The morality of the Bible?

[stahrwe]

being omniscient, he already knew that they would lie.

Why ask? For the story. The story written by men to control other men. Men who did not fully appreciate the idea of omniscience, and who were probably not writing their character with omniscience in mind.

Very good, you're thinking.

Yes, he knew they would lie. Part of the answer deals with predestination and free-will. It also deals with the concept of condemnation and the concept of guilt. They were guilty, but still had an out. Just because God knew they would lie does not mean they should not have been afforded the chance. If He had condemned them before a hearing, then you would be griping about that. The point is, they disobeyed. He knew they disobeyed. He could have cut them off without even a hearing but He didn't.

What does the author's understanding of ominscience have to do with anything. Are you implying that it is okay to lie if you can get away with it?

[Interbane]

Just because God knew they would lie does not mean they should not have been afforded the chance.

What kind of 'chance' are they afforded when god already knew they would lie?

You believe that people have free will. What evidence or reasoning do you have to support that belief?

[stahrwe]

Just because God knew they would lie does not mean they should not have been afforded the chance.

What kind of 'chance' are they afforded when god already knew they would lie?

the same chance you have.

You believe that people have free will. What evidence or reasoning do you have to support that belief?

If you would like to discuss free will vs predestination I suggest you start a new discussion.

[tat tvam asi]

God is omnipresent. I won't limit it by saying He is everywhere. I will leave it to His own words to explain. He said, "I am." I don't see the issue.

Good. So then we are together on God's presence being everywhere, boundless, limitless, and so on. Everywhere means no limitation. And "I am" means that existence "is". Existence is present. And likewise God is present in good as well as evil then, just as the verses say.

Whoa cowboy. That might work for Murdock but not for you. Saying that God is everywhere is not the same as saying that God is in evil. You're going to get nowhere with that.

Nowhere? Everywhere means everywhere! Not in some things but not others. Everywhere means good and evil, light and dark, and it's the bible which has been quoted saying just that. As Interbane has pointed out, you sir are in a clear case of denial.

You've basically agreed there as well. The issue is that existence is present everywhere, boundless, limitless, and so on. We can't fathom a beginning nor end to existence by any stretch of the imagination.

So on one hand we have God which is omnipresent and on the other hand we have the Realm of Existence which is necessarily omnipresent. God / Existence, being omnipresent, means that its a major part of you and everything else around you at the same time.

I don't know where you are going with this but I would interject the following:

The fact that something is difficult to imagine does not mean it is not. I can't imagine 1 trillion dollars but $1 trillion exists. (Even the attempts to explain $1 trillion are unimaginable).
Therefore though the universe is immense, it is not infinite.

That is not true of God. God is infinite. He existed before time and will exist after time ends. He exists within the iniverse and beyond the universe.

What are you talking about? I said "existence", and specified to you that by "existence" I mean the universe and what may lay infinitely beyond the universe. And I made that very clear. The Realm of Existence encompasses the totality, the all, and therefore "all things" in and beyond this finite universe, just as God's presence is described via his omnipresent attribute. God and the Realm of Existence are both present everywhere in other words. Not present in some places but not others. The verses make that clear - there is no escaping Gods presence. There is no escaping the presence of God / there is no escaping the presence of the Realm of Existence. To do so would mean "non existence". So for you try and separate God from the realm of existence is for you to unknowingly make an argument that ends in God not existing...

Acts 17:27-28
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

We exist in the omnipresent God. We exist in the omnipresent Realm of Existence. So if you're now agreeing that God and Existence are the very same thing, the uncaused cause as it were, then there is nothing that is not God. Just as everything is in and of the Realm of Existence everything is in and of God. Light and Darkness are in and of God, in and of the Realm of Existence. Anything that you can point your finger at as 'other' is an interconnected part of you. Why? because you both exist. You're both a manifestation of the Realm of Existence itself, of God himself. And to deny this is to deny God as it turns out. Are you here to deny God or affirm God Stahrwe?

I am here to deny your confusion which is great. You take unrelated elements and mix them up in your mind to your disservice. I repeat my suggestion that you take a break from Murdock.

We do not exist in God. We have our own separate existence.
The realm of existence is not omnipresent. It has limits God does not.
God is not an uncaused cause.

