|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:46 pm
Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken The concept is in interesting one. The fruit from the tree of knowledge that would bring about the death of humanity's immortality, do you take it or do you leave it. This is a tricky question as it brings about the question of how would you know the paradise your in is paradise? The garden could have been dying before the eyes of man, around every turn could have been pain or danger, the "snake" is one of those many dangers. A lizard that came and whispered to eat the fruit and know the truth. That was one of the known dangers but who is to say that there were not more? The fruit let human kind dye and bring an end to the suffering that they would have unknowingly had to endure. They grew to understand and in understanding were cast out. But were they cast or did they leave? If someone held a loaded gun to your head and fallowed you about a select part of land gun to your head would you stay there with the fear of the trigger being pulled or would you leave knowing the man with the gun wont fallow you? I would always eat from the tree as then one can learn, one can know, one will have fear but with fear we can act. Danger is always a threat to those who don't know it, but to those who do it can be an asset. Such is my believe. In a case where the blindness is literal, indeed it could be. The idea of a whithering den of horrors is an interesting concept. Particularly if you derive it from the notion that most of those in the Judeo-Christian support, that their deity is omnipotent (despite the overwhelming evidence in their own holy books to the contrary) then human psychology could not possibly be applied to it. It would have a completely alien mind, though of course if humans were created to be lower-functioning versions of itself, then perhaps it could, to some extent. I was going to go in the direction of an ailing, dying creator deity, but now that I think of it, perhaps an infant deity is more interesting. Did time start, in their story, with the beginning of creation? If so, then that would mean that the only logical belief that follows is that the deity is as old as the planet, and when it began, it was nothing more than a motherless newborn, however omnipotent. So much interesting food for thought. Had the world been as chaotic then as it is now and the only thing stopping humans from knowing the pain, suffering, fear, hope, etc was the fruit then the fruit is in an since the thing that makes us human. Later in the bible it mentions Adam and eves child being cast from them and having to go live on there own. The child mentions another group of people who would willingly kill them should they be forced to leave the family. This makes me believe that Adam and eve were not the first humans in the garden (this is ignoring the story of lilth being the wife of Adam before eve was created) these same humans would have to have eaten the fruit and know the horrors of the world they live in. I do think the idea of "the creator" being an infant isn't as interesting as per say an infantile creator. Think what does a baby create as apposed to a 3 year old? As a child humans are incredibly curious as are other creatures perhaps if there is a "creator" out there then that curiosity is in our youth just as it would be in there's. Think how often a child has told a dog "No" when they eat there food only to change there mind later. That being said there is no "proof" of a deity(s) as there is also no pure scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Theory's yes, but tangible proof not so much. Oh, I think you'll find that 99% of this group is comfortable in either atheism or agnostic atheism. This is purely for arguments sake and wholly hypothetical. I'm quite sure that no active member is a believer in Creationism in any sense. In fact, I once brought in a rather polically moderate Christian for the sole reason of making religious and philosophical debates a bit less one-sided. He's since become inactive, unfortunately.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:19 pm
Matasoga Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken The concept is in interesting one. The fruit from the tree of knowledge that would bring about the death of humanity's immortality, do you take it or do you leave it. This is a tricky question as it brings about the question of how would you know the paradise your in is paradise? The garden could have been dying before the eyes of man, around every turn could have been pain or danger, the "snake" is one of those many dangers. A lizard that came and whispered to eat the fruit and know the truth. That was one of the known dangers but who is to say that there were not more? The fruit let human kind dye and bring an end to the suffering that they would have unknowingly had to endure. They grew to understand and in understanding were cast out. But were they cast or did they leave? If someone held a loaded gun to your head and fallowed you about a select part of land gun to your head would you stay there with the fear of the trigger being pulled or would you leave knowing the man with the gun wont fallow you? I would always eat from the tree as then one can learn, one can know, one will have fear but with fear we can act. Danger is always