Iamon lyme: No.. I asked a question if you are.

Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago?

That would depend on my education at that time. And again.... my philosophical understanding... a point I keep trying to get across. Not believing something does not mean you have to "scoff" at it also.

"It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."

No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life.

"Who would predict something happening if they didn't believe it can happen? And how could the ravings of a lunatic turn out to be true, if he (or anyone else) did not have the information needed to begin with?"

Context... who was occupying 'Palestine' back then.. evil ones will not prevail, have faith, stop worrying, it'll be ok.

"There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on."

... yes there would be.. some of it would be known through the story of Noah, which is based on an event that did happen... a flood. Wars... long ones, where whole cities are pillaged, Volcanic eruptions.. such as recorded in the Moses story, earthquakes such as recorded in the Sodom story.

Even Eden seems to record that a certain desert is not a desert.. Something that in recent years has been confirmed through the finding of huge reservoirs of water under the desert. :)

I got to say... This board is getting less serious... good :)

(V): That's strange the post I wrote to you about what you was smoking has vanished. I hope you understand I was joking to you?

You must of saw it to reply to it so thanks. ;)

Silvery Moon: Yes of course, I think it must be a legal thing... as it certainly isn't a matter of what is lawful. :)

(V): Hey, if you don't want to deal with this then just say so. I came prepared to answer your objections, but you seem intent on objecting to something else.


[ No.. I asked a question if you are. ]

If I am what?


[ It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."

No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life. ]

I was inviting you to think about what it means to see something that could not have happened without the help of an immaterial intelligence. Does the idea of a God who defies your description of Him offend you? I don't know why it would. So allow me to offend you again by posing this question:

If I know a little something about you and then fill in the gaps with what I imagine is true, then between just you and me, which of us would be the better judge of how accurate that picture is... you or me? Who is in a better position to know who you are, and what the true details of your life are?

( By the way, if the answer to this isn't obvious, then you may as well stop now because the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. )


So, using the same criteria, who is in a better position to explain who God is... you or God?

Iamon lyme: I don't enjoy correcting myself, but if anyone does I want it to be me.

[ ...the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. ]

That doesn't make sense. It can't be less "obvious" or more "obvious", or even as "obvious". I forgot "obvious" has a non-negotiable meaning and is relative to the observer... what might be obvious to you wouldn't necessarily be obvious to me.


Obviously, this is a word I should use sparingly or stop using altogether... DOH!!

(V): I need to set this up before making my point. If you want argue with the set up that's fine, but if you do then you will be missing the point. The set up isn't the point, so please be patient and wait for it.


~ What do you see when you look in a mirror? Do you see you, or a reflection (image) of you? You're seeing an image of you. If you were seeing you, then there would be two of you. One of you is looking at the mirror, the other you is looking back... at you. That can't be right, so what you are actually seeing must only be a reflection, and not the real you.

~ God made man in his image... in the image of God man was made. Man is not God, he is only a relfection of Him. Man is not a god, nor is he God, he is simply an image of God. The Bible doesn't say everything was made in Gods image (not everything is a mirror) so I have to assume man was set aside to be that reflective creation.

~ The very first mention or suggestion of man being more than an image, but that he is as God (or like gods) shows up early in the book of Genesis. Who suggested God had lied to man, and encouraged him to elevate himself? Who tempted man to elevate himself into a higher position than he was created to occupy?



so here's my point ===> . <===

Iamon lyme: ... The God within a flower, certainly.

I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it.

Isn't it Godly to help someone, isn't it Godly to enjoy the splendour of creation, and to be content and at peace with what we don't understand because we can just accept that.

... A child sees the splendour easily.... it's this metaphorical aspect that I've been using since we started talking philosophy. Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine.

There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm

"" Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image (tzel'mam)." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Rambam explains, is "to'ar," as in Gen. 39:6, "and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon." Similarly, the word used for "likeness" is "damut," which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, "He is like (damuno) a lion" in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.

What is it in our nature that is G-d-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like G-d, who perceives without having physical senses. ""

Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?

(V): "I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it."

I'm not confused, I'm just trying to get you to say what you believe. So far you've been talking about God as though he is nothing more than an idea, or an attribute for us to emulate. Your description of the person of God so far looks a little fuzzy and non descript.

