I use the interpretation of the older and wiser ancient people.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So far as I can tell, there are plenty of fools and few wise people, then as now; and the age or period of a saying, text, or doctrine is no sign of its merits.

I'm a great admirer of the Golden Rule, and I try to apply it in practice.

I certainly don't support literal interpretation of myths! I'm aware that there's a long tradition of eschewing literal interpretation of mythology, with ancient roots. On the other hand, it seems this custom may be at least as prevalent today as it was one to five thousand years ago, so I'm not sure what historical point you're making.

Nobeernolife
343
What Athena said is absolutely correct. The "Allah" of Islam...IS the god of Abraham.
— Frank Apisa

Seeing that Allah opposes everything the Christian god says and hates its followers, that claim would only make any sense if this united god was schizophrenic.
Now go away, troll. — Nobeernolife

You are totally wrong...but that should not bother you, because you seem to have more practice at that than most people.

I am not going anywhere.

Genesis is saying that defiance of the will of God was the original sin. It's granting that there is free will, but the highest good is to turn away from it. Eve's side story is a condemnation of curiosity.

So the story is an ultra-conservative warning against freedom and curiosity. If you consider the conditions of the early Iron Age in which it formed, it makes sense. Any time you're confused about what other people hold to be good or evil, look at their lives. See what it is they're fighting against, what they're afraid of, what they're trying to accomplish. In Hebrew culture there is a persistent call to turn away from the non-Hebrew world and conform to the Mosaic Law. Out of all the cultural forms that existed alongside it thousands of years ago, the Hebrew form is the only one that survived. That tells you that the message: "Conform!" was not embraced out of fear, but out of a deep abiding love (probably for ancestors to some extent).

I've heard that some scholars interpret the knowledge in the story to mean "knowledge of everything". How is knowledge of everything "subject" to the distinction between good and evil, on your account? This sounds interesting. — Cabbage Farmer

Wikipedia explains that and the different perspectives, such as Augustine's explanation and the equivalent concept of good and evil being two sides of the same coin, in other ancient civilizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

The whole debate annoys me because if God wanted us to remain ignorant He could have designed our brains to be no different than the rest of the animals. God could have designed our brains to make it impossible for us to know things He doesn't want us to know and make it impossible for us to think about them. God could have designed us to mate for life like many birds have life long mates and that would save a lot of marriages. :lol:

Does a chimp know the difference between good and evil? Do humans behave like chimps? Do chimps think like humans? We are as God made us and we were not made of mud. :lol:

Genesis is saying that defiance of the will of God was the original sin. It's granting that there is free will, but the highest good is to turn away from it. Eve's side story is a condemnation of curiosity.

So the story is an ultra-conservative warning against freedom and curiosity. If you consider the conditions of the early Iron Age in which it formed, it makes sense. — frank

That is an excellent post and triggers my memory of another story.

The Greek version makes more sense. Prometheus went against Zeus' will and gave man the technology of fire. Zeus was afraid once man had the technology of fire, he would learn all other technologies and rivel the gods. He couldn't return man to ignorance but he slowed them down. He created the first woman, Pandora, and gave her to the first man. Then he gave them a wedding gift. Prometheus warned the first man to not open the gift and the man told his wife not to open it, but she was curious and when she opened the gift, out flew all the miseries that slow down our progress, like the pandemic we have today.

For sure that is the story that is the true story because today we are technologically smart but lack the wisdom to use this technology without making things worse and possibly destroy life on this planet.

But given that we all live in oligarchies and do not have any working democracies in the world that I know of, does it matter what we think of democracy other than the facts that there are none? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, it does matter. Democracy is a way of life and government is only one aspect of that way of life. If we handle things democratically on the job and at home with our families, and in our communities, really depends on our understanding of democracy as a way of life.

I want everyone to think about Deming's democratic model for industry because autocratic industry has lead to autocratic families and that has made life pretty bad for many people. In the past, life was too hard for divorced women so few of them divorced. Today, women have a chance of supporting themselves and their children, so they dare to leave their husbands, but we should not exactly blame the husbands who had to tolerate being treated badly on the job. If we used the democratic model than workers would learn how to be better people and they would bring this home to their families and that would lead to stronger families and fewer social problems.

