Contradictions in the Bible?

[dilloduck]

I suppose they could teach them that 2/3 of the country doesn't agree with what the admin is doing. That might help. Heh!

That would be an improvement over what they are teaching them now.
Little Eichmans---indeed.

 

[Joz]

.... As such, your implication that free-will is bad is in direct contradiction to the Bible.

No place have I implied or said freewill is, was, or ever will be, bad.

 

[LOki]

Biblical knowledge of Good and Evil, as far as I understand it, is not knowledge of right and wrong. IMHO it points more to a Freudian Super Ego being revealed. Whether or not we have that Super Ego, we can still determine right from wrong.

your "distinction" makes no distinction between Right and Wrong vs. Good and Evil--it only asserts it.

If you read further into the seperate discussion I had concerning that distinction you'll see what I assert. That was the first post of many concerning that. Also don't take Freud at face value, he was merely a precursor to modern psychology.

Allright Phaedrus, let us just examine your "many" posts on the topic that followed that first one.

First our exchange:

Is it fair then to assert that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong?

It's fair to assert anything, the better question is "is it reasonable?" and yes, it is.

On what basis is it reasonable then to assert that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong?

The basis of the distintion I made between the knowledge of right/wrong vs. Good/Evil.

Is this the distinction you speak of?
<blockquote>"Biblical knowledge of Good and Evil, as far as I understand it, is not knowledge of right and wrong. IMHO it points more to a Freudian Super Ego being revealed. Whether or not we have that Super Ego, we can still determine right from wrong."</blockquote>If so, it's a rather self referential means of asserting the reason Eve was first to fall. And, if Freud's assertions are correct, and the Bible factual, Adam could never have an Oedipus complex leaving Adam's super-ego to be God, unfettered and unopposed--a situation not only logically contradictory, but also Biblically inconsistent.

Secondly, and more important to the discussion, your "distinction" makes no distinction between Right and Wrong vs. Good and Evil--it only asserts it.

If you read further into the seperate discussion I had concerning that distinction you'll see what I assert. That was the first post of many concerning that. Also don't take Freud at face value, he was merely a precursor to modern psychology.

Does this make us fairly current? You'll note that between you and I, you make the assertion of a distinction, and stick to it without providing any support for it--these certainly do not constitute the "many" posts you were referring to do they?

You may have meant by "many posts" the "many posts" you've made all over this forum board and the internet entirely, but I feel that is not the sense you intended. There is, of course, that ONE other post in this thread of these "many" not to be found:

Children are in the process of developing their Super Ego, and do you mean mentally infirm? The Super Ego points to Good and Evil, and until it is developed, you are reliant on a parental figure (God for Adam and Eve) for guidance as to what is right and wrong.

Note: I am still upholding my distinction between right/wrong and good/evil. You are eventually capable of recognizing Good/Evil, whereas you are told what is right and wrong. They often coincide, but are different. There is such a thing as relative good, but there is no relative right.

In the same sense, I don't like using the term evil, because it's an absolute, whereas wrong has varied degrees. It's an interesting contradiction in that right and evil are absolutes, whereas good and wrong aren't. What does this imply?

To get to your last point, understanding why certain things are right/wrong isn't necessary. Simply the knowledge they are such is all you need. Knowledege of Good/Evil does need to be justified IMHO. Not necesarrily by reason, however.

Note how you are all Freud with:<blockquote>"Children are in the process of developing their Super Ego, and do you mean mentally infirm? The Super Ego points to Good and Evil, and until it is developed, you are reliant on a parental figure (God for Adam and Eve) for guidance as to what is right and wrong."</blockquote>Yet when I point out that:<blockquote>"And, if Freud's assertions are correct, and the Bible factual, Adam could never have an Oedipus complex leaving Adam's super-ego to be God, unfettered and unopposed--a situation not only logically contradictory, but also Biblically inconsistent."</blockquote>You get all cautionary about Freud with me. WTF?

