Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?

Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?

Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?

No.

No.

Sometimes.

Greatest I am wrote:Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.

If only this god was omniscient and could have anticipated his gaff at placing the f*****g tree of knowledge right in the middle of the garden, where he'd also placed the only two animals in his creation that he specifically did not want going near it.

The dynamics of this narrative are more than a little silly when you analyse them. Not like Noah's Ark, now that just oozes rational common sense, from a flood requiring more water than exists right through to a benevolent deity committing genocide in a fit of pique.

Following the story line, I do not mind God putting the tree of knowledge there.

What screw up the Christian interpretation is not questioning why God put Satan right there with Eve if he did not want her to be deceived.

That is what adds cruelty and idiocy to how Christians interpret Eden.

In the Jewish interpretation of their own myth and th right one in my view is that of Eden being our place of elevation and not our fall.

Jews and we Gnostic Christians have no problem with mankind becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

That is a moral sense and I think we should always seek a higher moral sense.

The religious stopped doing so but thank all the Gods that secular governments did not and came up with much better legal rules tan what God was trying to have us swallow.

Regards
DL

GIA wrote: Following the story line, I do not mind God putting the tree of knowledge there.

Well I was being irreverent on purpose, as even reading it as allegory doesn't diminish it's absurdity for me. The idea that a being that possessed limitless power and knowledge would curse every human,to say nothing of the countless and innocent animals, who will ever live, in a fit of pique over a transgression that it was largely culpable for, and could have anticipated simply leaves me incredulous.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

GIA wrote: Following the story line, I do not mind God putting the tree of knowledge there.

Well I was being irreverent on purpose, as even reading it as allegory doesn't diminish it's absurdity for me. The idea that a being that possessed limitless power and knowledge would curse every human,to say nothing of the countless and innocent animals, who will ever live, in a fit of pique over a transgression that it was largely culpable for, and could have anticipated simply leaves me incredulous.

We have no argument on the vileness of the God portrayed in the bible.

That is why we Gnostic Christians have named him an evil demiurge.

I think we are the clear thinking religion that would dominate the world if Constantine had not opted for stupid sheep instead of bright goats.

Constantine and the God of the O.T. resemble themselves and seem to hate all the same things, including intelligent people.

Knowledge is power and he did not want to share power.

Regards
DL

Well that's your choice of course, but my point was that the entire story contains errancy, absurdity and irrationality, and for me the idea that a being with limitless power/knowledge would communicate a message or allow its message to be communicated in such a way is simply beyond believable.

"In January of 1954, just a year before his death, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt," and made known his views on religion. Apparently Einstein had only read the book due to repeated recommendation by their mutual friend Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer."

Princeton, 3. 1. 1954

Dear Mr Gutkind,

Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."

Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,

Yours,

A. Einstein

Of course they are all myths, even and especially Gnostic Christian myths.

This is old news to anyone but Christians, Muslims and other idol worshipers.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Regards
DL

Yes you've mentioned this before, but as I and several others have pointed out, you don't need gnostic Christianity to see the advantage of basic but universal human rights. I am an atheist and can see this perfectly well.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Yes you've mentioned this before, but as I and several others have pointed out,  you don't need gnostic Christianity to see the advantage of basic but universal human rights. I am an atheist and can see this perfectly well.

If only others were as enlightened.

I am running this in a rather right wing political forum and they are trying to kick my rump but I am hanging tough.

So far the majority are against what you and I see as justice and common sense.

Perhaps it was the way I presented it. Have a look.

Christian and Muslim. Inequality OUT. World piece IN.

Oversimplification?  Perhaps. Think about it.

All worthy theologies and legal philosophies tie righteousness to equality. Do unto others or some other reciprocity law. Christianity and Islam are retarding humanities spiritual growth with their homophobic and misogynous policies that are guaranteed to produce inequality and thus unrighteousness.