I said we have a moral problem and you said..

Individually, I disagree.

We have an ethical problem. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We have a moral problem because we do not share agreement on the meaning of moral and this goes with our failure to understand democracy. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. We read moral stories to children, such as "The Little Red Hen" and at the end of the story, we asked what is the moral of that story. The answer always is a cause and effect. No one helped the Little Red Hen make the bread so she didn't share it. "The Engine that Could" made it over the hill because he didn't give up.
What makes Christianity work for millions of people is moral stories bring out the best in us. They help us understand a good way to respond to problems, and when this thinking becomes a habit more things seem to well for us. A Christian thanks God for the blessing. A secular person will realize the cause and effect.

That morality is essential on a national level. Democracy is about all of us working together for a better life that we all share. Without an understanding of democracy and morality, we don't know what we are doing and leave the decisions up to a leader. While good leadership and following a good leader are necessary in a democracy we retain responsibility and we are not like obedient children. The Bible without education for democracy tends to making adults like obedient children, and when these children are organized by Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, the result is fascism. Who holds responsibility for national morality? I am kind of excited by the pandemic. We might learn to work together and make more moral decisions. Ignoring the health of others can come back and bite you. That is how morals work.

I have to add, being moral is not about pleasing a god and your own place in heaven. Being moral is about the whole nation and our children's future.

Yep. So why did the Greeks eventually take the opposite position: that freedom is the higher good (I'm thinking of their characterization of the Persians as mindless slaves).

What makes Christianity work for millions of people is moral stories bring out the best in us. They help us understand a good way to respond to problems, and when this thinking becomes a habit more things seem to well for us. A Christian thanks God for the blessing. A secular person will realize the cause and effect. — Athena

The way I understand the definitions, morals are the thinking part and ethics are the action part.

I share your wish that business and governments would be more democratic but they have a long way to go yet.

Christianity may work for millions, as you say, but it does not work to bring equality for all as they continue to preach their homophobic and misogynous teachings that victimises more millions than what it works for.

I think that the sooner we rid ourselves of the religions that are inferior in law to secular law, Christianity and Islam leading that list, the sooner all will have equality.

Regards
DL

That morality is essential on a national level. Democracy is about all of us working together for a better life that we all share. — Athena

Indeed, but look at what we have instead.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Regards
DL

Being moral is about the whole nation and our children's future. — Athena

Indeed.

I wok that angle on the immoral way we are leaving our children an environment that will cause them all kinds of hardships. Perhaps even to the point of adding humans to the list of animals that will go extinct in the major extinction event that is going on as we speak, --- thanks to our vile ways.

Regards
DL

I am pretty ignorant of the Greek conflict with Persians. I only know the Greek point of view and a Persian informed me that I am not well informed. I am a little reluctant to talk about something I know almost nothing about. I don't know if we can the Persian point of view in the west? However, if you or anyone else wants to explore the question, I will pull out a book and see what I can learn.

where do you get off comparing the two? — Nobeernolife

The short answer.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
------------

Inquisitions and Jihads are, at their roots, tools to control thinking.

They are not as lethal as they were in the past, but both religions named are still trying to control how we think of equality against women and gays.

You are right in thinking that Islam is the worst of the ideologies out there, but they share Christianity's DNA..

Regards
DL

Well, thank you for setting things straight. I am not that interested in the popes, so I will bow out. But when it comes to being our own god, I don't think that is what a person wants. That is a lot of responsibility and I think we avoid responsibility when we can. :lol: — Athena

We are designed to seek to be the fittest by evolution. Those who no longer seek that have decided to not compete to be the fittest minds.

The fittest step up to all responsibilities that they excel in.

Even in these places, you see many competing for their ideas to be accepted as the fittest.

You do as well. No?