So then Acts 17 is wrong according to you. What limits do you think the Realm of Existence have? To leave it, there would be NO Existence at all. No God, no heaven, no hell, none of these things that you claim "exist". If anything exists then it is immediately of the Realm of Existence. God, is of the Realm. You are of the realm, permitting that you exist. The minute something exists it's in the Realm of Existence.

So what limits are there for the Realm of Existence? Where can it possibly end? Where does it begin? What is the boundary of the Realm of Existence? No matter what boundary you try to give it the question of what's beyond comes into play. Nothing? If say that nothing exists beyond then you say that nothing exists, and the realm of existence encompasses that too. The existence of both something and nothing. This is the very same as asking where did God originate? God is metaphorical of existence and you're expression of shallow minded philosophical depth reveals that you haven't spent any considerable time yet in your life contemplating the question of ultimates. If you wish to proselytize someone like me, then you'll have to join me in these philosophical depths and show me that you are familiar with them and that you know how to navigate your way through them, which you have fallen short of thus far. Why in the world, after having reached infinite cosmos conceptualization and the discipline of understanding the mystery factor underlying all conceptualization whatsoever - infinite or otherwise - would I be inclined to back track to a place of mind before I had ever accomplished any of this - the place of mind that you are currently?

I'm way down the path and you're yelling out to me to come join you at the beginning near the starting point and telling me that the beginning of the path is all there is and there is no further, when I obviously know better because I'm standing ahead looking back at you stuck at the starting line. No, Stahrwe, what gets my attention is those who are further ahead of me looking back at the both of us having a good laugh because we're that far behind them. That is some one to pay attention to. And as I find them in life them I do pay attention. That's what has contributed to getting this far along off the starting line you stand at now. So you'll have to catch up to where I am and then surpass me Stahrwe if you wish to try and take a teacher and student role with me. Can you do that? We'll see...

Tat, when you say, "Anything that you can point your finger at as 'other' is an interconnected part of you. Why? because you both exist."

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I am sorry to say that but someone needs to tell you that what you are saying makes no sense. Worse than that, it is like the babbling of an old stoner.

Of course it doesn't make sense, you're trying to understand it from the starting line. If you pick up a stone and see that clearly you are one thing and the stone another, you are right according to human perception. There is a boundary around you and one around the stone. Two objects. But what factor is common to both? Well, both exist. The existence of the stone and the existence of you appear to be two separate existences. But, both of these separate existences you perceive are bound by the realm of existence itself. You and the stone are composed out of the the fabric and structure of existence. You are both a manifestation of fabric and structure of existence, the realm. And, following such a realization, a mystic might be inclined to say something like "that which you have done unto the least of these my brethren, you have done also unto me". That's a mystic speaking from the dimension of being one with God, one with mere existence. It's present everywhere. What you do to anything you have done to God, to the Realm of Existence which is present everywhere. And by having these deeper philosophical realizations thrown in along side of other shallow minded political based agendas which depend on short siding the mystical realization, the bible is very contradictory! When you're trying to rally people against others, or make exclusivity claims, this deeper content must be ignored altogether. And so it is ignored in a lot of cases in the bible when rally against something or someone. During moments of mystical clarity God is "all things", during moments of unclarity God is portrayed as something less than everywhere and in "all things" (omnipresent). And you sir have been expressing unclarity throughout this conversation in an attempt to draw a line of distinction between things, such as "good" and "evil". You can't have a chosen few but God omnipresent without contradiction. The political agenda suffers by people knowing and understanding the deeper mystical function of the mythology and so it has been greatly suppressed in orthodox teaching.

You're both a manifestation of the Realm of Existence itself, of God himself. And to deny this is to deny God as it turns out.

No, we are creations of God

What do you mean "no"? We are creations of existence, creations of God as it were. If God was not created, but creates everything (the uncreated creator), then what of Existence? If God existed without a beginning, then guess what, the Realm of Existence had no beginning either. Do you think that God existed with no beginning but the Realm of Existence did not? Where did God exist and in what? Outside of the Realm of Existence? There is no existence outside of the Realm of Existence because anything that exists is immediately a part of the Realm. So the mythological God with no beginning equals the Realm of Existence itself with no fixed beginning. Something always existed in order for existence to be taking place now in other words...

Did you ever answer my questions:

Can property inherit property?