If Christians and Muslims cannot give their own people equality, it obviously means that Christians and Muslims are already denigrating and discriminating against better than half the members of all the other religions and non-believers. This prevents mutual respect and rapprochement of the world’s religions and makes world peace impossible?

War begins with inequality and that is what Christianity and Islam are all about at present. Those two major religions cannot co-exist with their policies of discrimination and inequality. Equality is the corner stone of justice and both Christianity and Islam do not grant this most fundamental of all legal tenets.

I believe that if we could change Christian and Muslim attitudes on equality, then world piece would soon follow. Christians and Muslims are not righteous people as long as they do not grant equality to all.

Should Governments be pushing all religions to grant equality to all and end their institutionalized homophobic and misogynous policies?

Regards
DL

GIA wrote:   I believe that if we could change Christian and Muslim attitudes on equality, then world piece would soon follow. Christians and Muslims are not righteous people as long as they do not grant equality to all.

Monotheistic religions have at their core strict commandments to allow only their deity to be worshipped,  with innumerable interpretations of texts that are vague and if interpreted are often contradictory but if taken literally are erroneous illogical and often morally reprehensible with no regard for individual human rights, then it's hard to see any shared ground between them.

Secular governments that ae democratically elected and based on basic and universal human rights are undoubtedly the best protection for believers and non believers alike, but much of the world has little interest in such a society,  and is even directly at odds with it, waging holy war to impose theocratic fascist states. Or using superior military power to impose it's religious world view on anyone it can.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:[

Secular governments that ae democratically elected and based on basic and universal human rights are undoubtedly the best protection for believers and non believers alike, but much of the world has little interest in such a society,  and is even directly at odds with it, waging holy war to impose theocratic fascist states. Or using superior military power to impose it's religious world view on anyone it can.

Last I heard, fewer and fewer Muslims were voting for Sharia law and voting secular.

Must predominantly Muslim countries have watered down Sharia. Perceptions are that that Islam is strong but the number of countries with internal strife and disrespect for their own overly militant brothers show how hard Islam is having to work to maintain respect in the Middle East.

Modernizing people are not interested in public stoning and other barbaric laws. Islam's and Christianity's usefulness is almost at an end and people want equality more than the us and them strife creating divisions.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
Would you please explain your understanding of equality.

Do you mean, as your comments suggest, that everything goes and their are no rules, or that the rules are apllicable to everyone equally?.

If the latter the problem would be, who makes the rules and on what grounds.

regards.

Greatest I am wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:[

Secular governments that ae democratically elected and based on basic and universal human rights are undoubtedly the best protection for believers and non believers alike, but much of the world has little interest in such a society,  and is even directly at odds with it, waging holy war to impose theocratic fascist states. Or using superior military power to impose it's religious world view on anyone it can.

Last I heard, fewer and fewer Muslims were voting for Sharia law and voting secular.

Must predominantly Muslim countries have watered down Sharia.

Based on what evidence?

GIA wrote:Perceptions are that that Islam is strong but the number of countries with internal strife and disrespect for their own overly militant brothers show how hard Islam is having to work to maintain respect in the Middle East.

Respect from whom? The religious demographics of the middle east seem to suggest that Islam is going no where any time soon, unless one of the more punctilious regimes gets a nuke and lights Israel up like a glow worm. Then all bets are off....

GIA wrote:Modernizing people are not interested in public stoning and other barbaric laws.

Probably correct, though I'm not sure why you're telling me this?

GIA wrote:Islam's and Christianity's usefulness is almost at an end

Well you'll get no argument from me, but if you take a look at the religious demographics of the world populations I think you might be a little less sure of your claim about what people want.

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am, Would you please explain your understanding of equality. Do you mean, as your comments suggest, that everything goes and their are no rules, or that the rules are apllicable to everyone equally?. If the latter the problem would be, who makes the rules and on what grounds. regards.