Regards
DL

No, they do not. The description of God figure is completely different, and if you think of islam as a sort of Arab Christianity all you do is demonstrate that you have not researched the issue at all. Zip, zilch, nada. — Nobeernolife

Watch this little skit and come back and tell us what major differences you see between right wing Christians and right wing Muslims. You might think that because Muslims kill their apostates, they are better than Christians, but remember that when Christian Jesus returns, he is to kill all apostate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

I am pretty ignorant of the Greek conflict with Persians. I only know the Greek point of view and a Persian informed me that I am not well informed. I am a little reluctant to talk about something I know almost nothing about. I don't know if we can the Persian point of view in the west? However, if you or anyone else wants to explore the question, I will pull out a book and see what I can learn. — Athena

I was just doing cultural psychology (like Nietzsche or Freud). We can look at goodness as something reached for, something I want, or my society collectively wants. That implies that I can look at a society, discern what they hold to be good, and discover what they think they're missing: what they would have to have to become perfect, healed, satisfied, and complete.

If the Greeks held freedom as a high good, then why? What was threatening their freedom such that they needed to reach for it: to pursue it and protect it? Was it an external threat? Or was it internal? Was it internal, but seen as external?

That's the kind of question I take into studying history. It's fun.

Indeed, but look at what we have instead.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2 — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't dare spend too much time on youtube because if I use my information bites too fast I don't have internet for the rest of the month and right now I can not access any community computers.

However, I watched the first minute and will say we all have a lot to learn about economics. Even economic professors who teach a completely abstract concept of economies with zero understanding of what natural resources have to do with economics.

If we used the democratic model for industry all employees of an industry might care a lot about the resources their industry uses and where they come from because they share responsibility for the industry and caring for those resources politically could be very important.

The democratic model of industry distributes the income along the lines of the ideal in the youtube graph. It does not have outrageously paid CEO's.

And something we might consider is the importance of industry to our communities. When a community has strong industries, its income supports everyone in the community in the form of wages that in turn become property payments, and money for utilities, and services, retail businesses and all public needs. Texas can be so powerful because of oil revenue, paying for public services and education. Oregon's public needs were fund by timber revenues but has shifted to relying on tax money from citizens.

In general, I don't think we are thinking things through very well. That can bring even Rome down.

I was just doing cultural psychology (like Nietzsche or Freud). We can look at goodness as something reached for, something I want, or my society collectively wants. That implies that I can look at a society, discern what they hold to be good, and discover what they think they're missing: what they would have to have to become perfect, healed, satisfied, and complete.

If the Greeks held freedom as a high good, then why? What was threatening their freedom such that they needed to reach for it: to pursue it and protect it? Was it an external threat? Or was it internal? Was it internal, but seen as external?

That's the kind of question I take into studying history. It's fun. — frank

I love your questions. Should we address them here or in another thread?

I think I have already said the philosophers of Athens asked, how do the immortals resolve their differences? The answer was, they argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. When this reasoning is applied to government it is democracy.

I don't like the word freedom because that implies a lack of limits and that leads to big trouble! I prefer the words "liberty" and "justice" because they imply knowledge of desirable limits and avoiding trouble. Democracy needs to be a self-correcting system, and that is not what religion is.

I've heard that some scholars interpret the knowledge in the story to mean "knowledge of everything". How is knowledge of everything "subject" to the distinction between good and evil, on your account? This sounds interesting. — Cabbage Farmer

I cannot think of any issue or knowledge that is not subject to being good or evil. I can substitute those words with right or wrong as analogies without conflict.

Can you name anything that is not subject to those term, whichever ones you prefer?

Isn't this a rather common version of the story you're referring to -- that it's the fruit they were told not to eat? — Cabbage Farmer

It is common and wrong and as I said, is likely designed to downplay what was at stake. We can all live without an apple. We cannot live without the education that knowing good and evil gives us.

Apple trees give apples to eat. Orange trees give oranges. Knowledge trees give knowledge and in our dualistic world, that is the knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps you should stop trying to argue against intentions that don't exist. Such unseemly behavior for a Bishop! — Cabbage Farmer

Why do you suggest I'm trying to "downgrade the command to a mere fruit"? — Cabbage Farmer

You are right that I replied thinking intent. I am a cranky old bastard is my only defence, as well as having had to correct way too many Christians and not being patient enough to wal people through it.

Do claim to know the intention of Yahweh in the myth? Isn't it possible that he set it up as a sort of trial or obstacle -- somewhat as philosophers have sought to resolve the "problem of evil" by explaining the existence of moral wrongdoing as a consequence of free will? — Cabbage Farmer

Yahweh already knew man would sin as he had already chosen Jesus as the sacrifice to redeem man.
That's scripture. As to trials or obstacles, an omnipotent god would already know the outcome of all tests.

