[
Replying to The Tanager in post #75]
There is a difference between being compelled to do something nice for my wife and me freely choosing to do something nice for my wife. In the latter, I am loving my wife in the sense of love I am talking about here.
Since you were last here there has been some discussion regarding "Love" which you might find helpful.
Post#39 onwards... - to do with "Unconditional Love" and "Conditional Love" - I think it helps to know which one someone is speaking of when they talk about [The Creators] Love.
Why do you think a morally perfect entity would have no free will [and subsequently no love]?
I’m not saying those with free will could not be morally perfect. I’m saying that to require, to make sure, that they are morally perfect would necessarily negate their free will. If they wanted to commit moral evil, one would have to override that in order to maintain moral perfection.
Assuming we agree that The Creator is a morally perfect being, who then is in the position of 'making sure' this is the case? Also - is The Creator [as a morally perfect being] without free will? [Assuming again that there was no one else present to make sure that The Creator's free will was negated]
We can agree that there "is no reason to test [require/make sure] a morally perfect being" and so The Creator can be assumed to have a free will AND be a morally perfect being - but then this creates a problem in relation to the idea of The Creator creating beings who are not like The Creator.
If The Creator cannot create morally perfect beings without also allowing the beings to have free will, then wouldn't this puzzle The Creator because The Creator is [we assume] a being who is both a morally perfect being and has free will.
Yet the way you say it, 'risk of evil' [the problem of evil] was seen to be something which could happen but The Creator was so loving that The Creator went ahead and did it anyway...took the risk. [conditional love]
My immediate concern with your story is that The Creator could not have known any risk was involved at all, unless The Creator had experienced this in previous creations.
IF that were the case THEN we have the problem as to why The Creator created more of the same when The Creator knew how bad that can go...all presenting an image of a Creator who is so determined to achieve something that suffering is besides the point.
I suppose at least you are not presently denying that the God Entity of the story put both the tree and the serpent in the garden. It's a start.
I think you emphasized the wrong part of my response in trying to understand it. I disagreed with your claim that they were put there so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to. In doing so, I did not commit to God literally putting the tree and the serpent in the world, if that is what you mean.
I think it could have been how it literally happened but I also think this could be a poetic telling of how the first two historic humans disobeyed the Creator or even a poetic telling of how humanity in general disobeys the Creator.
Which brings us to another point - one which presents a different characterization of The Creator than the "poetic" analogy of the garden story - one where the human forms developed through biological evolution and had to fend for themselves learning the ropes and finding their way, developing tools, making clothes, telling stories...one where The Creator Itself is the life consciousness in each an every form on the face of the planet.
One where good and evil are only constructs of a primate mind still developing where choices are made, mistakes happen and forgiveness and moving on are hallmarks of a sentient being maturing through knowledge and wisdom.
This supposed omniscient being "didn't want" what he must have known would be inevitable - yet when you argue that it is an act of "love" to grant them the right to do what the Entity knew they would do, it rings hollow...
I’m not sure what you are saying about God granting them the right to do what God knew they would do. Granting them freedom comes logically prior to knowing what they end up doing with that freedom.
The logical problem with this is that the situation [being earthbound] is not one of freedom in the first place.
There are conditions involved which make it that way. The will is therefore only 'free' in relation to the environment it is placed within. The will is an attribute of consciousness.
That is why the garden story fails miserably in its poetic attempt to explain how human beings came to be on this planet.
Take the scientific version, add to that version the idea we exist within a creation, and we immediately have a vaster deeper more complex vision as to what The Creator is more likely to be like, that the poetic biblical version humans made up in their ignorance.
That comment was focusing upon one thing, not a statement about everything in the story. It focused on your claim that the story is about how humans gain moral knowledge. I’m saying the story is, in part, about them creating a false moral knowledge. From this experience, humans also gain true knowledge concerning the damage of their choice and knowledge concerning God’s love for them.
One doesn't require a poetic story to understand ignorance and its affects in the grand scheme of things. False knowledge [ignorance of true knowledge] is a natural phenomena which can easily explain why such stories were made up in the first place.
The problem with false knowledge happens when human beings persist in believing the poetic stories are truth [true knowledge] because this impacts upon how the human species progresses and if the bulk of human beings persist with being under the shadow of superstitious nonsense [false knowledge] then that progress eventual becomes threatened with extinction.
As an example - when 2.38 billion individual Christians believe that Jesus is going to return and 'stop the world' and make it into a paradise, the world has 2.38 billion individuals who lack interest in helping [doing their part] in the resolving the problem of climate change.
Rather - I think - that it is not a really a case of false knowledge, but one of incomplete knowledge, and as such, should not be regarded as 'sin' or 'evil' unless ignorance is 'evil'. Perhaps 'evil' has more to do with willful ignorance...sticking to faith-based concepts even in the face of growing evidence against said concepts.
But even if that were the case, willful ignorance is usually compelled by fearful imagination, so is understandable and need not be dealt with harshly by some God-Entity image who has a hard time accepting such.
I see no reason to think it is due to incomplete knowledge. They had everything they needed to make the right, loving choice.