IYO is God real? Is He an independent satient being whose existence and nature does not rely on what we think of Him? Or is he something less than that, is the idea of God something you have the power to define for yourself?

These may sound like silly questions, but IMO it's important to make this distinction. If I wasn't sure of who you are or if you were real, then I might ask: Is (V) real, or is he only an idea and so therefore I have the power to define who (V) is?

(V): "Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine."

"There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is."

Well, there WAS no pride or ego in that until you said "the God within". You could have just as easily said "the Magnificence within" without changing the meaning. A subtle distinction perhaps, but do you see how this elevates you into a higher position, and puts you closer to being a god?

We can get closer to God, but we will never be gods. The same temtpation that caused man to fall in the garden of eden is still tugging at our souls, and we are no less prone than Adam and Eve to be drawn towards that tempation. The battle that started there hasn't ended... not yet.

(V): "Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?"

Granted, it was a very small point, but it was there... that's why I drew the arrows, so you could find the point I was pointing to. Pointing to the point would only be pointless if you could see the point without the pointer. But if you were unable to see the point without the help of a pointer, wouldn't it have been pointless for me to have made that point? I mean really, what is the point of making a point if you don't see the point? I knew it was there, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was there too.

I didn't expect you to see the point hidden within the set up, so I didn't want to disappoint you by ending it with no apparent (eminentlly visible) point. I did this for you, but apparently you don't appreciate all the effort I've put into this explicitly for your benefit...
Shame on you!!!

Iamon lyme: What battle?

(V): "What battle?"

I suppose you could call it "spiritual warfare". Before the fall we were not at odds with God. God was not our enemy. The battle began when we decided to step outside of His. I'm calling it a 'battle' and not a 'war' because the war actually started before that... and it was the leader of the opposition (satan) who got us involved in it by convincing us to oppose his enemy (God). That battle is still going on... it hasn't been resolved yet.

I don't want to bore people who don't believe any of this or are offended by "religious talk", so I'll bring this back to the point I was originally trying to make.

If you say the God in a flower, or the God in you, it suggests there is no need to invite him into your life, because he is already there. So if he stands at the door knocking, and will only come into your life if you invite him, why would you bother to get up to let him in? You wouldn't, because he is already there with you.


Think of it this way... Joe is sitting with you in your living room, he's a good buddy of yours and has always lived in your home. But then someone is knocking on your door and asking to come in... not demanding, just asking. He won't come in unless he's invited to come in... so it's entirely up to you, it's your choice. So you go to the door and say, "Who are you?" The voice on the other side says, "It's me, Joe."

So then you look back at Joe and tell him, "Well, I'm no fool! I know he isn't Joe because you are Joe, and you are already here." And so you go back to visiting Joe, and ignore the joker who is only claiming he is Joe so you will let him in. End of story...






...or is it?

Iamon lyme: "...or is it?"

( Substitute the word "God" for "Joe". )

If there is only one Joe, then how can you be sure the Joe you know is the real Joe, and the Joe who came to the door isn't? You know one of them is a fake because there is only one Joe, so how do you decide who the real one is?

Mysticism overcomes this problem by saying they both are, or neither are, or everything is, or it doesn't matter because I'm too tired to think about it so I'll make the problem (of understanding this) go away in a mystical puff of smoke. Mysticism doesn't solve the problem by making the answer more visible, it solves the problem by making the problem less visible...



... and air freshener can make farty smells disappear behind a cloud of sweet smelling fragrance. It's like magic, only better.

Iamon lyme: where did you learn to think this?? Joe????

"So if he stands at the door knocking, and will only come into your life if you invite him, why would you bother to get up to let him in? You wouldn't, because he is already there with you."

It's a matter of conciousness, isn't it.

(V): "where did you learn to think this??"

I don't understand your question. Are you asking where did I learn this (like from a book) or are you asking me how did I come to think of this?

At first I thought you were asking where did I learn to think. I can't really say where I learned to think, or when... it was an ongoing process. It still is.

Joe????