Then, you insist upon your unsupported distinction. You support it with another unsupported assertion that is an explicit denial of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve regarding the knowing of Good and Evil, while making ZERO attempt at supporting that denial. You then end that unsupported denial with "...whereas you are told what is right and wrong." Your only hope at this point is to say you were asserting that there is a distinction between right and wrong in the sense of factually correct or incorrect, versus the notion of right and wrong in the moral sense. The factual sense of right and wrong does not even enter into the discussion because there is no dispute over the factual correctness of the assertion that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. You have no hope of confusing me by blurring those lines, because I am possessed of the intellectual capacity to hold constant to the notion that in our discussion of the Adam and Eve story, their disobediance in particular, the moral rightness or wrongness was at issue, and there is no distinction between the moral sense of right and wrong, and Good and Evil for those.

So Phaedrus, why not start again? Without the stonewalling.

On what basis is it reasonable then to assert that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong?

As for the rest of this "many posts," (the absolutes of right and evil / non-absolutes of wrong and good) you make more interesting assertions. I'd like to see them supported.

I would heartily disagree that understanding why certain things are right or wrong isn't necessary. I think it is necessary for understanding why anything is right or wrong. You need a basis for judgements IMO. And knowledge of good and evil needs no more justification than knowing of them allows you to make judgements of things based upon their goodness or evilness--IMO, that is a reasonable justification, and reasonable it must be if they are the reasons by which we are judged (at least by one and other).

On to the remainder of your responses:

(W)ould that person be validly able to judge as good or evil particular obediances to God?

Yes

Does that mean then that God is subject to Good and Evil rather than the definer of them?

...what business do people have, using the Bible to determine "God's will" if it is not to do so beyond their legitimate capacity, but rather to exert their own will over their fellows in God's name?

That's it, they have no buisiness, but's impractical to live otherwise. Don't expect me to justify other people's actions. Just explain them the way I see them.

I see that it is clear that they cannot have business establishing "God's will" even with the Bible as their guide, they my be obligated by their faith to following that guide, but they have no business establishing for others, regardless of reference, the manner in which "God's Will" influences the lives of others. Such action would be usurping "God's Will."

You need not worry about justifying the actions of others--you get me all wrong if you think that's what I'm asking. But I would disagree that it is impracticle to avoid pushing one's opinion, based in faith, on other people. I'd say it is rather practicle, particulary for the faithful, since these notions of "God's Will" are certain to be judged by their only valid judge, they are wrong to usurp that judgment as their own, and they are better disposed to keep their own lives in order--how does that go?..."Judge not and..."

Choice implies judgement. Thus, in being given free will we are given the ability to judge God. Have no pretensions of being correct, but don't expect me to live as if I weren't

Well firstly, judgement implies choice--not the other way around. You can choose without judgement, but you cannot judge without choice.

Thus, free-will does not give you the ability to judge God, but rather the knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil. You cannot chosse to judge God good if there is no (at least theoretical) option to judge Him evil.

Everything is relative,...

Logically impossible.

...not everything is possible.

Unprovable assertion.

WERDZ!!!!

HAH!!!

I don't think you want to believe that tho' God created man perfect, he was still fooled and chose wrong, because of freewill.

.... As such, your implication that free-will is bad is in direct contradiction to the Bible.

No place have I implied or said freewill is, was, or ever will be, bad.

Are you sure? Maybe this one time I'll look it up for you.

 

[Phaedrus]

Ok, so my memory of the topic is somewhat foggy as to the number of posts, I admit my fault. I recalled it being a somewhat longer line of conversation, but whatever. Now to get back to the topic at hand, that of Freud and justification

Firstly, I do not say the Bible is factual, I see it as a collection of worthy parables, and in using the term Super Ego, I do not inherently accept all of Freud's principles. I am making an analogy in this case, not using his strict sense.

What I'm pointing to, is the idea that the Super Ego (like knowledge of Good and Evil) is learned in the strict sense of subjective observation and judgement, whereas the knowledge of right and wrong is strictley inculcated.

Ignorance of Good an Evil doesn't imply ignorance of right and wrong. When your parent says something is wrong, knowledge as to why isn't necessary. However, questions of Good or Evil require subjective answers, and they'd better be good ones.

In the case of Adam and Eve, their subjective answer is, "I ate an apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." However, they already had knowledge of right and wrong, from when God told them not to eat the apple in the first place.

Once they ate the apple, their knowledge of right and wrong coincided with their knowledge of Good and Evil. I'm further defining the words I use beyond their normal scope to draw a distinction. There are no exact words for what I am trying to say, so I am reduced to this.

In providing these new precepts, I hope to give grounds for you to understand my distinction. I am in no way arguing my defintions should be used in everyday parlance, merely in this context. Hopefully this helps.

