Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)

[Etritonakin]

That's only partially right.

Jealousy can be the result of unfaithfulness. But not all jealousy is the direct result of unfaithfulness. Unfaithfulness is just one of several possibilities; it isn't the only one.

To give you an example. Two perfect strangers encounter each other for the first time. One person falls in love with the other, but this other person doesn't feel the way. And because that other person don't love the first person, the first person will feel jealousy, as well as possibly resentment and anger.

But my real point is there are no relationship between the two strangers, because the feelings are not shared, so there is no "faith" for the existence of this jealousy.

Jealousy don't necessarily require faith, as my example show.

Punishing a person, who don't believe in or worship this one god, only demonstrate that this one god is a tyrant.

I know, I know. God made a pact or covenant with Abraham. But to punishing a person for choosing another god to worship or to follow another religion, just showed that covenant is actually unreasonable. What happen to free will?

A person should each follow and believe what he or she like, without such oppressive decree from a tyrannical deity, who demands worship, whether it via love or fear.

The Exodus (20:5), JOB and that of NT fire-and-brimstone examples only demonstrates that the Abrahamic religions rely heavily on fear, to bend people through oppressive rules. They are examples of religious intolerance.

God did not technically give us free will -he set before us life and death.
We can exercise free will by choosing that which leads to death -but that which leads to death and less-then-idea situations cannot be changed by will.
Will must align itself to basic law -and God does that which will make that happen as quickly as possible.
Religious tolerance is the best humans can hope for during this time -but true religion based on universal truth is ideal.
It is ours to tolerate each other, but it is God's to bring us all to the universal truth.

The commandments are not grievous or oppressive.

While everyone doing and believing anything they want sounds good, it does not create peace and leads to conflict and constant subdivision.

 

[gnostic]

God did not technically give us free will -he set before us life and death.

If you think they already have everlasting life, before disobeying god, before eating the forbidden fruit, then you are not understanding what Genesis is saying. They never have immortality in pre-Fall.

If you are not saying that, then I will move on.

We can exercise free will by choosing that which leads to death -but that which leads to death and less-then-idea situations cannot be changed by will.

Sorry, but the game of eat-the-fruit-or-don't-eat-the-fruit was already rigged.

They have no knowledge of right and wrong, before eating the fruit. And I doubt very much they really knew of consequence of eating the fruit, because they were newly-created, they have not seen death of anyone or anything.

If they cannot tell right and wrong, then it would stand to reason, that they cannot tell if God or the serpent is telling the truth and who is telling a lie.

Seriously, it is human nature to be curious, so "Oh" - don't eat the fruit - and then god plants this Tree of Knowledge, smack-big in the centre of Eden, then this test was rigged so they will fail no matter what.

And if God is omniscience as some Christians think god is, then he SHOULD KNOW very well that they will eat the fruit he forbid them from eating and fail his test, then why place the tree anywhere near them in the first place.

And if God already know what will happen in place the tree in their proximity, then it is not really a test, is it?

It is the same with the test of Abraham - to sacrifice his son. If God truly knows that Abraham will do as he command, then why even bother to Abraham's faith? If God already know the outcome, then the test become a pointless exercise.

And then, there is that of the Book of Job. God not only let his "most faithful of servant" to suffer from a terrible disease, but he he also arranged to have Job's children killed, or so to test Job's faith.

 

[Etritonakin]

If you think they already have everlasting life, before disobeying god, before eating the forbidden fruit, then you are not understanding what Genesis is saying. They never have immortality in pre-Fall.

If you are not saying that, then I will move on.



Sorry, but the game of eat-the-fruit-or-don't-eat-the-fruit was already rigged.

They have no knowledge of right and wrong, before eating the fruit. And I doubt very much they really knew of consequence of eating the fruit, because they were newly-created, they have not seen death of anyone or anything.

If they cannot tell right and wrong, then it would stand to reason, that they cannot tell if God or the serpent is telling the truth and who is telling a lie.

Seriously, it is human nature to be curious, so "Oh" - don't eat the fruit - and then god plants this Tree of Knowledge, smack-big in the centre of Eden, then this test was rigged so they will fail no matter what.

And if God is omniscience as some Christians think god is, then he SHOULD KNOW very well that they will eat the fruit he forbid them from eating and fail his test, then why place the tree anywhere near them in the first place.

And if God already know what will happen in place the tree in their proximity, then it is not really a test, is it?