It was an analogy. Or a metaphor, or whatever it's called... I'm not exactly sure what to call it. I'm not talking about just any old Joe, or about your house... the house is you. Joe is Jesus. Inviting Joe into your house means inviting Christ into your life. If you think he is already in your life, then why would you bother to open the door to let him in? Most people would be inclined to believe in the authenticity of the first Joe, and assume the second one to be fake.

(V): "It's a matter of conciousness, isn't it."

I don't know. Is it?

I'll only be conscious for another hour or two... It's late, and so I'll be scooting off to bed before too long.

Iamon lyme: Both!!

"It was an analogy. Or a metaphor, or whatever it's called."

I know, I was asking if you got it through the interpretation of passages. I've had a similar discussion with some Joe Witnesses recently... Till I pointed out they had forgotten a whole Corinthians!! ;P

"I'll only be conscious for another hour or two... It's late, and so I'll be scooting off to bed before too long."

Wrong type lol.

..Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[4] As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

(V): "I was asking if you got it through the interpretation of passages."

I got it through the 'interpretation' of one passage. You know, the one where Jesus says he stands at the door, and if anyone hears his voice etc etc etc. It's kind of hard to misinterpret that one, wouldn't you say? What do you think it means? Also, you said "passages" (I interpret that to mean more than one) so what other passages do you have in mind, and how do you interpret them?


I assume you are asking me where did I learn about mysticism. My first encounter with mysticism is experience with it. When I started believing in God I went to various churches and meeting places. I wasn't aware of how many different denominations and cults there were claiming to be Christ centered, or included Christ in their philosophy. One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!

Anyway, I did encounter some mysticism along the way, and wasn't fooled by that either. Most of it appeals to "religious" emotions and less to rational thought. That's how I saw it. The answers to my questions weren't really answers, they were mostly word pictures that started and ended with the same 'answer'. I was expected to find the meaning of all that somewhere in the haze conjured up for me to look at.

My search was for a comprehensible God, not for a religious feeling or some hazy philosophy that can't stand up to scrutiny.

I may not have an IQ of 170, but I wasn't interested in trying to make sense of nonsense through the sheer power of me little intellect. Very smart people can devise very smart looking ideas, but I'm interested in something more than indulging in an intellectual exercise... I don't need a bigger brain so I can be kept busy with bigger ideas.

Iamon lyme: The High IQ'ers .... run. Old saying.... being good at particle physics doesn't make you a good picker of horses at the races.

.... I think there is where you have me confused.

For a start I don't think... seriously, my missus can confirm that!!

.. as for the comprehension... you think your the only one?

... haven't I said thinking is a bad habit.

Me I learnt how to stop and accept what I couldn't comprehend. Some good phrases like .... happens, grow roses.

(V): "Old saying.... being good at particle physics doesn't make you a good picker of horses at the races."

The secret to picking horses is you pick the horse that looks like it can run the fastest.

".... I think there is where you have me confused."

Because... ?

"For a start I don't think... seriously, my missus can confirm that!!"

So that means you only think you are confused... but if you don't think, you couldn't have arrived at your first premise of thinking you are confused because...
Ahhhh, crap, now I'm confused!!

".. as for the comprehension... you think your the only one?"

The only one what? Are you trying to confuse me?

"... haven't I said thinking is a bad habit."

At the risk of overthinking this, here are some possible answers...

1) So is smoking, but I've had no luck in giving that up either.
2) I'll have to think about that before I can answer.
3) I can't hear anything you've said, but most of time I can decipher what you write.
4) Why, did you forget you said that?

"Me I learnt how to stop and accept what I couldn't comprehend. Some good phrases like .... happens, grow roses."

Does this mean you do NOT accept what I've been saying, because you DO comprehend it?

"....happens, grow roses"

This leads us into examining another philosophical question: Does the Animal kingdom only exist to serve as food processors for the Plant kingdom?

"The High IQ'ers .... run."

That's right, just you try to run away, you little buggers... 'cause I'm a coming for ya!! You can hide, but you can't run!

.: oops, did it again.

I wrote "The battle began when we decided to step outside of His."

It was supposed to say "...outside of His will."

