A question about the morality of God

[Evointrinsic]

This question has been plaguing my mind ever since I learned more about the bible when I was younger. No one seems to be able to answer it, quite soundly at least, and thus the reason why I am creating this topic.

In the bible God is said to be all knowing. During the creation of the universe, planet earth, Man and animals comes a troubling event. That is the additional - and seemingly unnecessary - creation of the forbidden fruit.

Surely, if God is all knowing then he would have known that the forbidden fruit were to be eaten. At the very least the fruit could have been something a bit less tantalizing. Perhaps "do not drink from the stinking bog of acid that burns flesh at the very touch of it's liquid."

It seems a bit irresponsible to place something that would essentially destroy that which man had at the time of creation and in the garden that god also knew they would consume, ultimately bringing their doom upon them. The same goes for the great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If he knew that these people would be so evil in their hearts and so wrong, why allow their creation in the first place?

The worst of it all is that the people who commit these acts - of which could have been prevented - burn in hell for their sins. For eternity! Constant torture day after day for ever. Infinity is quite the scale of time. So long that our minds have a massive difficulty trying to comprehend it's vastness.

What could possibly be so needed as to let these events and lives come to this level without intervention or preventative measures?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

I've said that for years -- how odd that both hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore atheists agree on that one point, which is objectively and rationally very hard indeed to defend. EITHER the direct and absolute Word of God, or worthless nonsense. THAT'S nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that.

I think this points directly at how some of my challenges to claims are perceived. Where "God did this" is challenged, I'm often told such as "well that's what the book says, but here's what they're really gettin' at". I think I may well miss some very important information because I've been so conditioned to consider any biblical claim along the lines of "so there it is and if ya don't accept it you're just evil itself".

I contend such a situation is not conducive to my learning about God (or humanity), or to my acceptance of God's (society's) position, and may well run counter to the notion of a god of infinite wisdom and intelligence (if such be proposed). So, am I just a "disagreeable nut" who'll "get his in the end" by God, or do I understand that humans produced the Bible, they did the best they could and they had all good intent, but danged if they didn't mighta get some of it wrong, and I need to do some serious study of it to find out where they got it one way or the other?

It is perfectly possible to believe in a real God and to take the Bible seriously without reading it literally. I myself worship God, not a book, and more particularly, not a particular rigidly dogmatic man-prescribed doctrine on how that book must be read.

Not a book. Such a position seems so obvious, yet so profound.

Surely if this book is so divinely inspired, it'd use every literary tool at its disposal to reach even the dullest among us.

The fact is, of course, that NO ONE actually DOES read the Bible literally; those who claim to do so merely define the parts that they DON'T care to read literally as "metaphor" or "poetry" or "symbolism," and ridicule those who define the parts that they LIKE in the same way. As I said, they don't even worship the Bible, as wrong as that would be in itself; they worship a particular way to read it, the way that they have been taught. No actual thought or questioning of that teaching allowed.

Literalism? Okay. How DO you not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, anyway? How do you read THAT literally? It's silly to talk about a "literal reading" of the Bible. Such a thing doesn't objectively exist. There are only SECTARIAN readings of the Bible, and the REALISTIC STUDY of it as what it is -- a collection of ancient documents. Inspired by God? Maybe, and we can argue about what that means. But -- read literally, a.k.a. with slavish obedience to its every word? NO ONE does that, and no one ever did.

I guess I gotta tell on myself. I remember an early post of mine where I considered the story of Jesus to be a tall tale. But somewhere along the line here, and I consider my personal history on that line, I also considered it to be as literal as the day is long. Maybe I know it "in my soul" to be just a tale, but it seems my "literalist instruction" kicks in when I debate.

I must come to grips with this contradiction.

Jews revere the Torah as the Word of God, but we also feel free to argue with it and overrule it when necessary. We don't stone disobedient children to death at the city limits any more. In fact, there's no evidence to indicate that we ever did.

Seems I remember you or someone else saying it's the threat of the punishment that tells us about the seriousness of the offense. As one who loves to exaggerate in order to prove a point, I must be a dullard to think a god, whose image of which I'm purported to be made, wouldn't do some of it himself.

So, in regards to this section of the site...

Right or wrong?

I propose that however you gotta read the Bible to get you to do what's right, well, that's what's right. And maybe the god in question is aware of this.

Or, these folks are just wrong as all get out, but by examining their take on the issue, I can sort out my own.

[Wootah]

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor. The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously". Either God is real or not.

I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you. By your own words you say that.