You can't base equality on "anything goes" as this libertarian stance would mean such freedoms might erode the very rights of individuals that we're advocating. The word "equal" is a clue here, basic human rights for every man, woman, and child. What justification can anyone have for claiming a right for themselves that they would deny someone else? There's equality in that..

Dr, Sheldon,
Who decides what is and what is not allowed?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Who decides what is and what is not allowed?

The law. Not armed terrorists, which you seemed in your opening posts to be justifying based on people who wanted to force their religious beliefs on others taking offence at something. You weren't specific though and just listed things that are already against UK law.

Dr, Sheldon,
Who decides the Law?.

The whole point is, how can you possible make laws that are acceptable to all mankind?.

I also do not condone any kind of violence.

I can see why violence occurs, it is evident that religion plays a major part along with many other reasons, drugs, jealousy, power, fear, etc;

God has only ever given his blessing to violence when his people have had their life threatened by Satan.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Who decides the Law?.

                 The whole point is, how can you possible make laws that are acceptable to all mankind?.

                 I also do not condone any kind of violence.

                 I can see why violence occurs, it is evident that religion plays a major part along with many other reasons, drugs, jealousy,  power, fear, etc;

                 God has only ever given his blessing to violence when his people have had their life threatened by Satan.

                 

The government in the UK are given a mandate through regular elections.

Dr, Sheldon,
Less than 60% ever vote and not all those who do, agree, so those who do not agree have their choice denied.

There is no way that everyone's desires can be taken into consideration, so equal rights is an impossibility.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Less than 60% ever vote and not all those who do, agree, so those who do not agree have their choice denied.

                 There is no way that everyone's desires can be taken into consideration, so equal rights is an impossibility.          

So you think that justifies using violence and murder to set up a fascist theocracy, well I disagree. The system is far from perfect but we do have basic human rights. Rights denied to those unlucky enough to fall under the influence of IS.

Dr, Sheldon,
I deplore what IS stands for, however, it is strange that so many humans are willing to be engaged in a system that offers them, according to you, no human rights.

I cannot realy comment on this because I do not know what being a member of this foul organisation involves.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I deplore what IS stands for, however, it is strange that so many humans are willing to be engaged in a system that offers them, according to you, no human rights. I cannot realy comment on this because I do not know what being a member of this foul organisation involves.  

Not according to me, why do you insist on making claims on my behalf? I linked the article that evidences what IS is doing and how little rights people have there, I didn't write it.

How many are willing participants then, since you offered this as evidence one assumes you have some way of knowing this? Or is this another of those handy factoids you have at your fingertips? I suspect given the number of refugees fleeing areas where IS is gaining influence suggests there are vastly more people who find them abhorrent than the few who have left the UK to fight for them. Unless you have some stats that show otherwise of course?  In the mean time:

LINK

"Up to 400 British citizens may be fighting in Syria,"

"The foreign secretary, William Hague, has said that as many as 400 British citizens may be fighting in Syria, including some fighting with Isis, the terrorist force sweeping into Iraq.

It is the highest number the UK government has disclosed, and prompted the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, to say the presence of UK citizens fighting in Syria represents the number one security threat to the UK.

Hague confirmed that it was open to Britain to withdraw leave to remain from the fighters, cancel passports or arrest any UK jihadists fighting in Syria or for Isis in Iraq."

Compare that to

In Jordan, UNHCR has witnessed a sharp increase in Iraqi refugees in recent weeks with 60 per cent of them citing fears of ISIS as the reason for their flight. In August and September, on average, 120 Iraqis per day have registered with UNHCR in Jordan, up from 65 per day in June and July and just 30 per day in the first five months of 2014. So far this year, 10,644 Iraqi refugees have registered with UNHCR in Jordan, with 1,383 registering in August alone – the highest monthly tally of new registrations since 2007.