Iamon lyme: Of your previous experience. Now I know I'm into aspects of Christianity and Judaism that you might think... funny. Yet I've studied them for good reason. Much of what we have today as modern Christianity has no bearing on the original. Philosophy seems to be the intent as such of old Judaism and the teachings of Christ.

"Ahhhh, crap, now I'm confused!!"

Aye.. I was, so I learnt how to stop thinking when it comes to matters of spirituality and further into trying to have a comprehension of what God is and his (to quote Good Omens) "his ineffable plan"

The story of Genesis confirms this from a philosophical point of view... "tree of knowledge" why? Why is there good and evil, why do we perceive those items as such, what causes them... I don't see it in context of some outside demon or DeViL... but as manifestations of problems that humans have that causes them to be ... '''evil'''. Bad genes, bad people, bad nutrition, or just a loose wire in the brain. But we can change the way we think because of free will.

.... The likes of some TV pastor saying the DeViL made him sleep with prostitutes for me is total denial of personal responsibility.

"The only one what? Are you trying to confuse me?"

No. Just that at some extent it is a good idea to accept what you can't understand or comprehend while comprehending it's ok, which takes practice.

"Does this mean you do NOT accept what I've been saying, because you DO comprehend it?"

No.

"This leads us into examining another philosophical question: Does the Animal kingdom only exist to serve as food processors for the Plant kingdom?"

No.. it's symbiotic from a biology perspective.

(V):

> Why is there good and evil, why do we perceive those items as such, what causes them... I don't see it in context of some outside demon or DeViL...

I prefer the Zoroastrian version of good and evil. Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion and it predates the Abrahamic religions by at least 1000 years. It is still practiced among Persians (Farsi) in India and to some extent Iran.

According to Zoroastrianism, at the moment of creation Ormazd (Ahura Mazda) was manifested as the twins Spenta Mainyu (bounteous mind or spirit) and Angra Mainyu (destructive mind or spirit). It was in the form of Spenta Mainyu that Ahura Mazda conceived creation and life. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) becomes its antithesis, and hence the originator of death, destruction and evil.

Zoroastrians exist in that duality of good and evil arising as manifestations of a single deity. Yet, according to their religion Ahura Mazda chanted the Ahuna Vairya, a sacred chant that puts Ahriman in a stupor. Zoroastrians recite this chant as the most sacred hymn of their religion.

The point is, Zoroastrianism sees good and evil as arising from the creator itself, with the personification of good (Ormazd) defeating the personification of evil (Ahriman) . Creation on Zoroastrianism is not limited in time (as in 7 days), but a process that has taken aeons. Time is divided into three eras: creation (where good and evil arose), mixture (our present era where good and evil coexist) and separation (Fashokereti).

Ultimately Ormazd is superior to Ahriman and Ahriman will be defeated in the Fashokereti, the time of renovation of the universe when good and evil will be separated and living beings will become one with God.

I find the duality of Zoroastrianism much better than the Christian view because Zoroastrians see good and evil as personifications emanating from the one God, rather than somehow Lucifer suddenly becoming evil out of "free will". If God created everything, then God created evil too, and Zoroaster wisely recognized that in the duality of the twins that arise at the time of creation. Those twins fight the great war of good and evil, even though they both arise from the same God. This is more true to the conflicted nature of human existence where good and evil coexist in the same person, the same society, the same world, etc.

Well, it is obviously more involved than my simple paragraph, but you can read more in Wikipedia, and there you can find links to the Avestas (scriptures):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://www.avesta.org/

(V): "Aye.. I was [confused], so I learnt how to stop thinking when it comes to matters of spirituality and further into trying to have a comprehension of what God is and his (to quote Good Omens) "his ineffable plan"

"The story of Genesis confirms this from a philosophical point of view... "tree of knowledge" why?"


Okay, first of all the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't about whether we may or may not have access to ANY knowledge. The prohibition was specific to a knowledge of good and evil. In other words, the prohibition against gaining this knowledge wasn't a prohibition against all other forms of knowledge.

There is nothing there to suggest we shouldn't think or wonder about things, or pursue something like technological knowledge. Obviously (there's that word again) I'm being very literal minded when I look at this, and I could be wrong... I'm assuming things like thinking and wondering and pursuing other knowledge would be okay, because no other prohibitions were stated.