When women are treated as property (sold, slaved, ect.) and women are allowed to own land as well, then yes. A man's property, his woman, can inherit land. Do you think that changes women's status in the bible? Does that mean women were not created for man according the bible which set a standard of sexism thereafter?

I will take this as a dodge to my question. Obviously property can not inherit property. I can't leave my 401K to my refrigerator. I remind you that women in countries with a Christian heritage have had and continue to have much better lives than women in non-Christian countries.

The same shallow mindedness you've displayed in philosophy is the core of this rebuttal you've given. The analogy doesn't work. You can't leave your 401K to your refrigerator but what does that have to do with women having property status in the bible? It certainly doesn't make it go away or change women's status. Just because they could inherit from their husband doesn't work to prove that they weren't treated as property. You're trying to use non-human property to make analogy with human property and it doesn't work out for you. Neither does your accusation of a dodge. I didn't dodge anything, I answered the question, twice now...

Does Murdock believe that the mother of Horus remained a virgin perpetually?

Of course not. We're talking about mythology. There was no historical Osiris, Isis, nor Horus, nor any historical perpetual virginity to begin with. You're trying to literalize the myth with your line of questioning. It's about a dawn Goddess with stellar associations. The virgin dawn is perpetually the virgin dawn every morning. It gives birth to the morning sun over and over again perpetually while remaining the virgin dawn. Virgo is perpetually the constellation Virgo as well. It rises on the eastern horizon after midnight every winter solstice and the sun rises behind Virgo. Myths have been made about these things and come out to being about virgin births. That's why these Goddess myths use the mythological motif of perpetual virginity in the first place. It isn't meant to refer to a literal virgin who brings forth and remains a virgin. And she makes that very clear in the chapter "The Virgin Isis-Meri". You would have already known that if you read the chapter by the way.

Another dodge. You don't want to answer the question affirmitavely as that would destroy Murdock's credibility.

Once again, I didn't dodge anything. I gave you a summary of the chapter which you obviously haven't read and know anything about it's actual content aside from the few quotes I've posted. Murdock doesn't believe that Isis or the Christian Mary were ever 'real people' or 'real virgins' for that matter. She takes them as myth, symbolism. Now of course she believes that the myth of perpetual virginity was ascribed to Isis in ancient times and the entire chapter deals with providing sources that show that Isis was in fact considered a mythological perpetual virgin is given to substantiate the claim. She obviously believes that the sources are correct and that Isis was in fact considered a perpetual virgin in the Egyptian mythos. Isis says of herself in the example, "I am the great virgin." The credibility of that belief is substantiated by scholarship and primary source material spread out through the entire chapter. It's to show people that despite what they may think or know about it, scholarship knows and has known that Isis was given perpetual virgin status in the mythos and mysteries. No one is trying to hide from anything Stahrwe, its a matter of public record for all to read and consider. You've trying to consider it as if Murdock thinks that Isis was real, and virgin perpetually, which is but one more example of your's minds function. You want to approach the myth literally and then call attention to how ridiculous it seems to believe that a real deity was a virgin perpetually. That's starting line thinking starwe, and looking right you standing there on the starting line talking to me as if you aren't.

Just look at yourself. You're desperate to find something, anything, which can some how appear to give you a leg up on trying to proselytize all of these atheists and freethinkers into your realm of blind faith and belief by taking your mythology as literal fact and concrete world history. As I've said you play your part to the best of your abilities. But your best just isn't good enough Stahrwe. You need to try harder in order to make any head way with a freethinking community. You're up against freethought here with me right now. I can draw from any given number of ways of human thinking and blend them into whatever I'd like. That goes along with the freedom of thought and expression. The bible is but one of many, many, human ways of thinking and can be cross referenced as such. I have no fear of any imaginary personification of the sun (Jesus) or mere existence (Father) underlying the sun. That's what your mythological Father and Sun pair represent. And from the starting line you think they're concrete, hard fact, historical. I'm free to think and know otherwise. Between the fundamentalist scenario and otherwise, I place my bet on otherwise.

[johnson1010]

What does the author's understanding of ominscience have to do with anything. Are you implying that it is okay to lie if you can get away with it?

Not at all.

What i am saying is that omniscience, as understood in modern terms, was not understood by the writers of the bible. If they understood that, the bible would have been much different. Their concept of what a god is is different than the modern concept, the sheer largeness, of the conception of a god in modern times.

