys, there are lots of answers from different traditions.
The questions you ask are answered by Christians with some form of "it
was to prepare for Christ".
But there would be no need to "prepare for Christ" if God had made
smarter decisions in the first place.
For Jews it is a bit more complex.
That's a bit of an understatement.
Yep.
There
is a notion that things take time, that events have to happen for
other events to take place. But the real question is whether you are
trying to understand or trying to poke holes.
I am not just trying to poke holes. I do want to know what the best
argument believers have for a particular arrangement is.
Ah, I think I see a big problem. For the most part "believers" don't
have arguments for these issues. That is, the stuff you bring up are
not weaknesses to defend, they are issues to understand. You would see
the inability to present a solid argument as an argument against the
religion, most believers would just see it as something they would
need to learn. You see these things as weaknesses in the claim for
God, a believer sees them as a way to learn about God. With two so
very different viewpoints it is not surprising that there is little
communication.
Yes, it was a comparison. If Cain could be punished for the "sin" of
murder, when that wasn't yet defined, then why couldn't he also be
punished for breaking sabbath (which also wasn't yet defined)?
One imagines God saying, "You're a very naughty boy, Cain. You killed
your brother, and you did it on sabbath too! Bad Cain, Bad, Bad, BAD."
There is a frequent confusion over this. The bulk of the Levitical
laws are not moral precepts, they are just the laws. Following God's
law is important, but it is not that Leviticus exposes some underlying
moral principle. Honoring the Sabbath is important because and when
God said so.
God still needs to learn to make up his fucking mind in advance.
That you don't like it is not a requirement on God.
He
at least needs to tell Cain, "Yo dawg, just in case you might be
thinking about bashing someone's skull in with a big damn rock and
***** like that. Don't do that, awiiight"
And by different standards. Perhaps the people of the Exodus were so
far from Adam that they needed something explicit. Until Joseph God
speaks directly, after that there is a gap until Moses.
That's on god. He could talk to more people if he chose to.
So?
This is not even an issue of "God
works in mysterious ways", it is more an issue of "some things happen
after other things".
No, these could have been done at any time.
So? Again, time is that thing that prevents everything from happening
all at once.
Here I thought that this god critter wasn't confided by normal time
and space. Now you're telling me that he's pretty much a strictly
linear dude.
The limitation is with the people, not with God.
Without the Captivity there is no Exodus
The Jews shouldn't have gone and lived in Goshen if they didn't want
to be under the thumb of the Pharaoh's. If god hadn't caused a
famine at the time, then Jacob might have never sought to live down
there.
And without that there is no Captivity. And without the Captivity
there is no Exodus. And without the Exodus there is no Revelation at
Sinai. In this world events have to occur for other events to occur.
And without the Captivity and Exodus God's Covenant with the Jewish
people has no meaning.
, without the
Exodus there is no Revelation at Sinai.
Except that he could have revealed the commandments in a different
way. They didn't particularly need the exodus. It just happened
that it was a convenient storytelling device.
Or people needed to experience some things so they could experience
others.
Now I happen to think that it is a story telling device. That is,
evidence shows (or, rather strongly suggests, this is not as strong an
argument as that there was no Flood) that there was no Captivity,
there was no Exodus. I think that when the Torah was written (by God
or man, it is not relevant) it was clear to the initial readers that
the events did not occur. There were not reading it as a history
lesson, they were reading it as an assertion of the nature of their
God and the nature of their relationship with God. They knew it was a
story, but stories are important.
Without the Revelation there
is no Covenant.
He could have made the revelation and the covenant without exodus
events.
But it would have no meaning, it is a package.
If god cares about moral
conduct and prevention of evil, then the most logical thing is to
establish ethical guidelines from the very beginning, rather than waiting
thousands of years to reveal them to some crazy desert nomad.
That it is logical to you does not make it a requirement on God.
Perhaps, if god is an illogical dumbass, you might have a point.
Or if you are the dumbass and don't understand God's view.
If
we require that god be logical, then it's more of an issue.
I don't know why logical is a meaningful requirement. Read the book,
God is presented as having limitations and weaknesses. He has
human-like emotions (regret being a prominent example).
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the field of
apologetics, which is basically sophistry in the service one's pet creed.
No, it is not. Disagreement is not lying.
It's not just disagreement. It's the art of lying for gawd. At
least that's the ethic that many apologists seem to employ.
Ah, "many". If you take the Usenet as a representative sample then
humans (theists and atheists) are an even worse group than if you look
at the world in general. Pastor Dave, for example, is not
representative of the vast majority of Christians, not even of
Fundamentalists.
Do you actually care or are you just searching for a flaw?
Does it actually matter? Just curious.
Sure it matters. I am not interested in explaining some views. And
other views are interesting, but if you want to find flaws it is easy.
Maybe that's because the sacred text is a poorly written piece of
*****.
You really should concentrate on good arguments and leave out
nonsensical garbage like that. Do you know enough of contemporaneous
material to comment on the writing? Do you know enough of the Torah
itself to comment? It is actually remarkably well written for the
time. It has an interesting informative complex structure. At least
until you get into the lists and laws it is a pretty impressive
document. You don't believe? Fine with me, I don't have any interest
in changing anyone's beliefs. But leave out nonsense, it makes you no
better than others who peddle nonsense.
The question is do you want to understand (again, I am not interested
in getting you to dis/believe anything) I can try to explain. If you
are not interested there is no way I can explain.