In my experience, a lot of the more bombastic atheists would agree with your position. Many atheists agree with the fundamentalists of various faiths that religion is meaningless unless texts are read literally. I think they do so because they find fundementalism easier to debate.

Well I am either a Christian or an atheist, definitely not a pantheist. Iread the bible and eat my veges because both are good for me. If one is not good for me I'll stop.

[cnorman18]

From Post 40:

I've said that for years -- how odd that both hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore atheists agree on that one point, which is objectively and rationally very hard indeed to defend. EITHER the direct and absolute Word of God, or worthless nonsense. THAT'S nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that.

I think this points directly at how some of my challenges to claims are perceived. Where "God did this" is challenged, I'm often told such as "well that's what the book says, but here's what they're really gettin' at". I think I may well miss some very important information because I've been so conditioned to consider any biblical claim along the lines of "so there it is and if ya don't accept it you're just evil itself".

I contend such a situation is not conducive to my learning about God (or humanity), or to my acceptance of God's (society's) position, and may well run counter to the notion of a god of infinite wisdom and intelligence (if such be proposed). So, am I just a "disagreeable nut" who'll "get his in the end" by God, or do I understand that humans produced the Bible, they did the best they could and they had all good intent, but danged if they didn't mighta get some of it wrong, and I need to do some serious study of it to find out where they got it one way or the other?

It is perfectly possible to believe in a real God and to take the Bible seriously without reading it literally. I myself worship God, not a book, and more particularly, not a particular rigidly dogmatic man-prescribed doctrine on how that book must be read.

Not a book. Such a position seems so obvious, yet so profound.

Surely if this book is so divinely inspired, it'd use every literary tool at its disposal to reach even the dullest among us.

The fact is, of course, that NO ONE actually DOES read the Bible literally; those who claim to do so merely define the parts that they DON'T care to read literally as "metaphor" or "poetry" or "symbolism," and ridicule those who define the parts that they LIKE in the same way. As I said, they don't even worship the Bible, as wrong as that would be in itself; they worship a particular way to read it, the way that they have been taught. No actual thought or questioning of that teaching allowed.

Literalism? Okay. How DO you not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, anyway? How do you read THAT literally? It's silly to talk about a "literal reading" of the Bible. Such a thing doesn't objectively exist. There are only SECTARIAN readings of the Bible, and the REALISTIC STUDY of it as what it is -- a collection of ancient documents. Inspired by God? Maybe, and we can argue about what that means. But -- read literally, a.k.a. with slavish obedience to its every word? NO ONE does that, and no one ever did.

I guess I gotta tell on myself. I remember an early post of mine where I considered the story of Jesus to be a tall tale. But somewhere along the line here, and I consider my personal history on that line, I also considered it to be as literal as the day is long. Maybe I know it "in my soul" to be just a tale, but it seems my "literalist instruction" kicks in when I debate.

I must come to grips with this contradiction.

Jews revere the Torah as the Word of God, but we also feel free to argue with it and overrule it when necessary. We don't stone disobedient children to death at the city limits any more. In fact, there's no evidence to indicate that we ever did.

Seems I remember you or someone else saying it's the threat of the punishment that tells us about the seriousness of the offense. As one who loves to exaggerate in order to prove a point, I must be a dullard to think a god, whose image of which I'm purported to be made, wouldn't do some of it himself.

So, in regards to this section of the site...

Right or wrong?

I propose that however you gotta read the Bible to get you to do what's right, well, that's what's right. And maybe the god in question is aware of this.

Or, these folks are just wrong as all get out, but by examining their take on the issue, I can sort out my own.

Back to basics, Joey. I was rereading this thread the other day, and noticing some of your remarks in it. I really think you need to go back and read that conversation again. You're still having a really hard time letting go of those fundamentalist ideas. If you're not a fundamentalist yourself, they don't belong in your head.

Look at Wootah. I'm not a fundamentalist, so he says I must be an atheist. And you've seen how often I've been told that since I'm not an atheist, I must be a fundamentalist. The two extremes agree on that too -- that there's only two ways to think; you're either in my bunch or you're one of my enemies. It's the same mechanism as the one on the Bible: either the Bible is the Word of God and meant to be read literally, or it's worthless fairy tales that ought to be discarded entirely. You're fighting that same fight, only you're doing it inside your own mind. That's just wrong. There is another way.