Does that mean then that God is subject to Good and Evil rather than the definer of them?

Subjective views of it, yep.

You can choose without judgement

Not with the pretense of rationality/intelligence.

You cannot choose to judge God good if there is no (at least theoretical) option to judge Him evil.

You can do that. I see Deism as a response to the faithful judging an active God as evil, thus He must be inactive.

 

[LOki]

Ok, so my memory of the topic is somewhat foggy as to the number of posts, I admit my fault. I recalled it being a somewhat longer line of conversation, but whatever. Now to get back to the topic at hand, that of Freud and justification

Firstly, I do not say the Bible is factual, I see it as a collection of worthy parables, and in using the term Super Ego, I do not inherently accept all of Freud's principles. I am making an analogy in this case, not using his strict sense.

Firstly, when you said,<blockquote>"Children are in the process of developing their Super Ego, and do you mean mentally infirm? The Super Ego points to Good and Evil, and until it is developed, you are reliant on a parental figure (God for Adam and Eve) for guidance as to what is right and wrong."</blockquote>you implied acceptance of the Freudian pinciples that I used from your assertion when I said,<blockquote>"And, if Freud's assertions are correct, and the Bible factual, Adam could never have an Oedipus complex leaving Adam's super-ego to be God, unfettered and unopposed--a situation not only logically contradictory, but also Biblically inconsistent."</blockquote>I'm not saying you adhere to all of Freud's principles, but I am saying that in this discussion you necessarily adhere to those in you above assertion, and I'll not accept your cautionary admonishments when I hold you to your own assertions.

Secondly, to address your first point, I did not say that you said the Bible was factual--the point of this thread remains the contradictions of the Bible, and my primary posit suggestested a distinction between the truth of the Bible, and the Truth of the Bible. However, if we are to exercise our judgement fairly, by not prejudging the Bible as self contradictory, we must apply that faculty of an open mind that requires us to give the Bible's self agreement the benefit of the doubt until we establish the basis upon which contradiction is asserted.

In other words, until a fact in the Bible is demonstrated to be untrue at (least within agreed upon levels of certainty), we continue under the assumption that the fact in question is true.

What I'm pointing to, is the idea that the Super Ego (like knowledge of Good and Evil) is learned in the strict sense of subjective observation and judgement, whereas the knowledge of right and wrong is strictley inculcated.

Yes, this is your unsupported assertion rephrased--I'm not saying you're wrong, but unsupported, it remains for me, unacceptable.

Ignorance of Good an Evil doesn't imply ignorance of right and wrong.

The fuck it doesn't!

When your parent says something is wrong, knowledge as to why isn't necessary.

Oh, REALLY?!?!?! What if your parent is wrong?

However, questions of Good or Evil require subjective answers, and they'd better be good ones.

Oh, they'd better be good, because I'm not so sure that one weasles out of questions of Good and Evil over subjective applications of the terms--rather, it seems apparent to me that Good and Evil are absolutes that require objective answers, as the consequences of Good and Evil are rather more objective than subjective.

In the case of Adam and Eve, their subjective answer is, "I ate an apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

NO! NO! NO! That is objective. They ate the Fruit; there's no contention in that, there's no subjectivity in that, it is an accepted fact in the record.

However, they already had knowledge of right and wrong, from when God told them not to eat the apple in the first place.

You keep saying that. I keep asking how? You keep saying I already told you. I've pointed out that you have not.

Once they ate the apple, their knowledge of right and wrong coincided with their knowledge of Good and Evil. I'm further defining the words I use beyond their normal scope to draw a distinction. There are no exact words for what I am trying to say, so I am reduced to this.

Maybe the problem here is you are using definitions, defined by yourself, for your purposes, and have not shared them, but your assertions about right/wrong and good/evil here are nothing but restaing your assertion that is unsupported.

In providing these new precepts, I hope to give grounds for you to understand my distinction.

You have provided nothing but restatements of your assertions.

I am in no way arguing my defintions should be used in everyday parlance, merely in this context. Hopefully this helps.

It helps nothing, as there are no definitions provided.

Does that mean then that God is subject to Good and Evil rather than the definer of them?

Subjective views of it, yep.

Good, then maybe here you'll explain the subjective nature of good and evil.