It is the same with the test of Abraham - to sacrifice his son. If God truly knows that Abraham will do as he command, then why even bother to Abraham's faith? If God already know the outcome, then the test become a pointless exercise.

And then, there is that of the Book of Job. God not only let his "most faithful of servant" to suffer from a terrible disease, but he he also arranged to have Job's children killed, or so to test Job's faith.

The game is very much rigged.

None have now what they will have later -but all will have later what they do not have now.

More correctly... God declared the end from the beginning.

Isiaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[Native]

Personally, Native, I preferred the Milky Way myth of Heracles and Hera.

Heracles' mother, Alcmene, fearing the goddess' jealousy and anger, abandoned her baby in the woods. The goddess Athena took the infant Heracles to Hera. Not realising that the infant was her husband's another illegitimate child, Athena tricked Hera into breastfeeding Heracles. But when Heracles bit the goddess' nipple so hard, Hera drew her breast forcibly away from the infant's mouth, thereby spilling her milk across the heaven.
Hence the name Milky Way.

Gnostic,
I also like this somewhat personalized Milky Way story. But my approach to the Stories of Creation is to get specific and concrete cosmological informations and explanations of cosmos. How the ancient imagined their known part of the Universe and how they described it. This is why I like the Egyptian story, the Ogdoad and the telling of their goddess Hathor, very much.

Edit: It is my opinion that the numerous cultural Stories of Creation all deals with the pre-creation and factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy - and NOT with the entire Universe. Read more here - http://www.native-science.net/index.html

Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor
The Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad_(Egyptian)#The_Egyptian_Ogdoad

 

[Native]

Because God does exist, if one does not acknowledge God exists (which will happen in time as God becomes known to all), one cannot have a solid foundation for decision-making or discerning good from evil overall.

"God" is a basic male archetype of creation and not a person. The human decision making is god-like if the decisions follows the laws of natures creation and re-creation and if they follows the social laws.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic,

I also like this somewhat personalized Milky Way story. But my approach to the Stories of Creation is to get specific and concrete cosmological informations and explanations of cosmos. How the ancient imagined their know part of the Universe and how they described it. This is why I like the Egyptian story, the Ogdoad and the telling of their goddess Hathor, very much.

Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

The Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad_(Egyptian)#The_Egyptian_Ogdoad

Well, I like most creation myths, including that of Hathor-Nut and the Ogdoad version, but that's how I see them - myths.

My problems are not the myths themselves, Native.

My issues are with people, like you, who tried to put modern concepts (eg science) and interpretations, like modern cosmology with with myths.

About 10 years ago, I was going to create a sister-website to Timeless Myths, but with Egyptian and Mesopotamian myths. I have read as many translations I could find, and I still have original notes in my research. But, alas, I don't have time to assembled them, so it has been postponed indefinitely.

They should be left as they are, because attempting to mix ancient myths with modern science often ruin a good story.

 

[Native]

Well, I like most creation myths, including that of Hathor-Nut and the Ogdoad version, but that's how I see them - myths.
My problems are not the myths themselves, Native.
My issues are with people, like you, who tried to put modern concepts (eg science) and interpretations, like modern cosmology with with myths.
About 10 years ago, I was going to create a sister-website to Timeless Myths, but with Egyptian and Mesopotamian myths. I have read as many translations I could find, and I still have original notes in my research. But, alas, I don't have time to assembled them, so it has been postponed indefinitely.
They should be left as they are, because attempting to mix ancient myths with modern science often ruin a good story.

Gnostic,
If you take myths as ancient superstitions and mumbo jumbo hearsayings, what was your purpose of study them in the first place?

 

[Native]

They should be left as they are, because attempting to mix ancient myths with modern science often ruin a good story.

But if you connects the mythical tellings of creation to the correct celestial objects and motions, you´ll get a cosmological knowledge which will ruin several ideas and speculations of modern science

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic,
If you take myths as ancient superstitions and mumbo jumbo hearsayings, what was your purpose of study them in the first place?

Why?

Well, I always like good storytelling. And I like sharing stories, hence I have created my website that focused on myths, legends and folktales.

Since you have ask me a question. Let me ask you this.

Have you ever read and enjoy something, even though you know they are not real?

 

[Native]

Well, I always like good storytelling. And I like sharing stories, hence I have created my website that focused on myths, legends and folktales.
Since you have ask me a question. Let me ask you this.
Have you ever read and enjoy something, even though you know they are not real?

Well I don´t take the ancient Myths of Creation as "just stories", but as real knowledge of cosmos and us selves