Which underlines the point I made above. IF the poetic stories people choose to believe in as 'complete [true] knowledge' [the only knowledge required] then "Houston, we have a problem".
However, the contingency is in place to offset the problem and consequences of belief in false knowledge.
[3] as per "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"
Obviously The Creator has plans for its conscious outposts of form in relation to this universe. Essentially this involves the creation of tools and terraforming, which cannot be achieved with individuals still stuck in beliefs based upon false knowledge. Fortunately there are individuals who are not in that position.
The Creator of this universe is obviously far-seeing, patient and exceptionally clever and creative. and loves unconditionally.
I agree. You were asking me about evil, though.
Your question implied only evil. [Do you not think human history is
full of evils?] and I answered "No. I see it as full of natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it."
What evil is spoken of in Genesis?
Adam and Evil don’t look out for each other, Cain murders Abel, Lamech murders someone who injured him and boasts about it, the wickedness that brought the flood, and then much more when we get into Abraham and his descendents.
Natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it. These things are called 'evil' because they are interpreted through the filters which are based upon incomplete knowledge.
One could even say that it was because of incomplete knowledge that these actions happened. Point being, it is natural for such things to happen when incomplete knowledge rides the helm.
Also - I see your
Freudian Slip there. That too is the product of false knowledge and accompanying filters.
More likely, the story speaks of the human necessity to dress for climate.
The story focuses on the human relationship with God, it’s not about dressing for climate. The mention of realizing their nakedness is directly tied to their disobedience of God. Prior to that they “were both naked and they felt no shame (2:25).”
Yes - I am aware of what the story is trying to focus on, as I am also aware of the idea that it is necessary for humans to dress according to their environment.
Which is the best explanation [truer knowledge] for why humans are clothed? The one where shame through disobedience of The Creator is tabled, or the one where humans dress for climate is tabled?
The logical choice has to be 'dress for climate'. It also has the advantage of freeing folk up from unnecessary guilt because of a self image which is based on false knowledge which resulted in a false image of The Creator.
"Shame and guilt" in relation to nakedness is another one of those false knowledge things...linked to my argument that we humans falsely identify with the flesh [body]. We are easily instructed to feel ashamed of being human. It is a false image perpetuated by...The Accuser.
The story doesn’t argue that, though. That is what we’ve been discussing.
To be fair - you are arguing that the story is about that. I am arguing that the story is false knowledge and couldn't have taken place as an explanation for the existence of this universe and us here within it.
Not immediately - but subsequent stories developed off of that story, do indeed. That is why I argue that the image of The Creator as presented by all religions, is false. "False knowledge" as you call it.
You claimed the story shows a God getting them to this position. Now you are saying the Biblical story doesn’t say that but subsequent stories (Biblical ones?) do?
No. That is why I used the words "not immediately" because those stories a built upon that story.
The highest form of Love is "Unconditional Love" - and it is plain to see that in the case of the image presented in the story, conditions were attached.
What conditions?
The conditions you claim were necessary to gain this type of love [conditional] as experience.
I disagree. The God entity is presented as sacrificing his own 'wants' just so humans would harm themselves and others exercising their free will?
Clearly that is a form of victim mentality. "God" is the poor "victim" because "Humans".
Are you saying that you think I’m saying God sacrifices His wants so humans would harm themselves and others?
That is the consequence, yes. The only way around that is to claim that the God in the story did not know how things were going to pan out and took the risk anyway. He knew it could go either way...
I can go with that argument if you want to, but we will first have to agree that the God-entity is, therefore, NOT omniscient
If so, then why do you think that?
Because that is what you are arguing when you say that the God-Entity put his wants on hold for the sake of - what can only be described as an experiment [if the God-entity is, therefore, NOT omniscient ]
My view is that God sacrifices His wants of moral perfection so humans can be a part of a freely loving community (His higher want). There is no victim mentality there.
There is no sacrifice either.
There is however, experimentation.
Satan is a major character in the Christian play Tanager. Christians created Satan in the image the world now has of Satan. It is not a case of 'some' - but a case of most.
We may be meaning different things by “major”. Satan isn’t talked about that often in the Bible. Nowhere close to how much God is talked about.
I was being specific to how the God is talked about as the accuser [of human beings.] and how the characterizations blur at the edges where they are so similar as to appear to be the same Entity. Which isn't surprising since both entities are created through Christian Imagery.
I think you can appreciate why there are those of us who care not to partake in such antics and refrain from calling ourselves "Christians" at all.
I appreciate people not partaking in such antics. I don’t think they should be allowed to commandeer the term “Christian,” though. If you gained a following and those who followed you eventually sullied the label of Creator-Consciousness or another phrase you use, I don’t think it would be right for myself and others to associate such terms with only the bad bunch.
I will quote myself from a
current conversation I am having with Tam, as she also argues a similar focus.
Tam: Christianity is not Christ.
William: A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.
Tam: Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.
William: Then why confuse things at all Tam. Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples". That way at least, the confusion is far less for folk to try and work out.
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".