We have free will to the limits of physics and nature but have no choice in being sinners. Nature causes us to evolve and either compete of cooperate at all times. When we cooperate, we cause no particular harm, but when we compete, the loser will think evil has befallen him. All the human to human evil is thus just a small evil within the greater good of our not going extinct.

That view is why I have no problem of evil.

Is there only one Christian ideology, on your account?

What does it say about letting God think for us? — Cabbage Farmer

No. There are a number of ideologies from right wing loonies to left wing progressives. There is also the Gnostic Christian view that is a universalist ideology which makes it superior to all cults or sects that posit a heaven and hell. Hell would be god admitting to being an incompetent creator who cannot create a majority of good souls. Note how scriptures say that the vast majority of us will take the wide road to he'll while only the few will reach the narrow path to heaven.

As to who should think and decide on what is good and what is evil. These go together

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

The first tells us we know good from evil and the other tells us to judge all issues for ourselves.

If Christians did as the bible bids, they would all reject that genocide from Yahweh is good and would become honest and more moral Gnostic Christians that would fry Yahweh's genocidal ass.

Regards
DL

On the other hand, it seems this custom may be at least as prevalent today as it was one to five thousand years ago, so I'm not sure what historical point you're making. — Cabbage Farmer

Only that it is stupid to read myths literally and that the ancients were brighter than literalist fools.

Regards
DL

Out of all the cultural forms that existed alongside it thousands of years ago, the Hebrew form is the only one that survived. That tells you that the message: "Conform!" was not embraced out of fear, but out of a deep abiding love (probably for ancestors to some extent). — frank

You kind of have it backwards and do not seem to know that the Jews had the reverse moral to the Eden myth than what Christians put to it. Further, Christians are conflicted as they call Eden where man fell, while at the same time singing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan. Their apologists, and even I, used to be able to do a decent apologetics on this but I have not seen a decent apologist in 10-15 years and I refuse to educate Christians on their own foil religion.

These days I just make Christians run away by asking them if they would refrain from doing as Adam did and derail Yahweh's plan. Christianity wants simpletons for sheeple and that is what they mostly have.

The Jews did not have an Original Sin concept. They had and still have an Original Virtue concept. They have both Yahweh and man coming out of Eden as winners while Christians have Yahweh and man as failures. Jews are smarter in this than Christians.

Regards
DL

I think I have already said the philosophers of Athens asked, how do the immortals resolve their differences? The answer was, they argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. When this reasoning is applied to government it is democracy. — Athena

So Athenian democracy is a model of the intellect. The courtroom definitely is. :up:

I don't like the word freedom because that implies a lack of limits and that leads to big trouble! I prefer the words "liberty" and "justice" because they imply knowledge of desirable limits and avoiding trouble. Democracy needs to be a self-correcting system, and that is not what religion is. — Athena

I agree. Faith is anathema to the intellect.

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). — Gnostic Christian Bishop

People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If Jesus wants us to know of good and evil, as a prerequisite to being born again as his brethren, it goes well with Jesus’ prediction as quoted above.

That may be why Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

First question: why does the quote refer to [many] gods rather than [one] god? "...ye shall be as gods..." suggests that there is more than one god; either that or it's poor translation. In all likelihood it's the latter but still intriguing to discover a reference to polytheism in a religion generally held to be monotheistic.

Second question: why is knowledge of good and evil the exclusive purview of god? What's in it that is so non-human, or godlike, that its metaphor is a forbidden fruit. Asked differently, how does partaking of the forbidden fruit make us god?

Does a chimp know the difference between good and evil? Do humans behave like chimps? Do chimps think like humans? We are as God made us and we were not made of mud. :lol: — Athena

Just as an aside.

In some ways, chimps think better than humans. Tests with chimps and children have shown that, while both species are almost perfect mimics, humans will not dither out and ignore steps in what they mimic that are not required to finish the task given, while chimps know enough/better to eliminate steps that are not required.

I think this oddity is due to the fact that humans are the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet and are not risk takers. Our instincts do not know that we have become the greatest apex predator on the planet.