Or this

Isis: Worst refugee crisis in a generation as millions flee Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: LINK

You've already commented by opening this thread, tacitly suggesting that the indoctrination of young Muslims from the UK is somehow a direct result of the behaviour of UK citizens, it's in your opening post. What behaviour by UK citizens is it you think helps convince Muslims to go fight for IS, and what are you suggesting we do about it?

Dr, Sheldon,
A list of what I feel covers the main points:-

Young girls going half naked .

Young girls going half naked and dunk or drugged out of their minds.

Fornication.

Adultery.

Child abuse.

Television depicting many aspects that muslims deplore.

Murder of children on almost a daily basis, along with other murders of innocents etc;

I think that is enough to be going on with.

You've lost me I'm afraid. You've just listed an eclectic mix of behaviours, some are illegal and some are not.

If they're already illegal then I'm not sure what you're suggesting is to be done as IS has no proper legal structure to protect people's rights.

The behaviours that are not illegal are no business of anyone else. what is it you're suggesting we do here? Introduce archaic draconian and puritanical laws because a small minority don't like the fact that others have the freedom to live as they please within the law?

This list strikes me more as things you personally find objectionable. I suspect IS and Muslims leaving to fight for them is a bit of a red herring.

Besides I already showed you that IS have made their agenda clear, and how free people behave within the law is of no interest to them. They want to play a major role in a genocidal apocalypse in line with their own religions view of the end of the world.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, A list of what I feel covers the main points:- Young girls going half naked .  Young girls going half naked and dunk or drugged out of their minds.

I have a little more time now so I'll break these down as they're quite a mix. How people dress is entirely their own business, and no one has the right to tell anyone, or bring any pressure to influence anyone, on how they dress, this would be part of those rights I was talking about, and the male Muslim preoccupation with controlling how women dress is deeply unhealthy and amoral. Why should a women not have complete autonomy to dress exactly as they please? As indeed men do.

Similarly what people (of legal age) drink is entirely their business, as long as they don't break the law it's no one else's concern. Drugs is too broad a term to deal with, as tobacco and alcohol could justifiably be roped in to such a generic term, and there is a vast difference between the physiological and psychological effects of the many different substances that could fall under this category. That notwithstanding there are already laws that apply, though they are hopelessly out of touch with reality IMHO, and evidence suggest they do a great deal of harm.

**A point worthy of note here is your criteria thus far have been directed at women only, this is not a good sign given the context, as we are all aware of the preoccupation of certain sections of Islam to try and subjugate and control women, I said equal and universal human rights, so here is a good example of what I'm talking about, how is it ok for men to self determine things that women are not allowed to?

Polyglide wrote: Fornication.

They'd best get over it, as again it's none of their business, and the idea that the private sex lives of consenting adults entitles anyone else to comment is both wrong and absurd. The idea it somehow contributes to Muslims turning to terrorism is equally absurd, they have no right to comment at all.

Polyglide wrote:Adultery.

A sad fact of life, humans are fallible, it does however carry legal ramifications, but again I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting the UK should do here as the laws are already in place. Besides the idea that Muslims don't commit adultery is laughable.
                 

Polyglide wrote:Child abuse.

A heinous crime that is more prevalent in strictly Islamic countries anyway, their own prophet married and had sex with a thirteen year old, and marrying girls off younger than this to old men is endemic in many Islamic cultures. So again I have no idea what it is you're trying to claim Muslims who leave the UK to fight for IS are objecting to, or what should be done?
                 

Polyglide wrote:Television depicting many aspects that muslims deplore.

Such as? You seem to be suggesting censorship in order to placate maniacs and terrorists, I'm afraid I simply don't understand why you think our society should conform to the kind of barbaric view these lunatics feel their god wants, but it's absurd, and again what we can and cannot broadcast is strictly regulated, and to be honest since no one is forced to even own a TV let alone watch it I've never understood the histrionics of the minority who seem hell bent on being outraged at what other people do and enjoy.