Those up/down, my way/highway ideas are illogical and don't stand up to the most casual reasoning, unless you're a dogmatist and a fanatic yourself in one direction or the other: "You have to believe everything exactly like I do or you're an obstinate, evil, rebellious, sinful God-hater and you're going to Hell," or "You have to DISbelieve everything exactly like I do or you're a superstitious, mentally defective, indoctrinated, antiscientific idiot." The difference between them is negligible compared to their similarity, and they're both just objectively and provably wrong. Start from that insight and find a third road -- and there are many more than three. You'll notice that they never actually rebut or reply to my posts -- they essentially just repeat, "Well, you're just wrong, that's all," as Wootah has done in this very thread and as spiritualrevolution has on another thread in C&R.

Honestly, Joey. We've both been talking to these two camps for five years now. Seen any minds changed? Do any of the hardcore literalists here EVER move off their dogmatic literalism and condemnation? Do any of the hardcore atheists here EVER admit that there might be ANYTHING good about ANY take on religion?

You ever wonder why I'm not around here much any more? That's why. 90% or so of the conversations are 100% predictable. Most of the time, you can see a thread title and predict exactly how it's going to go -- what arguments are going to be presented, and who's going to present them. Every now and then, I like to try to inject a little rationality. It's astonishing how often I'm attacked, or at least argued with, from both sides, and with how little substantive reasoning.

[cnorman18]

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor. The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously". Either God is real or not.

I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you. By your own words you say that.

Yep, there it is. "You don't believe exactly like me, so you must be an atheist." And you claim, straight out, to know exactly what atheists think, and to know exactly what I think, and you presume to put words in my mouth -- that I can't believe in a real God unless I read the Bible literally, in exactly the same way you do.

I'm the one who takes the Bible seriously. You apparently take it as a magic book full of easy, simple answers that makes it unnecessary for you to think any more. You can do that if you like, but you don't get to call me a closet atheist because I don't.

Have a nice day, Wootah. If you ever decide to actually reply to any of my points or reasoning, as opposed to just overruling them with "You're just wrong, that's all" and substituting your own words for mine, be sure to let me know.

[Wootah]

CNorman,

We can learn from a book whether it is true or not, no one is questioning that. My issue is that the bible seems to be making historical truth claims on an order greater than someone simply writing a novel set in '2012 New York'.

Did the exodus happen or is it just a morality tale?
Did King David exist or Solomon?
Are the sin offerings for a real thing that happened that offended God or is that another thing that didn't really happen?
Explain the decision making process so I can apply it to the Bible and see if it is better than the one I have been using.

Yep, there it is. "You don't believe exactly like me, so you must be an atheist." And you claim, straight out, to know exactly what atheists think, and to know exactly what I think, and you presume to put words in my mouth -- that I can't believe in a real God unless I read the Bible literally, in exactly the same way you do.

Actually I am an Atheist converted to Christianity. I wonder then if Atheists should consider how fundamental they are that I can do so, so easily. (It is a reflection question for the atheist reader.)

I'm the one who takes the Bible seriously. You apparently take it as a magic book full of easy, simple answers that makes it unnecessary for you to think any more. You can do that if you like, but you don't get to call me a closet atheist because I don't.

That is simply insulting and one reason I reported you. Why not treat others with respect and assume they want to be given an answer that satisfies.

Have a nice day, Wootah. If you ever decide to actually reply to any of my points or reasoning, as opposed to just overruling them with "You're just wrong, that's all" and substituting your own words for mine, be sure to let me know.

Again, it is somewhat appalling to me that your mind has summarised my view as you just did. Maybe you are too fundamentally against the fundamentalists?

It is perfectly possible to believe in a real God and to take the Bible seriously without reading it literally. I myself worship God, not a book, and more particularly, not a particular rigidly dogmatic man-prescribed doctrine on how that book must be read.

Do you actually realise that this is just an uncivil insult? I spend a lot of time in doubt and uncertainly in my beliefs. In fact I am testing them out here on this forum. One of the reasons I wish we were on the topic and not discussing this is because I want to see if there is a downside to believing the bible literally.

The fact is, of course, that NO ONE actually DOES read the Bible literally; those who claim to do so merely define the parts that they DON'T care to read literally as "metaphor" or "poetry" or "symbolism," and ridicule those who define the parts that they LIKE in the same way. As I said, they don't even worship the Bible, as wrong as that would be in itself; they worship a particular way to read it, the way that they have been taught. No actual thought or questioning of that teaching allowed.