You can choose without judgement...

Not with the pretense of rationality/intelligence.

Of course, you can flip a coin, literally or figuratively. Choice made, ZERO rationality/intelligence applied to the ZERO judgemnet made. The the lack of pretense, or actuality, of rationality still doesn't change the assertion that choosing is independent of of judgement, it rather supports it.

You cannot choose to judge God good if there is no (at least theoretical) option to judge Him evil.

You can do that. I see Deism as a response to the faithful judging an active God as evil, thus He must be inactive.

You do realize that the correlary to my statement is, you cannot choose to judge God evil if there is no (at least theoretical) option to judge Him good; yes?

BTW: Your "inactive God" assertion begs the question.

 

[KarlMarx]

Karl,

I can't speak for anyone but myself. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs, nor do I expect proof of those beliefs. By definition, belief is a matter of one's personal faith.

I do think, though, that when one asks that one's beliefs be taught in schools as science or otherwise be publicly promoted, then it's not reasonable to ask that others take the same beliefs "on faith".

My feeling... the whole thing can be reduced to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Beyond that, it's up to each of us to find our own beliefs that give peace of mind, hopefully bring some beauty to the world and bring some heavenly glory down on the planet.

Maybe that's naive, but it's kind of it in a nutshell for me.

-- J

Well put, "Do unto others...", the Golden Rule, is a good policy to follow (which by the way, Christians weren't the first to express the Golden Rule, it appears in the texts of other faiths, e.g. Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, and others).

I do think, though, that when one asks that one's beliefs be taught in schools as science or otherwise be publicly promoted, then it's not reasonable to ask that others take the same beliefs "on faith".

I once heard Dr. Walter Williams offer a simple, elegant solution to this problem. Get government out of the education business and instead turn education over to the private sector. Instead of worrying about which subjects should be taught in public schools, use that energy to promote affordable private schools. Under this system, parents would have the power to enroll their children in schools that fit their value systems. For instance, if a couple feels that "progressive" values should be taught and religion has no place in a child's education, enroll them in a private school that does not teach religion. On the other hand, a couple that feels that evolution should not be taught to their children and had prayer should enroll their children in a school that teaches religion as part of its curriculum. I know it isn't quite that simple, but it the best argument for private schools I can think of and much better than the system we have now.

 

[jillian]

Well put, "Do unto others...", the Golden Rule, is a good policy to follow (which by the way, Christians weren't the first to express the Golden Rule, it appears in the texts of other faiths, e.g. Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, and others).

Thanks. And true. If we can stick with the things that are unifying, probably end up with a much kinder world.

I once heard Dr. Walter Williams offer a simple, elegant solution to this problem. Get government out of the education business and instead turn education over to the private sector. Instead of worrying about which subjects should be taught in public schools, use that energy to promote affordable private schools. Under this system, parents would have the power to enroll their children in schools that fit their value systems. For instance, if a couple feels that "progressive" values should be taught and religion has no place in a child's education, enroll them in a private school that does not teach religion. On the other hand, a couple that feels that evolution should not be taught to their children and had prayer should enroll their children in a school that teaches religion as part of its curriculum. I know it isn't quite that simple, but it the best argument for private schools I can think of and much better than the system we have now.

I certainly understand your view on that. My problem is that privatizing schools means that poor people won't be able to afford them and middle class people will have a horrible time making ends meet under that type of system. And I think, as a society, it benefits us all to have a highly educated population. Plus, funding religious education isn't something government is allowed to do. Now, maybe I'm lucky, my son is in a wonderful public school. But it seems to me that if people don't want public schools, they can always put their kids in religious schools and have that option. What I think might make sense is a type of opt-out system where a portion of tax monies are waived for people who pull their kids out of the system. That might be the middle ground that people are looking for. The only problem is that schools are reliant on real estate taxes for their funding as things now stand. If a significant portion opted out, people who have no kids or whose kids are grown would want to make the argument that THEY can opt out. So, I'm not sure how you do what you're suggesting without starving the public schools to death ... which hurts people like me who rely on that system.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks. And true. If we can stick with the things that are unifying, probably end up with a much kinder world.



