Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[lukethethird]

"Objective truth" is a mythical bias that cannot be achieved by any human so long as they remain human. Because it is our humanness that defines everything we can ever claim to know as being "subjective" rather than "objective". We are the subjects of that subjectivism. Logically, there is no such thing as "objective truth" because the truth is simply 'what is'. And that 'what is' includes our inevitably subjective understanding and experience of what it is (of the truth). So that the only truth we will ever know is both subject to, and relative to, our human condition. Truth for we humans will forever remain both relative, and subjective so long as we remain humans, and not all-knowing gods.

The "objective truth" that you imagine yourself pursuing is an illogical, mythical, bias. The only truth science can logically pursue, or gain, is relative physical functionality. That is a part of the 'the truth', to be sure. But so is our human propensity for believing in gods. And both of these endeavors have the capacity to be very helpful to us, which is why we continue to engage in them. But being a scientist, logically, and functionally, is no more 'truthful' than being a priest or shaman. And debating which is more helpful to us is likewise a relative and subjective endeavor.

Perhaps what we should all be seeking, here, is honesty, and humility, rather than these delusions of "objective truth".

...and you call atheists religious.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. Science reveals facts about the world that are true regardless of people's beliefs about them. For example, you don't have to accept quantum mechanics to use the device you are reading this one (you don't have to search far to find somebody on the internet who doesn't accept it), despite the fact that it was used to produce it. Therefore, science offers truths that are of a totally different order to anything a priest or a shaman will tell you (which you may find personally and subjectively 'useful' but is never going to 'work' for everybody).

Science is intersubjectively verifiable - which is a perfectly good way of defining objectivity:

My use of the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ is not unlike Kant’s. He uses the word ‘objective’ to indicate that scientific knowledge should be justifiable, independently of anybody’s whim: a justification is ‘objective’ if in principle it can be tested and understood by anybody. ‘If something is valid’, he writes, ‘for anybody in possession of his reason, then its grounds are objective and sufficient.’

Now I hold that scientific theories are never fully justifiable or verifiable, but that they are nevertheless testable. I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested.​

-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery​

I'm not here to argue with your bias. Nor to disillusion you. That's supposed to be your job. But science cannot reveal anything to us that is not relative to physical functionality, and the truth of existence is a far greater phenomenon then just it's physical functioning. The fact that the scientific process can help us to overcome some of our delusions about the mechanisms of physics doesn't make it anything more than it is.

 

[lukethethird]

I'm not here to argue with your bias. Nor to disillusion you. That's supposed to be your job. But science cannot reveal anything to us that is not relative to physical functionality, and the truth of existence is a far greater phenomenon then just it's physical functioning. The fact that the scientific process can help us to overcome some of our delusions about the mechanisms of physics doesn't make it anything more than it is.

Thoughts are products of a material brain and that includes wild imaginations about what is not physical. We can conjure up concepts until the cows come home but outside of our brains there is nothing 'beyond' the physical, only opinion, and everybody has one.

 

[PureX]

So you claim that there is no such thing as objective truth because we see everything through the "humanity filter" and thus it is all subjective and we can never achieve any kind of objectivity.

There is no "objectivity" apart from the human imagination. There is just 'what is', and that 'what is' includes our subjective, limited, biased, imagined "reality". What we think the world is, is part of what the world is. So is what we don't think about it, or know about it. Science cannot escape this any more than we can escape from being ourselves. The truth is the whole, not the part of the whole that isn't us.

Even if I grant you this (which I don't), it still doesn't prove that there isn't a true objective reality there, it just proves that we can't find it.

What you're not getting is that we can't find it because we are within it. It's not lost, it's just everywhere. The truth is the whole, not the part of the whole that isn't us.

In any case, since you seem to be determined to play these games of semantics rather than answer my question, let me rephrase my question for you.

Materialists think anything that is not physical matter is "semantics". It's incoherent, of course, because that would mean that even their own presumption that everything that isn't material, is semantic, is itself, semantics. But they hold fast, never-the-less.