Two points - I don't think it is a difficult as you are claiming to interpret how a passage should be read. Pick one and let's see. Secondly I must admit that in review I think you are arguing against someone else and not me because nothing you are writing describes me. Again I don't even think you realise how insulting your post is.

Literalism? Okay. How DO you not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, anyway? How do you read THAT literally? It's silly to talk about a "literal reading" of the Bible. Such a thing doesn't objectively exist. There are only SECTARIAN readings of the Bible, and the REALISTIC STUDY of it as what it is -- a collection of ancient documents. Inspired by God? Maybe, and we can argue about what that means. But -- read literally, a.k.a. with slavish obedience to its every word? NO ONE does that, and no one ever did.

This is confusing for me. My point is that we can tell from the context whether it is literal or not. How do you read that literally seems valid. So assuming Jesus is not crazy what was he saying is the next step. I think you actually attacked a straw man in that paragraph.

Jews revere the Torah as the Word of God, but we also feel free to argue with it and overrule it when necessary. We don't stone disobedient children to death at the city limits any more. In fact, there's no evidence to indicate that we ever did.

Phew

I must admit that you forced me to reread the thread tonight. This next quote from you was a bomb shell.

Try to think a little more deeply. Why is "the knowledge of good and evil" something that humans ought not have? Isn't it necessary to have the ability to distinguish between good and evil before a person can understand what "sin" even means?

Thinking on it a little more deeply who needs to know what sin is? Are you enjoying learning about it? The best I can make from it is repent and flee to God.

I have spoken elsewhere of the thread of Jewish thought which holds that God is as often Adversary as King and Creator. We must not only worship God; we must also struggle with God to be free of him and stand on our own feet and become fully human. That is what "Israel" means.

Be free from God? How can you win? You aren't fully human? Is this an evolutionary concept?

The meaning of Scripture isn't limited to a superficial reading of the narration. That doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me, and even the most conservative Christians acknowledge that fact. It's just when the possible meanings or ideas to be found there diverge from the rigid dogmatism in which some believe that they become unacceptable.

Not saying I'm right and you're wrong; just that there are other ways to think about the Bible.

We can only see in the details of actual bible verses what you mean here.

Anyway that back tracks to page 3.

[Wootah]

It's true that my analogy does assume that the parent had both the free will and the power to choose whether or not to include the poisoned apple. It further assumes that the parent had the free will and the power to stop the child from eating the apple. It could further assume that the parent has the free will and the power to stop the apple from killing that child (a plan to let many of his children die but someday save a few of them wouldn't alter the view that the parent was criminally immoral. If the whole process was necessary for God and he lacked the free will or the power to change any of it to prevent the outcome then it's true that the fridge example, and the use fo the parent analogy as a whole, don't really apply. After all, moral people don't decree that the life's purpose of the child is, objectively speaking, to adore and obey the parent and, if the child should fail to do so properly, the child has chosen, and is deserving of, death.

In judging morality we do have to consider whether the moral actor in question had any choice. If God was helpless to alter the course of events then we can't really assign any moral blame to God for the events of the story. If God, as you said, didn't create the downside aspects- the rule that they'd die if they ate the fruit, the presence of the fruit to tempt them, the presence of the miraculously talking snake to tempt them, the natural inclination for curiosity and temptation, etc., then we can hardly blame God morally for that which some other being must have co-created and which God was powerless to veto.

I've read your post as agreeing with me please correct me if I am mistaken.

Ahh I just got your co-creation point and it's implication
Show me how you create evil or death and I'll agree.

God is as helpless about creating free willed creatures that have free will as he is to make a banana cake that is not a banana cake. If you choose not God and God is all good then where will you go? Hell seems to me a logical extension of a good God. Whereas I think it can be argued a reality without hell does not have a good God at its head.

[Wootah]

Here is a slight retelling of the story:

Take two kids and put them in a playground. Tell them not to eat from the candy tree because it is bad for them. Then leave the playground.

Send in another adult who says that it is ok to eat the candy. Have this adult say that the first adult was mistaken and that the candy was not bad.

The kids eat the candy. Come back in and see them with chocolate on their face and tell them you know what they did. Kick them out of the house for it. Curse them to a life of hardship and make sure that one of them gets extra pain. Oh, and tell one of the kids to serve the other one. And say that you will punish any offspring they may ever have.

In this version, it is very apparent that the kids were set up to fail and be punished. But this is very similar to the Eden story.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another retelling:

God makes Bod and Debbie instead of Adam and Eve. It turns out that Bob has fruit allergy and Debbie has ophidiophobia (fear of snakes). They live happily ever after.