The god they describe is basically a human king with super powers. No different really than Odin or Zeus. Full of foolishness, wrath, and folly.

The god they describe knew they were up to no good in the same way a parent knows a child smashed a plate through deduction. An omniscient god would have known everything that would transpire in the garden since the beginning of time. An omniscient god prevents the concept of free will, and that would have been evident in the story if they understood the concept.

You are still missing this. Let me re-phrase.

God is all-knowing, not just the present, but the future as well. So when he created adam and eve he did so fully intending to kick them out of the garden. He created them specifically with the intent that they would be disobedient. But, if you really understood what the combination of all-knowing and all-powerful meant, you would know that it is entirely impossible for anyone to do anything whcih does not exactly conform to god's plan.

He created them so that they would disobey his word, so that he could kick them out of eden, so that he would have the opportunity to send people to hell. It is not possible for us to make any choices at all which he does not already know the outcome. every single action we take is part of his plan.

So, for what purpose did your all-knowing god put the trap in eden, knowing we would fall, knowing we would suffer for it?

From a different thread.

So, lets say we are lonely and we get a dog to keep us company. Then, we create "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs" and put it next to the dog with a delicious dog bone set as bait. We then tell the dog not to enter "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs."

He is curious, doesn't speak english, and jumps in anyway. Over the course of an hour he gets through tortures 1 and 2. We know, being the constructors of "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs", (and we constructed it for use on dogs. Specifically, the dog we got to keep us company) that it will just reset to 1 after torture 1000 is administered. If we were like your god, we would just cross our arms and say, "Well, have fun in "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs". I told you not to go in there."

It is also very telling that the tree they were not to eat was the tree of knowledge. I see you have so far refrained from eating that particular fruit.

[tat tvam asi]

It is not possible for us to make any choices at all which he does not already know the outcome. every single action we take is part of his plan.

This goes back to what I was trying to explain to him earlier about the creation of Luficer as head angel. Even Lucifer's revolt would have to be known in advance by God. Not, 'oh it could go either way,' because God would have to know which of the many options of which way it could go, it would go, in order to know the future. And the whole chain of events from Lucifers revolt to the New Jerusalem of Revelation is something that was intentionally set in motion by an all knowing God with absolute knowledge of the future. Why set sin motion intentionally from the beginning? I think you've nailed it here. Because the writers of that period were not thinking in terms of the God in the way that later writers were, or modern minds today. The conceptualization has greatly expanded with time.

[stahrwe]

God is omnipresent. I won't limit it by saying He is everywhere. I will leave it to His own words to explain. He said, "I am." I don't see the issue.

Good. So then we are together on God's presence being everywhere, boundless, limitless, and so on. Everywhere means no limitation. And "I am" means that existence "is". Existence is present. And likewise God is present in good as well as evil then, just as the verses say.

Whoa cowboy. That might work for Murdock but not for you. Saying that God is everywhere is not the same as saying that God is in evil. You're going to get nowhere with that.[/quote]

Nowhere? Everywhere means everywhere! Not in some things but not others. Everywhere means good and evil, light and dark, and it's the bible which has been quoted saying just that. As Interbane has pointed out, you sir are in a clear case of denial. [/quote]

You are trying to conflate things and places. Good and evil are not places. God is not in good. God is not in evil. God is good. God is not evil.

[A side note: The Bible is capitalized as it is the title of a book.]

Your hysterical gyrating about realm of existence is contradictory and nearly unintelligible. I understand your desire to prove your point due to your pantheism but it does not work. Even trying to claim that the realm of existence extends beyond the universe is contradicted by the fact that things do not exist outside of the universe.

You've basically agreed there as well. The issue is that existence is present everywhere, boundless, limitless, and so on. We can't fathom a beginning nor end to existence by any stretch of the imagination.

I have most certainly not agreed with that. In fact, I take exception to this entire paragraph.

So on one hand we have God which is omnipresent and on the other hand we have the Realm of Existence which is necessarily omnipresent. God / Existence, being omnipresent, means that its a major part of you and everything else around you at the same time.

Realm of existence exists everywhere it exists. That is limited to the known universe. God Is. He is everywhere there is existence and He transcends that meaning that He is everywhere in the realm of existence and he is outside of the realm of existence. Your error is that you are equating God and the Realm of Existence in your mind.