Polyglide wrote:Murder of children on almost a daily basis, along with other murders of innocents etc;

Children in the UK are protected by a variety of laws, we have a welfare state, and social services, and with the best will in the world no society can protect every single child, a very sad fact of life. Though again I've no idea why you or they think IS has any right to be offended by these crimes, given many thousands of children are taken by their own parents (fathers) from the UK to have their genitals mutilated in what amounts to female castration every single year.                  

Polyglide wrote:   I think that is enough to be going on with.

I'd have to agree. As I say you seem to be suggesting that decent law abiding people modify their behaviour and live their lives to conform with the whims of the archaic puritanical beliefs of others in case they react by joining a band of terrorist to enforce their will on others, it makes no sense. Maybe the people in question ought to consider the rights of others to live as they please or see fit, and accept that unless someone's actions are harming another they have no right to comment. The crimes you describe are not really relevant as these actions are already against the laws of this country and anyone breaking those laws should be punished accordingly, and it is in most cases far far worse in Islamic theocracies that have very little in the way of individual rights.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Who decides what is and what is not allowed?

The ECoHR HERE

You may be confusing rights with beliefs or desires, or even political ideals, Human rights are designed to protect basic freedoms and protect life and liberty. That link is a very good place to start "The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection."

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,  Would you please explain your understanding of equality.  Do you mean, as your comments suggest, that everything goes and their are no rules, or that the rules are apllicable to everyone equally?.

This post made me think that you seem to be confusing equality with libertarianism or even anarchy. I also forgot to mention in my last post that these rights must apply to everyone. Put simply in a truly just society with equality no one would claim a right they denied another, so basic and universal human rights is a good start. As I said in an earlier post, this means you cannot claim a right that encroaches on the rights of others.

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree that no one should be treated differently under the Law.

As I explained previously, there is no way on earth that a number of laws can be implimented that takes care of everyones requirements.

I and millions upon millions of people have never had the opportunity to put forward what they would like, we have a small number of people who choose an even less number of people to decide our laws and once in power thay decide to do just what they want, irrespective of anything or anyone.

When you have, as we have now, conflicting views to the extent that some are willing to kill everyone who does not agree with them it puts the question of equality in a dark place.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, As I explained previously, there is no way on earth that a number of laws can be implimented that takes care of everyones requirements.

And as i explained this is not what basic universal human rights do.

Polyglide wrote:I and millions upon millions of people have never had the opportunity to put forward what they would like,

You have a vote as does everyone else, but again this has nothing to do with basic human rights being enshrined in law. It's not about what anyone wants, it's about protecting individual rights, did you read the link I gave to European Convention on Human Rights? The ECHR lists the rights it protects, follow my link and read them is your best bet, then you'll see why your on the wrong track here about it somehow satisfying individual desires, which is not what it does or what it is for.

Polyglide wrote:When you have, as we have now, conflicting views to the extent that some are willing to kill everyone who does not agree with them it puts the question of equality in a dark place.

I disagree, I think enshrining individual human rights in law has never been more apropos than when some are trying to take them away arbitrarily.

                             

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
                   Would you please explain your understanding of equality.

                   Do you mean, as your comments suggest, that everything goes and their are no rules, or that the rules are apllicable to everyone equally?.

                   If the latter the problem would be, who makes the rules and on what grounds.

                                                      regards.

Equality under the law says that Lady Justice is blind to gender and does not have gender related rules for different genders when gender does not matter.

Your rule of --- he shall rule over you, --- is not a just or moral rules.

That is why Christianity is a misogynous and immoral creed.

Do unto others is not do unto each gender something different.

Being a Christian, you likely do not understand what equality is all about.

Regards
DL

http://rt.com/news/tunisia-rejects-islam-law-196/

This is the last time Sharia was voted on and they threw it out.

Only a few countries have Sharia law. They are anti-freedom.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
There is no change that equality will ever be a reality.