Regards
DL

Genesis is saying that defiance of the will of God was the original sin. — frank

If that were true frank, then they would have pointed way back to Gen 1 where god told A & E to reproduce. That would have been the first infraction because they did not even attempt to do so till Gen 4.

Scriptures show that they had no real free will because they did not know good from evil as they had yet to educate themselves by consuming the knowledge of the choices they had.

Regards
DL

In general, I don't think we are thinking things through very well. That can bring even Rome down. — Athena

Absolutely no argument.

In some things I like to KIS. Keep It Simple.

If I was King for a day, to end the poverty that our tax systems create, I would KIS and have laws written to simply shift wealth from the fat cats on the extreme right of that graph to the left.

Did you note how little wealth we are really talking about? Stats have that basically happening in 30 years but we could enjoy the benefits of doing the moral thing today if we had the political will that the rich control.

Regards
DL

First question: why does the quote refer to [many] gods rather than [one] god? — TheMadFool

The Hebrews/Jews had many names for their gods and I don't think they were monotheists till much later. They even had Yahweh having a wife Ashera, If I recall her name correctly.

The first commandment also shows an insecure Yahweh who fears the other gods. God's in those days, were not defined as we do today.

Most have god as a supernatural entity and that stupid thinking is perhaps why the way more complicated thinking of the ancients has been lost to us.

We should restart before supernaturalstupid beliefs took hold, thanks to immoral creeds like Christianity and Islam..

Second question: why is knowledge of good and evil the exclusive purview of god? — TheMadFool

I guess, that given that there was almost no separation of church and state in those ancient days, it would be a given that the king who enforced laws would have free reign. That may be why religions in the day preached that the kings were kings because god had made it so and that they should be bowed to because of that.

Regards
DL

Thanks for explaing why "gods" instead of "god".

Your answer to my second question as to what about knowledge of good and evil makes it an exclusively godly real-estate is unsatisfactory.

I'll offer my own explantion and would like your opinion. I remember someone, I don't know who exactly, telling me that "good and evil" is a metaphor for everything. Continuing along this trajectory, it becomes obvious that eating the forbidden fruit is the first step towards omniscience and since morality too counts as knowledge, anyone who's omniscient would be also omnibenevolent. To this add the fact that knowledge is power and omniscience leads to omnipotence. Therefore, anyone who partakes of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has made the first move towards omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence; basically, Adam was applying for god's job.

You put me in a difficult position. That is something my Muslim friends never did. I never felt I had to defend myself from their personal attacks. And the way you addressed Frank is shocking. If there is anything nice about you, it is not showing. — Athena

I am only stating facts, there is no personal attack there. And if there is something "nice" about me is irrelevant. A lot of times facts are not "nice".

Again: the claim that Yaweh and Allah describe the same deity would logically mean that this deity is schizophrenic..

Christianity may work for millions, as you say, but it does not work to bring equality for all as they continue to preach their homophobic and misogynous teachings that victimises more millions than what it works for.

I think that the sooner we rid ourselves of the religions that are inferior in law to secular law, Christianity and Islam leading that list, the sooner all will have equality. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You too make the uninformed and dangerous assumption that Christianity and Islam are comparable. This is simply wishful thinking.
Christianity is an integral part of Western civilizations, has gone through an age of enlightenment, and is the foundation for a lot of concepts that the West is based on, like separation of church and state, equality under the law, neighbourly love, the golden rule, the sanctity of life, and more.

None of this is the case for islam which was founded by ruler, is unchanged and unchangeable, and established a supremacist and oppressive system, designed as an ever-expanding project to take over the world.

Alas, your naive wishful thinking is widespread in the West and leads to the endless line of tragic mistakes that our politicians are making.

Watch this little skit and come back and tell us what major differences you see between right wing Christians and right wing Muslims. You might think that because Muslims kill their apostates, they are better than Christians, but remember that when Christian Jesus returns, he is to kill all apostate. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I watched it and it is mildly funny but completely uninformed, clearly addressing than audience of low-information viewers. Is that what you base your opinion on?

But yes, islam demands killing of apostates, and with an increasing islamzation of the West, you now have incidences like that in West too. So you got one snippet correct. What Jesus does or not do when "he returns" is of no concern for me or any other living person.