As to imagining difficult concepts like what is beyond the universe:

The fact that something is difficult to imagine does not mean it is not. I can't imagine 1 trillion dollars but $1 trillion exists. (Even the attempts to explain $1 trillion are unimaginable).
Therefore though the universe is immense, it is not infinite.

That is not true of God. God is infinite. He WAS before time and IS after time ends. He exists within the universe and IS beyond the universe.

What are you talking about? I said "existence", and specified to you that by "existence" I mean the universe and what may lay infinitely beyond the universe. And I made that very clear. The Realm of Existence encompasses the totality, the all, and therefore "all things" in and beyond this finite universe, just as God's presence is described via his omnipresent attribute. God and the Realm of Existence are both present everywhere in other words. Not present in some places but not others. The verses make that clear - there is no escaping Gods presence. There is no escaping the presence of God / there is no escaping the presence of the Realm of Existence. To do so would mean "non existence". So for you try and separate God from the realm of existence is for you to unknowingly make an argument that ends in God not existing...

I am afraid that you do not prove your point. Stating that God exceeds the realm of existence does not have anything to do with proving that God does not exist. In fact, the basic understanding of God is that before the universe, before matter, before time, “I Am”. He is self-existent and for you to tie yourself in a Gordian knot attempting to define God according to some pseudo-mythicist, pantheistic Massey/Murdockian babble is not going anywhere.

Acts 17:27-28
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

We do not exist in God. Are you claiming that the Acts 17 passage means that we are literally, physically inside God?

We exist in the omnipresent God. We exist in the omnipresent Realm of Existence. So if you're now agreeing that God and Existence are the very same thing, the uncaused cause as it were, then there is nothing that is not God. Just as everything is in and of the Realm of Existence everything is in and of God. Light and Darkness are in and of God, in and of the Realm of Existence. Anything that you can point your finger at as 'other' is an interconnected part of you. Why? because you both exist. You're both a manifestation of the Realm of Existence itself, of God himself. And to deny this is to deny God as it turns out. Are you here to deny God or affirm God Stahrwe?

You have a bad habit of repeating yourself and claiming that I have agreed. Once again:
We do not exist inside God;
God and the realm of existence are not the same thing;
God is not an ‘uncaused cause’ nor is there any such thing;
Everything is not in God.

I am here to deny your confusion which is great. You take unrelated elements and mix them up in your mind to your disservice. I repeat my suggestion that you take a break from Murdock.

We do not exist in God. We have our own separate existence.
The realm of existence is not equal with God. It has limits God does not. It is not intelligent, God is.
God is not an uncaused cause.

So then Acts 17 is wrong according to you. What limits do you think the Realm of Existence have? To leave it, there would be NO Existence at all. No God, no heaven, no hell, none of these things that you claim "exist". If anything exists then it is immediately of the Realm of Existence. God, is of the Realm. You are of the realm, permitting that you exist. The minute something exists it's in the Realm of Existence.

Acts 17 is not wrong, your interpretation of Acts 17 is wrong.
Your attempt to create the logical sequence above fails because God is not of the realm of existence. He transcends existence. He is the “I Am”.

So what limits are there for the Realm of Existence? Where can it possibly end? Where does it begin? What is the boundary of the Realm of Existence? No matter what boundary you try to give it the question of what's beyond comes into play. Nothing? If say that nothing exists beyond then you say that nothing exists, and the realm of existence encompasses that too. The existence of both something and nothing. This is the very same as asking where did God originate? God is metaphorical of existence and you're expression of shallow minded philosophical depth reveals that you haven't spent any considerable time yet in your life contemplating the question of ultimates. If you wish to proselytize someone like me, then you'll have to join me in these philosophical depths and show me that you are familiar with them and that you know how to navigate your way through them, which you have fallen short of thus far. Why in the world, after having reached infinite cosmos conceptualization and the discipline of understanding the mystery factor underlying all conceptualization whatsoever - infinite or otherwise - would I be inclined to back track to a place of mind before I had ever accomplished any of this - the place of mind that you are currently?

The realm of existence began when God created it. It is bounded by the boundaries of the universe which God has established, and it will end at God’s will.

As for your final question, you should back-track until you realize that you have been the victim of a set of complicated and false teachings which, when examined from even their internal structure are unsustainable.