Even were everything available to all there is no chance that everyone could take an equal opportunity to gain Rank, Status, Fairness nor ability etc;

I agree that you could and some do, make laws that are applicable to everyone along with all having the chance to persue every opportunity, however, the vast majority of people could never be of the same rank, status and ability etc;

Although there are numerous opportunities open to all for many reasons the vast majority could never reach their ideal situation and have do do their best to exist in the best possible manner within their capabilities and that is why there can never be the kind of equality you refer to.

Of course a benevolent omnipotent deity could make such a fair just society if it was truly benevolent, the fact that it doesn't speaks for itself.

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
                   There is no change that equality will ever be a reality.

                    Even were everything available to all there is no chance that everyone could take an equal opportunity to gain Rank, Status, Fairness nor ability etc;

                    I agree that you could and some do, make laws that are applicable to everyone along with all having the chance to persue every opportunity, however, the vast majority of people could never be of the same rank, status and ability etc;  

                    Although there are numerous opportunities open to all for many reasons the vast majority could never reach their ideal situation and have do do their best to exist in the best possible manner within their capabilities and that is why there can never be the kind of equality you refer to.

                   

Equality of opportunity does not predict the equality of outcomes and no one is advocating that it do so. All I advocate is the same equality that the courts give women be extended to women within their religions.

Christianity and Islam deny women the equality that the courts guarantee all women thus showing how religion has corrupted their morality.

Regards
DL



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Of course a benevolent omnipotent deity could make such a fair just society if it was truly benevolent, the fact that it doesn't speaks for itself.

I agree.

We can know that bible God is just a vile demiurge because he in fact demand that men rule over women and the bible also indicates that women are too stupid to teach men.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Of course a benevolent omnipotent deity could make such a fair just society if it was truly benevolent, the fact that it doesn't speaks for itself.

I agree.

We can know that bible God is just a vile demiurge because he in fact demand that men rule over women and the bible also indicates that women are too stupid to teach men.

Regards
DL

Well that and it not knowing that our planet was formed AFTER our sun.

There are many such quirks in the bible and we likely cannot tell why they wrote the way they did. Listen to what this scholar says about why the sun and moon are not created till the forth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM&app=desktop

Is that plausible, Yes but we will never know this far up the time line.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:There are many such quirks in the bible and we likely cannot tell why they wrote the way they did. Listen to what this scholar says about why the sun and moon are not created till the forth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM&app=desktop

Is that plausible, Yes but we will never know this far up the time line.

Regards
DL

Well I'll accept we can't "PROVE" why they wrote obvious errors, but we can surmise, and if Occam's razor is any yardstick then their fallible human ignorance seems most plausible. How does this square with the idea that these erroneous claims are derived from omniscience? For me it's beyond credible, and that's before we observe that humans have a propensity for creating deities that don't exist, and are entirely unevidenced.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:There are many such quirks in the bible and we likely cannot tell why they wrote the way they did. Listen to what this scholar says about why the sun and moon are not created till the forth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM&app=desktop

Is that plausible, Yes but we will never know this far up the time line.

Regards
DL

Well I'll accept we can't "PROVE" why they wrote obvious errors, but we can surmise, and if Occam's razor is any yardstick then their fallible human ignorance seems most plausible. How does this square with the idea that these erroneous claims are derived from omniscience? For me it's beyond credible, and that's before we observe that humans have a propensity for creating deities that don't exist, and are entirely unevidenced.

It is beyond credulity to you and I as we do not need to pamper our hivish or groupish gene. We are world citizens. Some need the safety of the tribe more than others.

That is why even atheists are starting churches as they recognize that if they do not give their children a place to appease that gene, they will turn to religion.

You and I will never likely understand how a person can place their mind and morals into a stop and accept whatever is said position. We cannot go to that kind of mental dissidence.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

We cannot fight faith when the faithful have closed their mind to logic and reason.

Regards
DL