I would disagree that Adam and Eve were children. They knew good. They knew right and wrong. What they didn't know was evil. When you consider the thread title question I ask you - How could a good being teach another being evil? No father gives his son a rock when he is hungry, etc.

Now the devil raises questions but my shortcut answer is that the devil, whilst real, actually plays a small role in our moral culpability.

Do you need your retelling discussed in detail or is intended as a joke?

[Thatguy]

Ahh I just got your co-creation point and it's implication
Show me how you create evil or death and I'll agree.

God is as helpless about creating free willed creatures that have free will as he is to make a banana cake that is not a banana cake. If you choose not God and God is all good then where will you go? Hell seems to me a logical extension of a good God. Whereas I think it can be argued a reality without hell does not have a good God at its head.

I don't consider "good" or "evil" to be entities with any independent existence. Good and evil are value judgments we make. But looking at it from within the biblical myth:

In the beginning of the story there was only God. Not the beginning of everything. There was no beginning. For all eternity there was only god. God is everlasting. God cannot do evil. God cannot die. So there could be no evil, there could be no death. God did not "create" God. God has always been. God did not create good, good is god's nature and god's nature has always existed, forever.

So when we speak of God as the Creator, we are not talking about God being the creator of existence, God has always existed so existence has always been here. What did God create? God created that which is not god. If we define evil as, say "the absence of good" and good as "that which is in god's nature" then there was no potential for evil until god created something other than himself. Something with no potential for evil is all good. Something with the potential for evil is less than all good. Creating something that could desire anything other than the good, and giving it incentives to desire such, would be the creation of evil or the creation of the possibility of evil. Opening the door to evil where there once was no evil is evil.

When there was just the god, there could be no death. Creating creatures that could break down and cease functioning would be the creation of death.

Now to people who buy the story, the existence of free will is worth bringing all the death and pain it would eventually permit to exist. They are entitled to that view. But to absolve the creator of this scheme of all responsibility for the results it knew it was causing is evasive.

[Thatguy]

I would disagree that Adam and Eve were children. They knew good. They knew right and wrong. What they didn't know was evil. When you consider the thread title question I ask you - How could a good being teach another being evil? No father gives his son a rock when he is hungry, etc.

In the myth, God is all good but knows evil. How can he teach others what he knows? Seems like an easy task for an all powerful, all knowing being. He could have created them with the knowledge he had and then let them make their own choices. Instead, he created them ignorant of many things. Including knowing evil as God himself did. The intentional creation of ignorance? Evil.

[cnorman18]

CNorman,

We can learn from a book whether it is true or not, no one is questioning that. My issue is that the bible seems to be making historical truth claims on an order greater than someone simply writing a novel set in '2012 New York'.

In places it is, as in the examples you cite below; in places it isnt, as in the Garden story and the Flood. Whats important to remember is that ALL these stories and poems and laws and love stories and hero stories and prophetic rants and parables are comprised of oral traditions which were passed down for centuries before ever being written down.

Did the exodus happen or is it just a morality tale?

Why the either/or? From geophysics and archaeology, it appears that something like the Exodus did happen, but on a much smaller scale and perhaps with many other substantive differences in detail. Thats the nature of oral tradition; stories based on real events, but augmented and combined with other memories, sometimes garbled, sometimes made clearer or more coherent.

And, too, the stories have teachings and meanings added after the fact -- just as we regard news events in more modern times when looking back at them today. The meaning of the Kennedy assassination, etc. Its very clear indeed that very often the Bible characters themselves dont know whats going on, and have to learn from what happens, just like we do.

Biblical narratives are not EITHER wholly true and correct in every detail OR totally fabricated and fictional (which is, as Ive said often enough, the atheists take on them as well as that of many Christians). As with most ancient literature, the objective truth lies somewhere in between, and is not recoverable at this late date by any means. We have to take the stories as we have them, and work with them as they are and learn what we can from their structure and context as literature, as well as from what happens.

That doesnt mean asserting that they are wholly true and literally correct in every detail, and it certainly doesnt mean dismissing them as mere stories either. They are our literary heritage, just as much as the stories passed down in your own family about your grandparents and great-grandparents. You dont necessarily believe them to be absolutely true, but you love them and learn about who your ancestors were and who YOU are in the process. (And dont forget that for very many Jews, the grandparents thing is very real. Like all converts, my Hebrew name includes ben Avraham vSarah, son of Abraham and Sarah, the first converts. They are my spiritual parents, and are so recognized when I am called to the Torah by that name when I participate in services.)