I'm way down the path and you're yelling out to me to come join you at the beginning near the starting point and telling me that the beginning of the path is all there is and there is no further, when I obviously know better because I'm standing ahead looking back at you stuck at the starting line. No, Stahrwe, what gets my attention is those who are further ahead of me looking back at the both of us having a good laugh because we're that far behind them. That is some one to pay attention to. And as I find them in life them I do pay attention. That's what has contributed to getting this far along off the starting line you stand at now. So you'll have to catch up to where I am and then surpass me Stahrwe if you wish to try and take a teacher and student role with me. Can you do that? We'll see...

You are well on your way down the broad path.
You are so far down this path that you are back at the beginning of pantheism. This is nothing new. You guys are just eating plums.

Tat, when you say, "Anything that you can point your finger at as 'other' is an interconnected part of you. Why? because you both exist."

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I am sorry to say that but someone needs to tell you that what you are saying makes no sense. Worse than that, it is like the babbling of an old stoner.

Of course it doesn't make sense, you're trying to understand it from the starting line. If you pick up a stone and see that clearly you are one thing and the stone another, you are right according to human perception. There is a boundary around you and one around the stone. Two objects. But what factor is common to both? Well, both exist. The existence of the stone and the existence of you appear to be two separate existences. But, both of these separate existences you perceive are bound by the realm of existence itself. You and the stone are composed out of the the fabric and structure of existence. You are both a manifestation of fabric and structure of existence, the realm. And, following such a realization, a mystic might be inclined to say something like "that which you have done unto the least of these my brethren, you have done also unto me". That's a mystic speaking from the dimension of being one with God, one with mere existence. It's present everywhere. What you do to anything you have done to God, to the Realm of Existence which is present everywhere. And by having these deeper philosophical realizations thrown in along side of other shallow minded political based agendas which depend on short siding the mystical realization, the bible is very contradictory! When you're trying to rally people against others, or make exclusivity claims, this deeper content must be ignored altogether. And so it is ignored in a lot of cases in the bible when rally against something or someone. During moments of mystical clarity God is "all things", during moments of unclarity God is portrayed as something less than everywhere and in "all things" (omnipresent). And you sir have been expressing unclarity throughout this conversation in an attempt to draw a line of distinction between things, such as "good" and "evil". You can't have a chosen few but God omnipresent without contradiction. The political agenda suffers by people knowing and understanding the deeper mystical function of the mythology and so it has been greatly suppressed in orthodox teaching.

The verse you quoted a portion of is not intended to imply that we are all part of some realm of existence, nor is it intended to equate all men or objects in existence:

The Sheep and the Goats
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

And by the way, Jesus is not a mystic.
You have perverted the definition of omnipresent to fit your pantheism.

By saying that I have attempted to draw a line of distinction between "good" and "evil" do you mean to imply that "good" and "evil" are the same?

You're both a manifestation of the Realm of Existence itself, of God himself. And to deny this is to deny God as it turns out.

No, we are creations of God

What do you mean "no"? We are creations of existence, creations of God as it were. If God was not created, but creates everything (the uncreated creator), then what of Existence? If God existed without a beginning, then guess what, the Realm of Existence had no beginning either. Do you think that God existed with no beginning but the Realm of Existence did not? Where did God exist and in what? Outside of the Realm of Existence? There is no existence outside of the Realm of Existence because anything that exists is immediately a part of the Realm. So the mythological God with no beginning equals the Realm of Existence itself with no fixed beginning. Something always existed in order for existence to be taking place now in other words...

You are very confused! Drop the word ‘exist’ and all of its forms with respect to God. Instead substitute the phrase “I am”. Before the universe was; “I am”. Before there was existence; “I am”. Before there was the realm of existence, "I am".

Did you ever answer my questions:

Can property inherit property?[/quote]

When women are treated as property (sold, slaved, ect.) and women are allowed to own land as well, then yes. A man's property, his woman, can inherit land. Do you think that changes women's status in the bible? Does that mean women were not created for man according the bible which set a standard of sexism thereafter?

I will take this as a dodge to my question. Obviously property can not inherit property. I can't leave my 401K to my refrigerator. I remind you that women in countries with a Christian heritage have had and continue to have much better lives than women in non-Christian countries.

