canpakes if you were trying to trap me into forcing a conclusion, I wouldn't mind in the least. Based on my early experiences online, I'd probably see it coming though. I don't mind examining my own thoughts and ideas. That's essentially why I write posts to begin with. Also considering the perspectives of others and learning from them. That's the other piece of why I've been on these boards for so blasted long. And...to laugh.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:38 am.
Jersey Girl -
Let me start with a disclaimer, of sorts.
When I ask you questions like these, I’m very interested in your perspective; I’m not looking to trap you into a particular response or to force a conclusion … these are more oriented towards a kind of thought experiment (as much as my walnut-sized brain can participate in, anyway), and I enjoy reading how other folks approach these subjects.
Because if the account is true and accurate, we would all be their descendants and have inherited what we call human sin nature. I haven't formally studied world religions but I am sure there are similar explanations found in other religions. If the account is not true and accurate, it still describes the state of being human including human nature.That said -
Putting aside angels at the moment … how does an entire world become corrupted by - or, more to the point, become victims of the ‘corruption’ from - the single action of two uninvolved individuals designed to be susceptible to suggestion?Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:03 pm
The only answer to that I can think of or even imagine, canpakes, is that anything God creates outside of his holiness is destined or has the potential to become corrupted. Then I ask myself what about the angels, can angels become corrupted? And the answer to that, in my view, is yes they can.
But here is the thing. I tend to look at the accounts as tribal myth or allegory, handed down through human history first via orality and then finally written down. I think they represent the ancients understanding of the world around them and the people in it. The reason I say this is because I can't imagine that any of the folks who passed on the Genesis account were actually present at creation. Same thing with the Flood account. People will argue global vs. local. I've done it myself. I think it was local. Could they be literal? I'm open to that perspective as well. But if one takes the position of myth/allegory, there also needs to be a line drawn between those accounts and what I consider to be historical accounts. It's very difficult for me to wade through the Old Testament because I don't know all that much about ancient symbolism and I don't have a good grasp on the time lines. I used to consult an online Jewish resource to try to understand how the ancients read and interpret these scriptures. But I haven't done that in years and years. I'm not interested in it like I was when I started online discussion/debate 23 years ago. I'm older now and I'm more about the business of living life because I'm closer to the finish line now.
Yes I agree and again, you have consider what perspective to take of the Genesis account. As I said, I lean strongly towards myth/allegory but I don't exactly know where to draw the line.Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:40 pmWhen I read the Genesis account I see a God who created a perfect world (Garden) …canpakes wrote:What made it perfect?It would seem that anything that ‘corruption’ is, was included within the system from the start. If you propose an alternative ‘corrupted’ existence to an ‘uncorrupted’ existence, then you’re only stating that one of two options is in effect - but either option must have always been there.As reported, sin hadn't yet entered the creation and corrupted it. But here is the thing, if as I stated above that anything God creates out of his holiness is destined/has the potential to become corrupted then...was it already corrupted when he created it?
Don't know. Boggles the mind.
I attribute suffering and death to corruption as feature of creation. I also attribute life itself and development of human conscience, human intuition, human search for something greater than oneself , as well as human attempts to communicate with that something greater than oneself as features of creation. Little off topic, but not really. There are schools of scientific theory that forward the idea that humans are wired to believe in a god. I tie that to creation however creation happened with humans as a focal point and reason for the process. People on previous boards attempted to demean my religious leanings by saying Your brain is wired to believe in god and when I read that I'd think, well of course I think I am. I sometimes used to say in those discussions that I intuit God. That aspect of my life and how I experience it has never changed.Similarly, if you are going to assign the existence of suffering and death to corruption, then suffering and death are an inseparable part of this existence, when there’s no sure rationalization that either ever needed to be … if an existence is created by a god.
The only explanation I can think of for your above is that you're referring to destroying life to stay alive--eating? Other than that, I don't see why life must destroy life in any other context. I might be zoning here while reading.
Which leads us back to the main question: Life must destroy other Life - often painfully so - in order to succeed. Why?
I don't know why you should assume that a god existed to make the decisions that you stated. I haven't asked you to assume the existence of god. I would never dictate to you what you should assume, believe, or not believe. If you are an atheist, I understand that you lack a belief in god. I also leave room for the possibility that if you lack a belief in god that you're intellectually superior to me and have a better grasp on various disciplines such as scientific theory and discovery. Things I don't really pay attention to because my interest lies in people not particularly in science. I don't know if that makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll try to explain myself in more detail but I have a hunch you already know what my focus in life is.And it’s not so much that I’m asking why a supposed god would design an existence with those features; rather, why should I assume that a god existed to make that decision in the first place? The notion speaks to a dark intent if it is a designed reality, and assuming that a god designed this existence, then that dark intent is assigned to that god by default.
I want to try to address the dark intent that you mentioned above. If that dark intent relies on the assertion that life must destroy of life then I'm not exactly sure how to respond to that. If we consider that God is a divine being and humans are not, then it makes sense to me that physically we and animals are created in the form of tubes that take in food and expel the left overs. (I can't believe I said that just before Thanksgiving.)
If we're destroying life beyond the need for food...what exactly are we destroying as a requirement of life?