So to your question, why the tree of knowledge? First of all, it wasn't "the tree of knowledge". It was the tree of knowledge OF good and evil. But even so, it begs the question why did God put us in the position of having to choose between what he said and what someone else was saying? Maybe it's because he created us for a specific purpose.

Iamon lyme: Also, a tree of knowledge of good and evil infers evil already existed, otherwise there wouldn't have been a choice to be made... and there would have been no tempter to confuse us.

Blaming God for creating evil doesn't make sense, because when he created everything there was no evil. Blaming God for the existence of evil is the same as blaming him for the problems it causes for us, but we can't blame Him because we had a choice. We can't choose if we don't have free will... so if it's the fault of anything, it would have to be our own free will. We didn't have to sign up for this problem, I know I didn't, but I'm stuck with the decision Adam and Eve made. And blaming them doesn't make sense, because I don't think I could have passed that test either.... because for me to know that I shouldn't be messing around with evil presupposes a knowledge of evil.

You can't know it's wrong until you know it's wrong. All we had to go on before we "knew" it was wrong was God telling us not to do it, and what would happen if we do. So why give us a test we are doomed to fail, because a tempter is there who knows how to confuse us?

I can't say I know why, but I don't think Gods purpose for us was to forever remain ignorant, and live forever running naked through a garden. I don't have a problem with that, because at my age it's not appropriate for me to be running through mommy and daddys garden naked like a two year old. It doesn't make sense for me to believe His plan is for us to simply go full circle, and back to all of us walking naked through a garden again. I think he has a different plan for us.

Übergeek 바둑이: Not sure if it is the first. I've heard of Zoroastrianism some years back, and also of the Corpus Hermeticum. The Latter I've read and dates back to the same sorta period (or so they say now, it might change again!) ... There is a good probability Moses would have been exposed to the teachings if the dates are now right... I fso they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC.

... which is the rough period Zoroastrianism dates back to.

Iamon lyme: I understand the difference, I cut "of good and evil" just to save me fingers. :P

"You can't know it's wrong until you know it's wrong. All we had to go on before we "knew" it was wrong was God telling us not to do it, and what would happen if we do."

But then free will is excluded. Blind following orders is not as it were 'being' a reflection of the image of God. Do you see the LORD taking orders (and I mean that in the old Jewish way of two contexts intertwined, Noble and God) .... ....

"But even so, it begs the question why did God put us in the position of having to choose between what he said and what someone else was saying? Maybe it's because he created us for a specific purpose."

To enjoy a good life?

"Blaming God for creating evil doesn't make sense, because when he created everything there was no evil. Blaming God for the existence of evil is the same as blaming him for the problems it causes for us, but we can't blame Him because we had a choice."

Now, that depends on what you call evil. If all life is generated from God, then even the nasty parasites, bugs and diseases all come from him. The story of Moses seems to confirm this point, as God is blamed for the ten plagues.

"but I don't think Gods purpose for us was to forever remain ignorant, and live forever running naked through a garden."

Clothes are handy as an environmental factor. Yet was that the first judgement by man, the division of what came from one?

(V): ....If so they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC....

(V): "But then free will is excluded. Blind following orders is not as it were 'being' a reflection of the image of God."

Why would He tell us not to do something, and what would happen if we did, if there was no free will? If free will was excluded, if we had no free will or potential for exercising free will, then there would have been no reason for Him to present us with a choice.

So no, free will is not excluded because it can't be excluded... it's conditional to making decisions and choosing one thing over another.

It's not blind following of orders either way, because whether or not free will was present before the choice is irrelevant. It either started to exist at the moment we made a choice, or it was always there but didn't manifest itself until the choice was made. So either way, we can't say choosing did not involve free will.

(Actually, you CAN say that, because free will allows you to say anything you want to say.)

Free will is conditional to choosing... if we didn't have free will, we would have no choice but to obey Gods rules for us. Nobody talks about inanimate matter blindly following Gods orders... because inanimate matter does not have a choice.

Iamon lyme: I need to correct myself again. God did not present us with this choice. He didn't say choose between this and that. The choice (doing something else) was presented by someone else.

So, who was this someone else.