The same shallow mindedness you've displayed in philosophy is the core of this rebuttal you've given. The analogy doesn't work. You can't leave your 401K to your refrigerator but what does that have to do with women having property status in the bible? It certainly doesn't make it go away or change women's status. Just because they could inherit from their husband doesn't work to prove that they weren't treated as property. You're trying to use non-human property to make analogy with human property and it doesn't work out for you. Neither does your accusation of a dodge. I didn't dodge anything, I answered the question, twice now...

You claim that the Bible says that women are property. I am merely demonstrating that you are wrong, again.

Does Murdock believe that the mother of Horus remained a virgin perpetually?

Of course not. We're talking about mythology. There was no historical Osiris, Isis, nor Horus, nor any historical perpetual virginity to begin with. You're trying to literalize the myth with your line of questioning. It's about a dawn Goddess with stellar associations. The virgin dawn is perpetually the virgin dawn every morning. It gives birth to the morning sun over and over again perpetually while remaining the virgin dawn. Virgo is perpetually the constellation Virgo as well. It rises on the eastern horizon after midnight every winter solstice and the sun rises behind Virgo. Myths have been made about these things and come out to being about virgin births. That's why these Goddess myths use the mythological motif of perpetual virginity in the first place. It isn't meant to refer to a literal virgin who brings forth and remains a virgin. And she makes that very clear in the chapter "The Virgin Isis-Meri". You would have already known that if you read the chapter by the way.

Another dodge. You don't want to answer the question affirmitavely as that would destroy Murdock's credibility.

Once again, I didn't dodge anything. I gave you a summary of the chapter which you obviously haven't read and know anything about. Murdock doesn't believe that Isis or the Christian Mary were real people or real virgins for that matter. She takes them as myth. Now of course she believes that the myth of perpetual virginity was ascribed to Isis and the entire chapter dealing with providing sources that show that Isis was considered a mythological perpetual virgin is given to substantiate the claim. She obviously believes that the sources are correct and that Isis was considered a perpetual virgin in the mythos. The credibility of that belief is substantiated by scholarship and primary source material spread out through the entire chapter. It's to show people that despite what they think, scholarship knows and has known that Isis was given perpetual virgin status in the mythos and mysteries. No one is trying to hide from anything Stahrwe, its a matter of public record for all to read and consider.

Just look at yourself. You're desperate to find something, anything, which can some how appear to give you a leg up on trying to proselytize all of these atheists and freethinkers into your realm of blind faith and belief in taking your mythology as literal fact and world history. As I've said you play your part to the best of your abilities. But your best just isn't good enough Stahrwe. You need to try harder. No one is convinced that turning around and walking back wards towards the starting line you're stuck at is the way to go. Try and catch up if you can because you're so far behind it's giving me a crick in my neck to have to keep turning around to address you. Get out ahead me why don't you so that I can give my neck a rest and you can look back at me for a while, I'm growing weary of it...

The problem I was getting at is that the mythicists can’t get their stories straight, but I will ask you another question, “Was Jesus conceived immaculately?”

Actually, I am enjoying this immensely. I find a number of the BT people to be inventive and engaging. As far as proselytizing goes, you should be able to see from most of my posts that I am not proselytizing. If I were, I would be constantly presenting the plan of salvation, and little else. I am not even especially interested in apologetics directly. What I am looking for here is a sounding board.

[stahrwe]

It is not possible for us to make any choices at all which he does not already know the outcome. every single action we take is part of his plan.

This goes back to what I was trying to explain to him earlier about the creation of Luficer as head angel. Even Lucifer's revolt would have to be known in advance by God. Not, 'oh it could go either way,' because God would have to know which of the many options of which way it could go, it would go, in order to know the future. And the whole chain of events from Lucifers revolt to the New Jerusalem of Revelation is something that was intentionally set in motion by an all knowing God with absolute knowledge of the future. Why set sin motion intentionally from the beginning? I think you've nailed it here. Because the writers of that period were not thinking in terms of the God in the way that later writers were, or modern minds today. The conceptualization has greatly expanded with time.

This has already been dealt with in the discussion on Omnipotence.
God is perfect.
God is love.
Love wants to create.
God will not create perfection because He would have to clone Himself therefore His creation must be less than perfect.
A creation less than perfect must be less than perfectly good.
Less than perfectly good provides the capacity for evil.