Can you give me an example of a different tool that has been used to find an accurate and reliable truth about the universe? Please give me the tool used and the truth that was found with it.

Intuition is the tool, and 'the universe is kind' is the truth that it reveals to us. This will mean nothing to you, I suspect, because what you were really demanding as "truth" is knowledge of the physical machinations of the physical universe. The only "truth" you will recognize, because for you, if it's not material, it's just semantics (meaning imaginary/make-believe/non-existent).

 

[PureX]

Thoughts are products of a material brain and that includes wild imaginations about what is not physical. We can conjure up concepts until the cows come home but outside of our brains there is nothing 'beyond' the physical, only opinion, and everybody has one.

What we think effects what is (through us) just as surely as what we don't think, effects it (through everything else). How do you account for the equally potent effect of each, if what we think is not "real" (and doesn't therefor exist)?

 

[lukethethird]

What we think effects what is (through us) just as surely as what we don't think, effects it. How do you account for the equally potent effect of each, if what we think is not "real" (doesn't exist)?

The effects are all in the brain, nothing to do with some so called non physical entity outside our brain, of which there isn't any.

 

[PureX]

The effects are all in the brain, nothing to do with some so called non physical entity outside our brain, of which there isn't any.

Never mind. You aren't even close to being able to understand this kind of discussion.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not here to argue with your bias. Nor to disillusion you. That's supposed to be your job.

I guess this probably meant something to you...

But science cannot reveal anything to us that is not relative to physical functionality, and the truth of existence is a far greater phenomenon then just it's physical functioning.

Your evidence for this being? Perhaps even more important, supposing that "the truth of existence" is "a far greater phenomenon", in what way can the rest of it be investigated and tested? If it isn't intersubjectively testable, how do we tell claims about it from just guessing?

The fact that the scientific process can help us to overcome some of our delusions about the mechanisms of physics doesn't make it anything more than it is.

It makes it far, far more reliably 'truthful' (as you put it), than anything a priest or shaman. may tell you.

 

[lukethethird]

Never mind. You aren't even close to being able to understand this kind of discussion.

There is no big profound effect for not believing in Mother Goose if that is what you are getting at. Formulating beliefs by drawing from conclusions grounded in evidence has a different effect on us than swallowing prescribed sets of beliefs based on supernatural entities, sure, but that's a given.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no "objectivity" apart from the human imagination. There is just 'what is', and that 'what is' includes our subjective, limited, biased, imagined "reality". What we think the world is, is part of what the world is. So is what we don't think about it, or know about it. Science cannot escape this any more than we can escape from being ourselves. The truth is the whole, not the part of the whole that isn't us.

What you're not getting is that we can't find it because we are within it. It's not lost, it's just everywhere. The truth is the whole, not the part of the whole that isn't us.
Materialists think anything that is not physical matter is "semantics". It's incoherent, of course, because that would mean that even their own presumption that everything that isn't material, is semantic, is itself, semantics. But they hold fast, never-the-less.
Intuition is the tool, and 'the universe is kind' is the truth that it reveals to us. This will mean nothing to you, I suspect, because what you were really demanding as "truth" is knowledge of the physical machinations of the physical universe. The only "truth" you will recognize, because for you, if it's not material, it's just semantics (meaning imaginary/make-believe/non-existent).

And is this objectively true?

 

[lukethethird]

There is no "objectivity" apart from the human imagination.

I think we can see a problem here.

 

[Tiberius]

I think we can see a problem here.

I think he actually means that objectivity only exists as an idea that Humans have imagined, and that there is no true objectivity in the real world.

I disagree, but I think that's what he was trying to say.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

View attachment 27193

That was really long.....
There are too many points of here that I couldn't focus on one.

Anyways, the periods of having a false god [1970-85] and having no God [1993-2009] were over for me. During the time I was irreligious, I just drank booze, enjoy life with friends, work day in and day out. But it came to me that sooner or later everything would hit the fan because of what my sweet Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24. The seals have long been opened and the trumpets are about to be blown.

I think the world is not getting better, soon it will pop. The Lord God is my refuge when this happens while the rest of mankind will be thrown into chaos.