I want to understand what adherents think are compelling answers to
some of these problems. Unfortunately, very few theists are capable
of providing compelling answers.
This is not the place to look for those answers. I can recommend
material, but, again, if you are looking for defense you are not
likely to find it. The better material is not apologetics, but drash,
explanations of the text written for believers.
So that is how you came to doubt?
If you say so.
No, you said so. I am asking if you told the truth. You said "we",
then said the "we" meant "I". So I am interested if that is really how
you came to doubt.
I'm to really sure about the exact "Genesis" of my doubt. I guess
I'm not a Hebrew scribe in that regard. But I did once find some
old journals from my pre-teen years in which I wrote about my
skepticism relating to certain biblical matters. So I think I was
always underwhelmed by the biblical narratives.
Christian presentation of the stories tend to be underwhelming.
Everything is distorted in the light of making it prologue to Christ.
Or is your goal to get others to doubt.
That would be a bonus, but not necessarily in an evangelical sense.
I would just tell people the way I see it, the same as people do
with non-religious matters. Nobody considers it evangelism when one
sports fan tries to encourage others to support his favorite team.
But it is.
In any event, what's so bad about evangelism?
I care more about hypocrisy. If you want to do it don't get offended
when other try for their side.
It seems that it's
been pretty profitable for theists.
They were not punished for breaking the law.
It was called a "great sin", and technically moses did have law tablets
that said it was wrong. ***** all if anybody else except him knew it, but
there it is.
They were punished, but not for breaking the law.
Moses broke the law, both literally and in more specific terms.
Moses lost faith and was punished for that.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
26 Jun 2006 05:32:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:12:29 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
How do you know he didn't.
That leads us to the sex thing. First off, why would Gawd allow Cain to
have a wife or allow them to have children? Why didn't he make Cain's
***** fall off, or make him impotent, or something? That might have
avoided the need to kill off the line of Cain in the Deluge.
Not really. He elected to act like a quib, but he could have done better as God
called him to.
Then there's the whole incest thing. Fundies always say that God didn't
make "Adam and Steve", but he did make it so that you'd have to ***** your
sister or mother in order to breed. This seems to be an endorsement of
incest. For that matter, God's making of animals first suggests a whole
bestiality, fetish thing going on
and I certainly am not surprised that you are turned on by that idea either.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
26 Jun 2006 02:08:53 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times. For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans. In particular they could have instructed Cain,
for example, who didn't have the commandments to tell him that killing
was wrong. For that matter, god didn't tell him that things like
homosexuality might be wrong, so I guess it would have been okay for him
to buttfuck his brother as well.
That leads us to the sex thing. First off, why would Gawd allow Cain to
have a wife or allow them to have children? Why didn't he make Cain's
***** fall off, or make him impotent, or something? That might have
avoided the need to kill off the line of Cain in the Deluge. For that
matter, why didn't God kill Cain on the spot and resurrect Abel?
Wouldn't that have been he prudent thing to do, as opposed to letting the
wicked prosper, while the just suffer?
Then there's the whole incest thing. Fundies always say that God didn't
make "Adam and Steve", but he did make it so that you'd have to ***** your
sister or mother in order to breed. This seems to be an endorsement of
incest. For that matter, God's making of animals first suggests a whole
bestiality, fetish thing going on
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
-------------------------------------------------------------
No, the ? is did they exist at all as real people?
Adam, Eve are not verifiable so they are fictional-----"Rest?
No Rest no nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Adam And Eve Rest Upon the Sabbath and other mysteries |
26 Jun 2006 03:17:23 PM |
|
|
The Bibles are mostly ancient myths, fables and impossible tales by many
authors of unknown origin and veracity.
Believing in the Bibles is no better than believing in Aesop's Fables.
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151305733.135877.122760@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
Moses tells the Exodus era jews that they should rest on the sabbath
because god rested on the seventh day. One would think that, if this
were such an important thing, God would have told Adam and Eve to do this
as well. After all, it was much closer to the time of creation and he
was right there, talking to them.
People claim that sin didn't enter the world until the Fall. But if it's
wrong to break the sabbath it's wrong even in Edenic times. For that
matter, one wonders why god didn't pass the Torah through Adam and Eve,
since they would have been the easy, obvious choice to pass on the law to
each new batch of humans. In particular they could have instructed Cain,
for example, who didn't have the commandments to tell him that killing
was wrong. For that matter, god didn't tell him that things like
homosexuality might be wrong, so I guess it would have been okay for him
to buttfuck his brother as well.
That leads us to the sex thing. First off, why would Gawd allow Cain to
have a wife or allow them to have children? Why didn't he make Cain's
***** fall off, or make him impotent, or something? That might have
avoided the need to kill off the line of Cain in the Deluge. For that
matter, why didn't God kill Cain on the spot and resurrect Abel?
Wouldn't that have been he prudent thing to do, as opposed to letting the
wicked prosper, while the just suffer?
Then there's the whole incest thing. Fundies always say that God didn't
make "Adam and Steve", but he did make it so that you'd have to ***** your
sister or mother in order to breed. This seems to be an endorsement of
incest. For that matter, God's making of animals first suggests a whole
bestiality, fetish thing going on
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
-------------------------------------------------------------
No, the ? is did they exist at all as real people?
Adam, Eve are not verifiable so they are fictional-----"Rest?
No Rest no nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