Everything was fine and dandy with creation until 'something' (something that did have, or had the potential to have, free will) in it thought of elevating himself into a higher position. Evil did not begin with God, it began with something in his creation that could exercise free will.

God COULD have created everything with nothing in it having free will, but then we wouldn't be here talking about it. There would be no discussion about this. Everything, including us, would be blindly following Gods orders.

So what do you think? Did God make a mistake? Is free will the culprit... is it the fly in His ointment?

(V): "Now, that depends on what you call evil. If all life is generated from God, then even the nasty parasites, bugs and diseases all come from him. The story of Moses seems to confirm this point, as God is blamed for the ten plagues."


Nope. You are making the same assumption, that before everything changed evil was already here. The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in.

Natural selection is sensitive to changes in environment. It's a blind process. Natural selection didn't sin, we did. But if you open a door and let smoke from a pulp mill in, you won't be the only one (or only thing) affected by it... the smoke will get on and into anything it comes in contact with.

We are not only responsible for what happened to us, we are also responsible for the effect it's had on all of nature. If you assume evil bugs were here before the problem began, it's the same as assuming nature cannot change. Nature can (and does) change.

(V): "Clothes are handy as an environmental factor."

They are now. This is no longer a "clothes optional" world, and for reasons other than modesty. But that hasn't always been the case, so I'm assuming the question that follows is which came first... the clothes, or the environmental changes.

"Yet was that the first judgement by man, the division of what came from one?"

Whether you agree with evolution or creation, no one is saying that people always wore clothes. But even with the evironment changing, people could have settled only into regions where wearing clothes wouldn't have been necessary. Somewhere along the line, wearing clothes seemed to be the right thing to do... but if not for strictly environmental reasons, then why?

(V):

> Not sure if it is the first. I've heard of Zoroastrianism some years back, and also of the Corpus Hermeticum. The Latter I've read and dates back to the same sorta period (or so they say now, it might change again!) ... There is a good probability Moses would have been exposed to the teachings if the dates are now right... I fso they date back to 2000BC - 1500BC.

The Hermetica were written in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. While some have argued that they date back to the Pharaonic period in Egypt. However, they are more likely to have arisen shortly before Plato's time in the 6th century BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum

It is interesting because scholars believed that the same ideas in the Hermtica influenced Greek philosophers in antiquity. The first book of the Hermetica introduces Poemandres, the shepherd of men who introduces the disciple to the divine. This is an idea that Christianity borrowed 6 centuries later. This comes as no surprise since St. Paul had so much contact with Greeks in the 1st century AD.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermet.htm

Although dated to the 6th century BC, the Hermetica is probably based on older ideas. Zarathustra is believed to have lived in northeastern Iran or Southwestern Afghanistan between 200 and 1500 BC. However, it is likely that his ideas descent from something much older.

Before there was Europe or Asia and all the modern divisions of its peoples, there were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Bronze-age predecessor culture that shaped the language and religion of our modern world. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived during the late Neolithic era (4000 BC), but some archaelogists believe that they may have lived in the early Neolithic (7500 BC). Their languages certainly gave rise to many modern language families such as Indo-Iranian, Turkic, Semitic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Latin, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Indo-European religion can be partially reconstructed using comparative mythology and linguistics, and many Gods that might seem unrelated in different cultures suddenly appear to be the same Gods, although their mythologies and names are mutated over the centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Looking at the Indo-European religion makes me wonder if a small group of people within it had developed a more abstract concept of God and a concept of the duality of good and evil. This god would be descended from Deiwos, the main deity of the Indo-European pantheon. If that happened, it was probably very late in the development of the Indo-European culture. I suspect that it happened separately in at least two places.

One would be among the Semitic people who founded Chaldea. According to the Old Testament, Abraham was Chaldean, and the Old Testament never claims that Abraham invented monotheism. There are a couple of passages where Abraham is addressed by others who are clearly monotheists like him, they are Semitic like him, but they belong to entirely different clans. So it would seem that Monotheism was there, but it was with Abraham that Judaism finds its first, earliest expression.

The other place would be among the Indo-Iranians who lived further east and were geographically separated from the Semitic people's of Anatolia. The Zoroastrians also developed a monotheist view of the universe, but with a more clearly defined abstract duality of good and evil.