Why do I believe in the Lord God? Let me enumerate some of the reasons:

• To continue the life serving the Lord God without major problems amidst the turmoil in the world

Ecclesiastes 12:13 New International Version (NIV)
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.

• To die and enjoy the first resurrection when the last trumpet sounds or

1 Thessalonians 4:16 New International Version (NIV)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

• To be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ when the appointed hour comes.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 New International Version (NIV)
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

I believe in the Almighty God because i want to fulfill the duty given to all humans. A fish, animal, insect, plant or bacteria does not have this duty. The rest of the world is non compliant with this God given duty.

I believe in the Father Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ because I want to be saved on the last day.

There is no planning involved, no brainstorming, and I do not follow blindly.

My knowledge about God is from the bible because following without knowing is fanaticism which isn't the right thing to do and devoid of the truth.

I'm afraid I just don't understand this level of commitment and belief. Why would a loving God,

1. allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?
2. not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?
3. not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?
4. create temptations and evil in the world?
5. allow the innocence to suffer and die?
6. create His own Son, and then allow Him to die?
7. allow religious confusion among His creation?
8. not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?
9. allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world?
10. approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

Since no one can KNOW anything for certain from the Bible, this level of belief IS fanaticism. It is belief based only on faith. There is absolutely no way you could KNOW anything about a God, or His nature. The Bible is only a book of allegories, stories, and myths. It is not a book of facts. Without the facts, your knowledge may be false. Before I decide to commit to a life of Pious servitude, I would really want to know, not simply believe.

 

[PureX]

I'm afraid I just don't understand this level of commitment and belief. Why would a loving God,

1. allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?
2. not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?
3. not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?
4. create temptations and evil in the world?
5. allow the innocence to suffer and die?
6. create His own Son, and then allow Him to die?
7. allow religious confusion among His creation?
8. not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?
9. allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world?
10. approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

Since no one can KNOW anything for certain from the Bible, this level of belief IS fanaticism. It is belief based only on faith. There is absolutely no way you could KNOW anything about a God, or His nature. The Bible is only a book of allegories, stories, and myths. It is not a book of facts. Without the facts, your knowledge may be false. Before I decide to commit to a life of Pious servitude, I would really want to know, not simply believe.

Love for a 'beloved' that was programmed never to disappoint wouldn't have much meaning, or value, though, would it? In fact, it would really just be a kind of self-love, using the mere totem of an 'other'. Because there wouldn't really be an 'other', there. There would just be a perfect reflection of the lover's own expectations and desires.

I don't see how there could be a 'loving God' if we, the supposed 'beloved', were not able to reject that love, or disappoint it, or deny it, or even destroy it's reflection within our own hearts. And I also don't see how we could possibly have that kind of freedom and autonomy if we were omniscient. Because it seems to me that omniscience would eliminate choice. It always gives us 'the right answers', and therefor the 'one right response' to everything. But we would need real choices to become our 'selves'. To become a viable 'other' for the Great Lover to 'belove'., ... and for that love to have any real value or meaning.

Also, why do you focus solely on the biblical depiction of God as your god-concept? There are many others, and even the biblical depiction invites a wider variety of interpretations. I really don't understand the point of your rejecting what you think someone else thinks God is, and then never bothering to develop your own idea of what God might be just because you've rejected theirs.

 

[MJFlores]

I'm afraid I just don't understand this level of commitment and belief. Why would a loving God,

1. allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?
2. not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?
3. not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?
4. create temptations and evil in the world?
5. allow the innocence to suffer and die?
6. create His own Son, and then allow Him to die?
7. allow religious confusion among His creation?
8. not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?
9. allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world?
10. approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

Since no one can KNOW anything for certain from the Bible, this level of belief IS fanaticism. It is belief based only on faith. There is absolutely no way you could KNOW anything about a God, or His nature. The Bible is only a book of allegories, stories, and myths. It is not a book of facts. Without the facts, your knowledge may be false. Before I decide to commit to a life of Pious servitude, I would really want to know, not simply believe.