It really isn't complicated or contradictory to God's nature.

[johnson1010]

but it is nonsense.

[stahrwe]

What does the author's understanding of ominscience have to do with anything. Are you implying that it is okay to lie if you can get away with it?

Not at all.

What i am saying is that omniscience, as understood in modern terms, was not understood by the writers of the bible. If they understood that, the bible would have been much different. Their concept of what a god is is different than the modern concept, the sheer largeness, of the conception of a god in modern times.

Please provide examples from the Bible to substantiate your claim. Understand that I am not being obtuse here. You have made an interesting point, if you can support it.

We'll return to the statement about the Bible being different if they had.

Also, I will make the point with you too. Bible should be capitalized as it is the name of a book.

The god they describe is basically a human king with super powers. No different really than Odin or Zeus. Full of foolishness, wrath, and folly.

Wrath is bread and butter to skeptics so for the moment I'll let that one lie but you're going to have to justify 'foolishness' and 'folly'. Please be specific.

The god they describe knew they were up to no good in the same way a parent knows a child smashed a plate through deduction. An omniscient god would have known everything that would transpire in the garden since the beginning of time. An omniscient god prevents the concept of free will, and that would have been evident in the story if they understood the concept.

You are forgetting a very important concept; learning from our mistakes. My son just bought a 2001 Jeep. I argued with him for months that it was a bad deal. Once I actually convinced him not to do it but alas, he got the bug again. So now he is the proud owner of a 2001 Jeep with 150k miles, a huge hole in the dash where the controls for the A/C, heater, etc should be, it needs a brake job, a new radiator, it's leaking PS fluid and is missing the key for the locking lugs. It isn't really a problem that we are not perfect. It is not a problem that we sin. You blame God for not making our environment perfect. I explained before that we had that chance once, and will again and even then there will be some who will rebel.

You are still missing this. Let me re-phrase.

God is all-knowing, not just the present, but the future as well. So when he created adam and eve he did so fully intending to kick them out of the garden. He created them specifically with the intent that they would be disobedient. But, if you really understood what the combination of all-knowing and all-powerful meant, you would know that it is entirely impossible for anyone to do anything whcih does not exactly conform to god's plan.

Now you are confusing intent with knowledge. He did NOT create them intending for them to be disobedient. The fact that He knew they would is irrelevant. The important point is that He provided a fix. It's like a lifetime warranty and it comes free.

He created them so that they would disobey his word, so that he could kick them out of eden, so that he would have the opportunity to send people to hell. It is not possible for us to make any choices at all which he does not already know the outcome. every single action we take is part of his plan.

I don't often do this, but I suggest that you reconsider this concept. The belief that God creates people for the purpose of condemning them to hell is dangerous to your health. I am not claiming God will send a lightning bolt.

So, for what purpose did your all-knowing god put the trap in eden, knowing we would fall, knowing we would suffer for it?

The purpose of mankind is to love God and enjoy Him forever. You perceive the situation in Eden to be a trap because you view it from the perspective of a fallen person. Adam and Eve were not fallen. They had the capacity to resist the temptations present with much more ability than your or I could have.

From a different thread.

So, lets say we are lonely and we get a dog to keep us company. Then, we create "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs" and put it next to the dog with a delicious dog bone set as bait. We then tell the dog not to enter "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs."

He is curious, doesn't speak english, and jumps in anyway. Over the course of an hour he gets through tortures 1 and 2. We know, being the constructors of "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs", (and we constructed it for use on dogs. Specifically, the dog we got to keep us company) that it will just reset to 1 after torture 1000 is administered. If we were like your god, we would just cross our arms and say, "Well, have fun in "The inescapable box of a thousand tortures, for dogs". I told you not to go in there."

This is just the point I made above but I will make it again. Adam and Eve were not fallen, they had a pure nature when created. The dog puzzle implies a mean master who takes pleasure in and God is not like that, bogus point #1. Adam and Eve understood God's instructions perfectly so the language barrier is bogus too. But even assuming He was your dog puzzle misses one important part of the human condition. Humans have a, 'get out of the box free and immediately' card.

It is also very telling that the tree they were not to eat was the tree of knowledge. I see you have so far refrained from eating that particular fruit

Sorry, but wrong again. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Bam Cheese It.