a threat to those who don't know it, but to those who do it can be an asset. Such is my believe. In a case where the blindness is literal, indeed it could be. The idea of a whithering den of horrors is an interesting concept. Particularly if you derive it from the notion that most of those in the Judeo-Christian support, that their deity is omnipotent (despite the overwhelming evidence in their own holy books to the contrary) then human psychology could not possibly be applied to it. It would have a completely alien mind, though of course if humans were created to be lower-functioning versions of itself, then perhaps it could, to some extent. I was going to go in the direction of an ailing, dying creator deity, but now that I think of it, perhaps an infant deity is more interesting. Did time start, in their story, with the beginning of creation? If so, then that would mean that the only logical belief that follows is that the deity is as old as the planet, and when it began, it was nothing more than a motherless newborn, however omnipotent. So much interesting food for thought. Had the world been as chaotic then as it is now and the only thing stopping humans from knowing the pain, suffering, fear, hope, etc was the fruit then the fruit is in an since the thing that makes us human. Later in the bible it mentions Adam and eves child being cast from them and having to go live on there own. The child mentions another group of people who would willingly kill them should they be forced to leave the family. This makes me believe that Adam and eve were not the first humans in the garden (this is ignoring the story of lilth being the wife of Adam before eve was created) these same humans would have to have eaten the fruit and know the horrors of the world they live in. I do think the idea of "the creator" being an infant isn't as interesting as per say an infantile creator. Think what does a baby create as apposed to a 3 year old? As a child humans are incredibly curious as are other creatures perhaps if there is a "creator" out there then that curiosity is in our youth just as it would be in there's. Think how often a child has told a dog "No" when they eat there food only to change there mind later. That being said there is no "proof" of a deity(s) as there is also no pure scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Theory's yes, but tangible proof not so much. Oh, I think you'll find that 99% of this group is comfortable in either atheism or agnostic atheism. This is purely for arguments sake and wholly hypothetical. I'm quite sure that no active member is a believer in Creationism in any sense. In fact, I once brought in a rather polically moderate Christian for the sole reason of making religious and philosophical debates a bit less one-sided. He's since become inactive, unfortunately.
Shame, they might have made for some interesting debates and discussions. I personally am of no particular religion but have studied a few. My parents are a Jehovah witness and a christen who felt there children need to make there own religious choices rather then be forced to conform to there own religious ideals. An ideal I support greatly in parenting. All the same it is comforting to know that I shant be persecuted because my ideals and believes do not coincide with another's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:01 pm
Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken The concept is in interesting one. The fruit from the tree of knowledge that would bring about the death of humanity's immortality, do you take it or do you leave it. This is a tricky question as it brings about the question of how would you know the paradise your in is paradise? The garden could have been dying before the eyes of man, around every turn could have been pain or danger, the "snake" is one of those many dangers. A lizard that came and whispered to eat the fruit and know the truth. That was one of the known dangers but who is to say that there were not more? The fruit let human kind dye and bring an end to the suffering that they would have unknowingly had to endure. They grew to understand and in understanding were cast out. But were they cast or did they leave? If someone held a loaded gun to your head and fallowed you about a select part of land gun to your head would you stay there with the fear of the trigger being pulled or would you leave knowing the man with the gun wont fallow you? I would always eat from the tree as then one can learn, one can know, one will have fear but with fear we can act. Danger is always a threat to those who don't know it, but to those who do it can be an asset. Such is my believe. In a case where the blindness is literal, indeed it could be. The idea of a whithering den of horrors is an interesting concept. Particularly if you derive it from the notion that most of those in the Judeo-Christian support, that their deity is omnipotent (despite the overwhelming evidence in their own holy books to the contrary) then human psychology could not possibly be applied to it. It would have a completely alien mind, though of course if humans were created to be lower-functioning versions of itself, then perhaps it could, to some extent. I was going to go in the direction of an ailing, dying creator deity, but now that I think of it, perhaps an infant deity is more interesting. Did