If it helps, the Jewish tradition is to do just that; to take the narratives as we have them today, read and speak of them as if they were true stories, but with an awareness that the standards of intentional historiography and modern factual reporting do not, and cannot, apply. Whether or not any of these things actually happened is very rarely the point.

Did King David exist or Solomon?

I see no reason to doubt either; there is archaeological evidence for both, but that isnt critical. Theres no reason to doubt their existence, just as I have long said in the case of Jesus. But: whether the details of their reigns are exactly as reported in the Bible is another question.

Are the sin offerings for a real thing that happened that offended God or is that another thing that didn't really happen?

Do you mean, Did the sin offerings really happen? In that case, probably; but note that they were only offered for conscious, knowing sins, not for original sin, which is not a Jewish concept. Again, theres no reason to doubt that those rituals occurred.

Or do you mean, was God really offended by things that happened? If thats what you mean, no one can know. No one has the right to speak for God. If you believe that the Bible does, then note what the Prophets said; that sacrifices are meaningless and even evil without real change and devotion to the true and the good and the just and the compassionate. From Amos 5:

I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

It goes on...

Explain the decision making process so I can apply it to the Bible and see if it is better than the one I have been using.

Maybe more to the point: explain how the literal historicity of all this makes a difference in the way we live our lives and treat others.

The decision making process is called Bible study. Its about learning from the Bible how one should live, not what facts about history one should, or, worse, MUST, believe. Where history and doctrines are concerned, in my religion, people decide those things for themselves. If others believe that there really, really was a worldwide Flood -- my wife does -- I have no quarrel with that at all. But telling me that I have to believe that, too, and that theres only one proper way to understand the Bible -- thats another matter entirely, and I wont take that kind of thing for an instant.

Some in my synagogue (heck, some in my house) have a very literalistic view of Scripture; some deny its historicity entirely, and regard it as only our literary heritage (which is no small thing); some, like me, take more of a middle road. We leave each other alone about the issue, because its not important. We believe as we choose; what is of more interest than beliefs is our actions -- what kind of person we are, how we treat others. As John Wesley once put it, What matters correct doctrine? The devils in Hell know all the right doctrine, and for all that they be but devils. If you beat your wife and cheat your business associates, I dont care what you believe; and if you deal and speak honestly, feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and try to be a good man or woman who leaves a trail of positive energy (as opposed to guilt and condemnation) behind you, I dont care what you believe then, either.

Yep, there it is. "You don't believe exactly like me, so you must be an atheist." And you claim, straight out, to know exactly what atheists think, and to know exactly what I think, and you presume to put words in my mouth -- that I can't believe in a real God unless I read the Bible literally, in exactly the same way you do.

Actually I am an Atheist converted to Christianity. I wonder then if Atheists should consider how fundamental they are that I can do so, so easily. (It is a reflection question for the atheist reader.)

Was it really all that easy?

I notice that you dont acknowledge the words you put in my mouth and in those of some unnamed atheists, nor that you have implied pretty directly that I am sucking up to atheists and am probably an atheist of some sort myself. If were going to talk about incivility and insults, maybe we should start with your own words, and not with my reaction to them.

I'm the one who takes the Bible seriously. You apparently take it as a magic book full of easy, simple answers that makes it unnecessary for you to think any more. You can do that if you like, but you don't get to call me a closet atheist because I don't.

That is simply insulting and one reason I reported you. Why not treat others with respect and assume they want to be given an answer that satisfies.

I respect you; I just disagree with your approach to the Bible, and I have never implied anything else. As I said, you apparently read the Bible in that simplistic and dogmatic way; perhaps you really dont, but youve never said a single thing to indicate otherwise.

Please notice that YOU have dismissed MY approach to the Bible, and very directly, as tantamount to denying that God is real, and also cast aspersions on my character and values in your posts. How is that respectful?

Have a nice day, Wootah. If you ever decide to actually reply to any of my points or reasoning, as opposed to just overruling them with "You're just wrong, that's all" and substituting your own words for mine, be sure to let me know.

Again, it is somewhat appalling to me that your mind has summarised my view as you just did. Maybe you are too fundamentally against the fundamentalists?

I have no idea what that means. I only said, and meant, that you have yet to actually reply to any of my arguments substantially; you have chosen instead to denigrate me as an atheist-appeaser and closet atheist myself, as I said.