Why would a loving God, allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?

If angels and humans are incapable of sinning then:
There will be no use anticipating Christ.John 5:39
There will be no use of creating the universe Hebrews 1:2
There will be no use of the law 1 Timothy 1:9
There will be no use of faith, love and hope 1 Corinthians 13:13

My opinion
If God created beings without minds of their own, then there will be no sin from anybody.
We will be all mindless beings almost like the appliances found in our homes
I wouldn't even be able to tell of this things because you will not ask your first question
You will do your thing mindlessly and I would do mine mindlessly
We would be like the insects, animals, fishes
Incapable of faith, love and hope, only driven by instinct

Why would a loving God, not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?

God in many times and in many ways gave the knowledge necessary for man to know him:
He spoke to us through the patriarchs [from Adam to Jacob]
He spoke to us through the prophets [from Moses to Malachi] Hebrews 1:1
He spoke to us through his Son [the Lord Jesus Christ] Hebrews 1:2
However man is really complicated Ecclesiastes 7:29
This is what they did to the prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 2:15
That is why we have the Bible Jeremiah 30:2

But the Bible could only be explained by God's chosen messengers Acts 8:26-35
Even the Lord Jesus Christ gave that knowledge to his disciples Luke 8:10
Because people are complicated and do not value this knowledge at all Romans 1:28-29
Even if one would read the Bible cover to cover, will he learn anything? 2 Timothy 3:7
Therefore we should hear the message from those who are sent Romans 10:15
So how do we know if the messenger is really sent by God? 1 John 4:1

I require time to answer Q 3-10
I don't want to answer without bible verses backing me up
Otherwise, I would be thinking in my opinion and that would mean nothing.
My golly your questions are not that simple.

 

[lukethethird]

I think he actually means that objectivity only exists as an idea that Humans have imagined, and that there is no true objectivity in the real world.

I disagree, but I think that's what he was trying to say.

The reason airplanes fly would be totally subjective in a world with no objective truths, go figure.

 

[MJFlores]

I'm afraid I just don't understand this level of commitment and belief. Why would a loving God,

1. allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?
2. not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?
3. not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?
4. create temptations and evil in the world?
5. allow the innocence to suffer and die?
6. create His own Son, and then allow Him to die?
7. allow religious confusion among His creation?
8. not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?
9. allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world?
10. approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

Since no one can KNOW anything for certain from the Bible, this level of belief IS fanaticism. It is belief based only on faith. There is absolutely no way you could KNOW anything about a God, or His nature. The Bible is only a book of allegories, stories, and myths. It is not a book of facts. Without the facts, your knowledge may be false. Before I decide to commit to a life of Pious servitude, I would really want to know, not simply believe.

If I show you what I believe, it must come from the source and basis of my faith.
If not, then I am just talking nonsense and are just based on my opinions which does not hold water
So it is recommended to check out the bible references because posting them here
would violate some house rules and to check whether I am just putting you on or something

I have answered 1 and 2 previously and should you have questions on that please do so
I now go to questions 3 to 10
My answers are based on the bible and some opinions - which you will easily know because there are no accompanying bible references

Why would a loving God, not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?

This is the main reason why I have my faith and my basis of faith is the Bible. Without this reason, I would be carefree and irreligious. I do not want to suffer condemnation but desire eternal life. And the Lord Almighty is going to give it willingly. Romans 2:7, Proverbs 12:28

That is why God is creating a new heaven and new earth. Full Chapter ; 2 Peter 3:13; Full Chapter

...create temptations and evil in the world?

God does not tempt James 1:13

God does not tempt but test 1 Thessalonians 2:4

Who is doing the tempting? 1 Corinthians 7:5

Others succeed when temptation comes 1 Corinthians 10:13

While others do not, why? James 1:14

Mankind is evil. Genesis 6:5, Colossians 1:21,

God is good. 1 John 1:5, Mark 10:18



... allow the innocence to suffer and die...and create His own Son, and then allow Him to die??