There were others too, such as the partial monotheism of the cult of Aten during the reign of Akenaten (Amenhotep IV) between 1353 and 1336 BC. Atenism was considered a great heresy in Egypt because Akenaten sought to get rid of polytheism and replace it with a single supreme deity. The religion died with Akenathen and the old Egyptian polytheism was restored by his successor Tutankhamun. It is likely that this cult of Aten was the predecessor of the Hermetica that came 7 centuries later. Belief in Aten is truly old, going back to the 18th century BC as evident in the Tale of Sinuhe, a text written some 500 years before the reign of Akenaten. This text is older than the Old Testament. It must be pointed that Atenism was really a politically motivated religion that identified Akenaten with the supreme god Aten. By making himself the supreme god, Akenaten ensured that he had absolute control over all of Egypt, including the powerful priestly class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism

A good question would be whether these forms of monotheism arose separately or whether they had a common predecessor. Scholars cannot agree on this because there is weak archaelogical evidence and because some scholars would probably not want to take the risk of claiming that the Abrahamic religions have a predecessor much older than the Old Testament.

Iamon lyme: I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously.

"The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in."

To a certain point depending on age.

" Natural selection didn't sin, we did. But if you open a door and let smoke from a pulp mill in, you won't be the only one (or only thing) affected by it... the smoke will get on and into anything it comes in contact with."

The ripple effect... yes. But as the smoke getting into everything.... that is where free will really comes alive. The ability to step back and be as it were an unmoved mover (it's an old Greek term for the essence of being.. ie God)

"If you assume evil bugs were here before the problem began, it's the same as assuming nature cannot change. Nature can (and does) change."

Our genetic structure proves bugs were around, some helped to form of immune system and helped us to evolve... and yes nature does change. Dinosaurs are alive no as birds are they not!! ;P

Übergeek 바둑이: Hard to prove either way unless we get a major find(s) showing link/no links.

(V): "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously."

I'm talking specifically about what it says in the book of Genesis. What happened wasn't because of an unconscious reaction, it was because of rationalisation. Eve told the serpent it was forbidden fruit, and what would happen if they took and ate of it. So they knew what God had told them and what it meant, and it never occurred to them God might be lying about it until someone came along with rationalisations. That's how liers justify what they do. They "rationalise"... they find reasons to believe what they want to believe. Or what they want you to believe, same difference.

Iamon lyme: "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference..."


Obviously (or not) we wouldn't have a made a choice because we couldn't have made a choice before there was a choice.

And if after creating everything, when God looked at it and said it was good, why assume that to mean evil was already there? There is no clear timeline to place exactly when satan became corrupt, except that it must have happened before his encounter with man. So according to the story, evil came into existence between the time God created everything and the serpents first ecounter with man.

So, there ARE some things we can know about the creation story, but if you ignore the internal consistency of the story, then you should have no problem finding contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, how could Cain have married someone before there were women? I guess I would have to assume everyone lived for a very long time, enough time for there to be enough people (a large enough population) to choose from. But I don't have to assume, because according to the story everyone did have very long lifespans. Okay then, so if he did get married, they must have been closely related, and that's just wrong! Well, you could expand on that by realising everyone today comes from the same root family, so if you hook up with anyone it's just plain wrong!

Or how about getting all those animals into Noahs boat? How could all the different animals in the world (today) have fit into that boat? That's impossible, because it would mean nature had some mechanism, like natural selection, that could take a small sampling containing enough DNA to account for all of the animals living in the world today.

So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see.

Iamon lyme: The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life, and healing.[2] Nahash, Hebrew for "snake", is also associated with divination, including the verb-form meaning to practice divination or fortune-telling. In the Hebrew Bible, Nahash occurs in the Torah to identify the serpent in Eden.....