It is perfectly possible to believe in a real God and to take the Bible seriously without reading it literally. I myself worship God, not a book, and more particularly, not a particular rigidly dogmatic man-prescribed doctrine on how that book must be read.

Do you actually realise that this is just an uncivil insult? I spend a lot of time in doubt and uncertainly in my beliefs. In fact I am testing them out here on this forum. One of the reasons I wish we were on the topic and not discussing this is because I want to see if there is a downside to believing the bible literally.

If thats your intent, you might actually respond to arguments in a substantive manner instead of simply ridiculing and denying them. I find the idea that one MUST read the Bible literally, or else effectively embrace atheism -- which is your clearly stated position -- to be an extreme and nonsensical view. If it isnt, why dont you defend it, as opposed to just mocking and throwing rocks at those who disagree with you?

I, too, take my religion very seriously indeed; it is the center of my life, and somehow I manage to do that while still feeling free to argue with God, i.e. disagree with the words of Scripture. That is a very ancient part of Jewish tradition, which began with Abraham himself, and it continues to this day. Your quite explicit denigration of my approach -- not mine in particular because it is Jewish, I do not mean that at all, but of ANY approach that differs from your own -- as essentially denying that God is real and of being wrong, sinful, inadequate, or whatever is ALSO a gross insult. For someone so sensitive about regarding disagreement as insult, you seem to be remarkably insensitive to and unaware of your casual insulting of others by denigrating and demeaning THEIR religious convictions.

The fact is, of course, that NO ONE actually DOES read the Bible literally; those who claim to do so merely define the parts that they DON'T care to read literally as "metaphor" or "poetry" or "symbolism," and ridicule those who define the parts that they LIKE in the same way. As I said, they don't even worship the Bible, as wrong as that would be in itself; they worship a particular way to read it, the way that they have been taught. No actual thought or questioning of that teaching allowed.

Two points - I don't think it is a difficult as you are claiming to interpret how a passage should be read. Pick one and let's see.

Response to point one; Who says that there is only ONE correct interpretation of ANY Biblical passage? We can disagree on any one of them without a conflict; it is perfectly possible for a passage to have more than one, single, doctrinally and dogmatically correct message.

Secondly I must admit that in review I think you are arguing against someone else and not me because nothing you are writing describes me. Again I don't even think you realise how insulting your post is.

Likewise. Lets review your own comments in just one short post:

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor.
Implication; they are a badge of shame.
The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously".
Implication (ignoring the mindreading claim): I dont take either the Bible or my religion seriously.
Either God is real or not.
Implication: I dont believe that God is real.
I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you.
Implication; I agree with atheists, and therefore am probably an atheist myself.
By your own words you say that.
Implication: I am a hypocrite and perhaps a liar.

Explain to me how those are not insults. Even more importantly, explain to me how they actually have anything to do with my reasoning are are not pure ad hominems and guilt-by-association.

Want me to take an equally close look at your other posts? How about your allegation that I attack Christianity? How about why does CNorman worship an evil God? If those werent insults, what were they? If I accused you of attacking Judaism, or of worshiping a false God, would you not be insulted? If not, why not?

Literalism? Okay. How DO you not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, anyway? How do you read THAT literally? It's silly to talk about a "literal reading" of the Bible. Such a thing doesn't objectively exist. There are only SECTARIAN readings of the Bible, and the REALISTIC STUDY of it as what it is -- a collection of ancient documents. Inspired by God? Maybe, and we can argue about what that means. But -- read literally, a.k.a. with slavish obedience to its every word? NO ONE does that, and no one ever did.

This is confusing for me. My point is that we can tell from the context whether it is literal or not.

And I say exactly the same thing; but for some reason, you seem to think that only YOUR choices of what should be read as literal and what should not be so read are valid; you also seem to think that the meaning of Biblical passages is always self-evident and obvious, and that only one interpretation -- your own, or that of your sect -- can possibly be correct, and any other understanding of Scripture and any other approach to it is tantamount to atheism. Your own words have said as much, and in a very unambiguous way.

How do you read that literally seems valid. So assuming Jesus is not crazy what was he saying is the next step. I think you actually attacked a straw man in that paragraph.

I wasnt attacking anything. I was making a point, with which you agreed. NO ONE reads the Bible literally. Its impossible.

The inescapable and inarguable corollary of that conclusion, which you dont seem to have realized, is that we humans have to decide what the meaning of the Bible is.

The Bible may very well be the Word of God; I have no argument with that belief, either. I even hold it myself, though I am a little vague on exactly what that phrase means in practice. But whether written by men or by God, only men -- humans -- can determine its meaning and teachings.