I certainly understand your view on that. My problem is that privatizing schools means that poor people won't be able to afford them and middle class people will have a horrible time making ends meet under that type of system. And I think, as a society, it benefits us all to have a highly educated population. Plus, funding religious education isn't something government is allowed to do. Now, maybe I'm lucky, my son is in a wonderful public school. But it seems to me that if people don't want public schools, they can always put their kids in religious schools and have that option. What I think might make sense is a type of opt-out system where a portion of tax monies are waived for people who pull their kids out of the system. That might be the middle ground that people are looking for. The only problem is that schools are reliant on real estate taxes for their funding as things now stand. If a significant portion opted out, people who have no kids or whose kids are grown would want to make the argument that THEY can opt out. So, I'm not sure how you do what you're suggesting without starving the public schools to death ... which hurts people like me who rely on that system.

The voucher system would pay for parents to send thier kids to the school they thought would do the best job of educating thier kids. We're talking private education here--not necessarily religious.

 

[jillian]

The voucher system would pay for parents to send thier kids to the school they thought would do the best job of educating thier kids. We're talking private education here--not necessarily religious.

Which doesn't answer my concern about this resulting in starving the public schools to death. And from a realistic perspective, this IS going to fund parochial schools. That's impermissible.

 

[KarlMarx]

I certainly understand your view on that. My problem is that privatizing schools means that poor people won't be able to afford them and middle class people will have a horrible time making ends meet under that type of system. And I think, as a society, it benefits us all to have a highly educated population. Plus, funding religious education isn't something government is allowed to do. Now, maybe I'm lucky, my son is in a wonderful public school. But it seems to me that if people don't want public schools, they can always put their kids in religious schools and have that option. What I think might make sense is a type of opt-out system where a portion of tax monies are waived for people who pull their kids out of the system. That might be the middle ground that people are looking for. The only problem is that schools are reliant on real estate taxes for their funding as things now stand. If a significant portion opted out, people who have no kids or whose kids are grown would want to make the argument that THEY can opt out. So, I'm not sure how you do what you're suggesting without starving the public schools to death ... which hurts people like me who rely on that system.

I shouldn't reply to this, since it really isn't relevant to the thread, but here goes....

As I said, the effort should be made to make private schools affordable. I currently pay over $2,000 a year in school taxes because I own property as do most people who live here in the Greater Binghamton Area. In addition, my parents, who also own their own house, and do not have children that attend school pay school taxes. I can also tell you, that, if you rent, you pay school taxes indirectly, because your land lord is paying school taxes on the rental property you live in.

My son attends public school in another school district, yet, the taxes I pay are used to support the school district I live in.

The couple who live behind my house, send their children to Catholic school, pay tuition to that school, then, because they own their own home, pay a school tax to support the public school system.

The current system of support for public schools is unfair to the elderly and to those who do not have children, those who do not have children attending public schools and those whose children attend public schools in districts other than the ones they live in. In addition, school budgets are bloated.

Privatizing the school system will encourage competition, which will result in a decrease in the cost of education for the same quality (or better quality).

 

[dilloduck]

Which doesn't answer my concern about this resulting in starving the public schools to death. And from a realistic perspective, this IS going to fund parochial schools. That's impermissible.

In other words you are afraid that in the process of teaching kids how to read and write they will get religious indoctrination?

 

[Joz]

....My son attends public school in another school district, yet, the taxes I pay are used to support the school district I live in.....
The couple who live behind my house, send their children to Catholic school, pay tuition to that school, then, because they own their own home, pay a school tax to support the public school system.....

I did just this. I sent both of my boys to a small parochial school; one that reaffirmed what I had taught them. And yes, I still paid my taxes. The transportation system finally did allow me something like 6 or 8 cents a mile to get my kids to school, so at the end of the year, I got something like $120 refund. Yes, it was a sacrafice. Not everyone has the freedom or the option to do this.

After my youngest son died, going through his things, I found a paper he'd written for Bible class. He was explaining the Redemption story. That far outweighed not being able to afford those sometimes niceities. He understood.

 

[Joz]

Er...no. I have no problem with ANY religion being taught as part of a comparative or educational class. If it goes beyond that, I wouldn't agree with that either. It's teaching the bible as science which is inappropriate.

but I figure you already knew I was saying that.

Well I do have a problem with it being taught at an elementary level. I think this would confuse a child. I believe that school should teach that 2+2=4, what a plateau is, where Germany is on a globe. The teacher's sexual preferances, what god they believe in or what their favorite color is is of no importance.