....The Hebrew word nahash is used to identify the creature that appears in Genesis 3, in the Garden of Eden. God placed Adam in the Garden to tend it (Genesis 2:15), but he has warned both Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, "or you will die". (Genesis 3:3, NIV) The serpent tells Eve that this is untrue, and that if she and the man eat the fruit they will have knowledge and will not die. So Adam and Eve eat the fruit, but the knowledge they gain is loss of childlike innocence, and they are banished from the Garden. The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]

The serpent of Genesis plays the role of trickster, a speaking animal which even shares knowledge with God which is hidden from man. As with other trickster-figures, the gift it brings is double-edged: Adam and Eve gain knowledge, but lose Eden. The choice of a venomous snake for this role seems to arise from Near Eastern traditions associating snakes with danger and death, magic and secret knowledge, rejuvenation, immortality, and sexuality. It is also possible that the association of the snake with the nude goddess in Canaanite iconography lies behind the scene in the Garden between the reptile and naked Eve, "Mother of all life",[4] the "Great Mother Goddess of the Canaanites"[5] Qetesh.

Debate about the Serpent in Eden is whether it should be viewed figuratively or as a literal animal. Voltaire, drawing on Socinian influences, wrote: "It was so decidedly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentateuch."[6]

"So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see."

Maybe not if you allow for the heritage of our ancestors that was oral history. It's still used by the aborigines to teach how to survive in the bush.

btw.... I was as well talking about Genesis, but remembering certain proverbs passages stating this a wise creation.

(V): "The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]"


How does Rabbinical tradition interpret mans punishment of working the ground and eating by the sweat of his brow, and womans increased travail in childbirth? If not literal, then what do those represent? What are the guidlines for determining what may be interpreted literally or not? If the story of Noah had to be symbolic until our knowledge of DNA and natural selection "made" it possible for that to be a real event, am I to assume reality itself is dependent on what I am able to understand? If you reduce the entire story of creation (and the fall) to being figurative, then the serpents involvement and what happened to him CAN be reduced to the serpent representing sexual desire. So now, if the serpents roll in all of this has been reduced to biting heels, I can now interpret that to mean all sexual desires are limited to foot fetishes... in other words, as long as I'm able to divorce anything from reality I don't want linked with reality, I'm free to interpret anything to mean what I want it to mean.

Iamon lyme: ............... You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted.

One passage I was taught is the core of it all.

(V): "You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted."

I'm not aware of anyone who believed the Mayan calendar running out meant the end of the world. I'm aware of people implying there were people who believed it, but I would have to take that on faith as I haven't heard of or from anyone who actually believed it. I'm sure some people believed it because they heard skeptics talking about it, but I'm inclined to believe that story started with the skeptics. However, if as you say there have been many 'fake' end of the world predictions, doesn't that imply the existence of a 'genuine' prediction? If you believe the world will come to an end, then perhaps you could enlighten us with a genuine prediction. Or are you talking about something else?

Iamon lyme: All sorts.. From Christian preachers making a mint on predicting the second coming to people believing we are about to be hit by a rogue planet.... ... That months/years before it'd been easy to see unaided such a rogue planet is of no matter to their belief.

.. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem.

..... Still some people believe the world is flat..... Mind is a powerful device that can get hard wired as well as software errors that create false reality.

This is an old known problem.

As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die.

(V): Please explain to me how any prediction can be a 'fake'. If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?

(V): ".. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem."

It's my understanding the Y2K problem was fixed with plenty of time left over before the year 2000 arrived. Oh well, at least it was fun to speculate over what could have happened, and maybe gin up some fear over it. And it could have been worse than anyone anticipated... if it caused clocks to stop working altogether, even analogs like the wind up grandfather clocks, then maybe time itself would have stood still. We will never know, because all those clocks kept on working and moving time along.

(V): "As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die"

6 billion? That doesn't give us much time. I've heard it could keep going for another 10 billion years before it starts winding down. But regardless of how long it takes, that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is.

I've been reading about the kalam cosmological argument. It's based on these three statements:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory. Philosophy and math were used to reason that the universe must have had a beginning. For instance, they used math and logic to prove that an infinite number of past events lead to logical absurdities. And that's just one example... different ideas were examined, the least likely ones were shaved away (occam's razor) and the last one standing was "The universe had a beginning".

This argument is mostly supported by theists... in other words, it's "arguable". *<(:op

Iamon lyme: Who do you believe what God is??

Silvery Moon: I've moved on to another topic.