Thats why, when you insist that the Bible is the inerrant and absolutely inarguably correct Word, that you will inevitably have atheists telling you that you must therefore believe that its okay to slaughter babies in genocidal massacres, to force women to marry their rapists, to buy and sell slaves (including ones own children), and for God to have slaughtered the entire human race during the Flood. Thats all nonsense, of course, but by staking out that claim -- that we must accept the SURFACE STORY as good and normative and absolutely true and right and the Will of God -- you paint yourself into a corner and find yourself arguing ludicrous things in order to defend it.

Doesnt that ever BOTHER you?

Jews revere the Torah as the Word of God, but we also feel free to argue with it and overrule it when necessary. We don't stone disobedient children to death at the city limits any more. In fact, there's no evidence to indicate that we ever did.

Phew

Meaning what?

I must admit that you forced me to reread the thread tonight. This next quote from you was a bomb shell.

Try to think a little more deeply. Why is "the knowledge of good and evil" something that humans ought not have? Isn't it necessary to have the ability to distinguish between good and evil before a person can understand what "sin" even means?

Thinking on it a little more deeply who needs to know what sin is? Are you enjoying learning about it? The best I can make from it is repent and flee to God.

Youre dodging the HUGELY OBVIOUS question: If you dont know the difference between right and wrong, how would -- how COULD -- you know whether something is a sin or not? Do you REALLY think that humans would be better humans without possessing a moral sense? Without the ability to look at something and say, That is wrong?

My only point here is to look more deeply at this passage than you would at a fable from Aesop. There is something more going on here that a simplistic little tale of simple rebellion and simple sinfulness. In my belief, we are expected -- nay, REQUIRED -- to THINK about these things and look beyond the surface. I dont understand why that idea is (apparently) so frightening and threatening and evil to you.

I have spoken elsewhere of the thread of Jewish thought which holds that God is as often Adversary as King and Creator. We must not only worship God; we must also struggle with God to be free of him and stand on our own feet and become fully human. That is what "Israel" means.

Be free from God? How can you win? You aren't fully human? Is this an evolutionary concept?

Evolution, in the sense that youre using it -- pejorative, of course -- has nothing to do with it. We, both Jews and Christians, often compare God to an earthly, human father. Indeed, we both call Him Heavenly Father, do we not?

This isnt a huge leap of logic. Do human fathers want their children to remain in the cradle, needing constant reassurance and guidance and help and nurturing, as they did when they were infants? To stay kneeling at their feet in adoration, running to them with every little cut and bruise and question and problem, as they did when they were three and four?

Or do human fathers expect their children to grow up, to think for themselves, to have moral sense and the capacity for rational thought and judgment and the ability to stand on their own feet and make their own decisions?

The answer, I think, is obvious. In much Jewish thought, God expects humans to be responsible for themselves, without having to run to soothsayers and holy men and sacred texts to find answers and guidance; to think with the very well-functioning brains that He gave us. That strain of thought exists in the Christian religion as well, though its not as prominent.

Interpret this: Why did God wrestle with Jacob all night? Better, perhaps -- why did Jacob wrestle with God? Why not just submit? Further, Why did God have to cheat, by dislocating Jacobs hip? Why did God then give him a new name, which became the name of the entire people who came from him?

These passages arent The Fox and The Grapes. Theyre not The Three Little Pigs. They take some reflection, and they take on new meanings in every generation. Do you get that? The words remain the same, but the meaning, as it applies to us humans, changes. It has to. The Book of Esther did not mean the same thing after the Holocaust as it did before.

This isnt blasphemy. Its Gods expectation that we be men and women, and not babies -- that we move on, in Pauls words, from milk to spiritual meat. Think for ourselves, as we were made to.

The meaning of Scripture isn't limited to a superficial reading of the narration. That doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me, and even the most conservative Christians acknowledge that fact. It's just when the possible meanings or ideas to be found there diverge from the rigid dogmatism in which some believe that they become unacceptable.

Not saying I'm right and you're wrong; just that there are other ways to think about the Bible.

We can only see in the details of actual bible verses what you mean here.

Maybe YOU can only see that. Thats more or less what I mean. Think more deeply. Thats not a sin, is it?

I know that reading the Bible in this way -- as well as believing in this way, as either a Christian or a Jew -- isnt simple or easy. It asks a lot of us. All we can give, in fact, intellectually as well as spiritually and morally. Dont you think thats rather what we ought to expect of ourselves?