time start, in their story, with the beginning of creation? If so, then that would mean that the only logical belief that follows is that the deity is as old as the planet, and when it began, it was nothing more than a motherless newborn, however omnipotent. So much interesting food for thought. Had the world been as chaotic then as it is now and the only thing stopping humans from knowing the pain, suffering, fear, hope, etc was the fruit then the fruit is in an since the thing that makes us human. Later in the bible it mentions Adam and eves child being cast from them and having to go live on there own. The child mentions another group of people who would willingly kill them should they be forced to leave the family. This makes me believe that Adam and eve were not the first humans in the garden (this is ignoring the story of lilth being the wife of Adam before eve was created) these same humans would have to have eaten the fruit and know the horrors of the world they live in. I do think the idea of "the creator" being an infant isn't as interesting as per say an infantile creator. Think what does a baby create as apposed to a 3 year old? As a child humans are incredibly curious as are other creatures perhaps if there is a "creator" out there then that curiosity is in our youth just as it would be in there's. Think how often a child has told a dog "No" when they eat there food only to change there mind later. That being said there is no "proof" of a deity(s) as there is also no pure scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Theory's yes, but tangible proof not so much. Oh, I think you'll find that 99% of this group is comfortable in either atheism or agnostic atheism. This is purely for arguments sake and wholly hypothetical. I'm quite sure that no active member is a believer in Creationism in any sense. In fact, I once brought in a rather polically moderate Christian for the sole reason of making religious and philosophical debates a bit less one-sided. He's since become inactive, unfortunately. Shame, they might have made for some interesting debates and discussions. I personally am of no particular religion but have studied a few. My parents are a Jehovah witness and a christen who felt there children need to make there own religious choices rather then be forced to conform to there own religious ideals. An ideal I support greatly in parenting. All the same it is comforting to know that I shant be persecuted because my ideals and believes do not coincide with another's. If you'd care to discuss it more, feel free. This is the correct forum, but I'd sooner see a new thread for your own philosophy, as so many others have made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:11 pm
Matasoga Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken Matasoga Sisterbroken The concept is in interesting one. The fruit from the tree of knowledge that would bring about the death of humanity's immortality, do you take it or do you leave it. This is a tricky question as it brings about the question of how would you know the paradise your in is paradise? The garden could have been dying before the eyes of man, around every turn could have been pain or danger, the "snake" is one of those many dangers. A lizard that came and whispered to eat the fruit and know the truth. That was one of the known dangers but who is to say that there were not more? The fruit let human kind dye and bring an end to the suffering that they would have unknowingly had to endure. They grew to understand and in understanding were cast out. But were they cast or did they leave? If someone held a loaded gun to your head and fallowed you about a select part of land gun to your head would you stay there with the fear of the trigger being pulled or would you leave knowing the man with the gun wont fallow you? I would always eat from the tree as then one can learn, one can know, one will have fear but with fear we can act. Danger is always a threat to those who don't know it, but to those who do it can be an asset. Such is my believe. In a case where the blindness is literal, indeed it could be. The idea of a whithering den of horrors is an interesting concept. Particularly if you derive it from the notion that most of those in the Judeo-Christian support, that their deity is omnipotent (despite the overwhelming evidence in their own holy books to the contrary) then human psychology could not possibly be applied to it. It would have a completely alien mind, though of course if humans were created to be lower-functioning versions of itself, then perhaps it could, to some extent. I was going to go in the direction of an ailing, dying creator deity, but now that I think of it, perhaps an infant deity is more interesting. Did time start, in their story, with the beginning of creation? If so, then that would mean that the only logical belief that follows is that the deity is as old as the planet, and when it began, it was nothing more than a motherless newborn, however omnipotent. So much interesting food for thought. Had the world been as chaotic then as it is now and the only thing stopping humans from knowing the pain, suffering, fear, hope, etc was the fruit then the fruit is in an since the thing that makes us human. Later in the bible it mentions Adam and eves child being cast from them and having to go live on there own. The child mentions another group of people who would willingly kill them should they be forced to leave the family. This makes me believe that Adam and eve were not the first humans in the garden (this is ignoring the story of lilth being the wife of Adam before eve was created) these same humans would have to have eaten the fruit and know the horrors of the world they live in. I do think the idea of "the creator" being an infant isn't as interesting as per say an infantile creator. Think what does a baby create as apposed to a 3 year old? As a child humans are incredibly curious as are other creatures perhaps if there is a "creator" out there then that curiosity is in our youth just as it would be in there's. Think how often a child has told a dog "No" when they eat there food only to change there mind later. That being said there is no "proof" of a deity(s) as there is also no pure scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Theory's yes, but tangible proof not so much. Oh, I think you'll find that 99% of this group is comfortable in either atheism or agnostic atheism. This is purely for arguments sake and wholly hypothetical. I'm quite sure that no active member is a believer in Creationism in any sense. In fact, I once brought in a rather polically moderate Christian for the sole reason of making religious and philosophical debates a bit less one-sided. He's since become inactive, unfortunately. Shame, they might have made for some interesting debates and discussions. I personally am of no particular religion but have studied a few. My parents are a Jehovah witness and a christen who felt there children need to make there own religious choices rather then be forced to conform to there own religious ideals. An ideal I support greatly in parenting. All the same it is comforting to know that I shant be persecuted because my ideals and believes do not coincide with another's. If you'd care to discuss it more, feel free. This is the correct forum, but I'd sooner see a new thread for your own philosophy, as so many others have made.
Goodness no. I only meant to put in my thoughts on the fruit on the tree not to talk about my own philosophical ideals as they are on a constant flux. Give me a week and I might look to this post and scoff at my own ideals and attempt to debate with myself. All the same, what can be said for those who eat from the tree and those who don't? Are those who don't partake in the fruit the strong ones for listening and fallowing the rules set before them so they might live in what they perceive to be ideal or would we believe them weak for "fallowing the heard"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:45 am
Sisterbroken Goodness no. I only meant to put in my thoughts on the fruit on the tree not to talk about my own philosophical ideals as they are on a constant flux. Give me a week and I might look to this post and scoff at my own ideals and attempt to debate with myself. All the same, what can be said for those who eat from the tree and those who don't? Are those who don't partake in the fruit the strong ones for listening and fallowing the rules set before them so they might live in what they perceive to be ideal or would we believe them weak for "fallowing the heard"? Too bad. You mean "Following the herd"? Obeying the rules is rarely the province of the strongest... Not never, but rarely, though that is purely situational. Then again, often so is strength, itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:34 am
Matasoga Sisterbroken Goodness no. I only meant to put in my thoughts on the fruit on the tree not to talk about my own philosophical ideals as they are on a constant flux. Give me a week and I might look to this post and scoff at my own ideals and attempt to debate with myself. All the same, what can be said for those who eat from the tree and those who don't? Are those who don't partake in the fruit the strong ones for listening and fallowing the rules set before them so they might live in what they perceive to be ideal or would we believe them weak for "fallowing the heard"? Too bad. You mean "Following the herd"? Obeying the rules is rarely the province of the strongest... Not never, but rarely, though that is purely situational. Then again, often so is strength, itself.
Beg pardon my spelling and grammar aren't nearly as proficient as I should like them to be.
How does one judge strength or weakness in the opposite party though when the view one has can be so obscured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:21 pm
Sisterbroken Beg pardon my spelling and grammar aren't nearly as proficient as I should like them to be. How does one judge strength or weakness in the opposite party though when the view one has can be so obscured. A good question potentially worthy of discussion. It might be a good thread unto itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:28 pm
Matasoga Sisterbroken Beg pardon my spelling and grammar aren't nearly as proficient as I should like them to be. How does one judge strength or weakness in the opposite party though when the view one has can be so obscured. A good question potentially worthy of discussion. It might be a good thread unto itself. Potentially. Though I'm sure you can tell I'm not much for making new threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