No one is righteous, everybody have sinned. In Context

If we are to read the Old Testament, in its entirety – God’s chosen people are the Israelites. He did not favour Egypt or other nations not even the Kingdom of Kush, the Mesoamericans, the Kingdoms of China, or even the Maharajahs of India – God chose Israel Deuteronomy 7:7

Hence, God chose Israel because He made a promise to Abraham and to his descendants, who were called Israelites. He made a covenant with them but during this age [age of the prophets, from Moses to Malachi] they continually broke God’s commandments rendering it useless. Hence after a long time, God said “I will make a new covenant” In Context

If the first covenant was mediated by Moses, the new covenant should have a mediator. Hebrews 9:15

The only man who is innocent [without sin] is the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:22

And indeed the Christ suffered and died according to the Scriptures 1 Corinthians 15:3

God made the Lord Jesus Christ be holy [without sin] so those redeemed could be righteous in front of Him 2 Corinthians 5:21

The old covenant is for the Israelites only, it is for the Jews exclusively.

So what is significant in the new covenant? God created a new man, a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17

What is this new creation all about? It is about the church. Ephesians 5:23

Did Christ establish a church for which he is the head? Matthew 16:18

....allow religious confusion among His creation....and not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?

The knowledge about God is plain because God made it plain. Not even the pagan civilizations of Mongols, Greece, Rome, Inca, Aztecs, Mayans could say “We did not know you.” In Context

Even those who knew God did not consider it worthwhile to retain the true knowledge of God. What did they do instead? In Context

There is no religious confusion, man has been killing God’s messengers Matthew 24:9, John 15:20

... . allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world...and approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

The increased sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty is actually the signs of things to come. They were prophesied a long time ago and nobody was listening. Luke 21:11, 2 Timothy 3:1, Full Chapter

approve of sexism - 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12

approve of slavery – whose invention is this by the way? Weren’t the Israelites enslaved in Egypt? Exodus 2:23 During ancient times, slavery was a method of cheap labor. The United States also employed slavery, the White House was built by slaves so was the Washington Monument. The Bible touches on slavery on the manner how a slave is to behave 1 Peter 2:18 and how masters who owned slaves are to treat their slaves – the treatment should be humane not harsh, unlike the white men in the plantation. Slavery is why the American Civil War occurred.

Approve genocide, and violence – I believe the Israelites are the victims instead of the perpetrators to these genocide and violence? Example

Hazael - Wikipedia ; 2 Kings 8:12

Xerxes I - Wikipedia; Esther 3:13

Further let me state that during those times, the sword is the language that the ancient civilizations knew. There were no Geneva Conventions, there was no United Nations, there was no International Criminal Court that would try acts of genocide or crimes against humanity. These international laws and conventions would come much later after World War 1 and 2.

When is a crime, a crime?

When there is a law stating that it is a crime.

In the absence of such, then it is not a crime.

Further laws are not retroactive – a law now is not punishable for alleged crimes committed before it was enacted.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Love for a 'beloved' that was programmed never to disappoint wouldn't have much meaning, or value, though, would it? In fact, it would really just be a kind of self-love, using the mere totem of an 'other'. Because there wouldn't really be an 'other', there. There would just be a perfect reflection of the lover's own expectations and desires.

I don't see how there could be a 'loving God' if we, the supposed 'beloved', were not able to reject that love, or disappoint it, or deny it, or even destroy it's reflection within our own hearts. And I also don't see how we could possibly have that kind of freedom and autonomy if we were omniscient. Because it seems to me that omniscience would eliminate choice. It always gives us 'the right answers', and therefor the 'one right response' to everything. But we would need real choices to become our 'selves'. To become a viable 'other' for the Great Lover to 'belove'., ... and for that love to have any real value or meaning.

Also, why do you focus solely on the biblical depiction of God as your god-concept? There are many others, and even the biblical depiction invites a wider variety of interpretations. I really don't understand the point of your rejecting what you think someone else thinks God is, and then never bothering to develop your own idea of what God might be just because you've rejected theirs.

I agree that a loving and benevolent God, would not want a unisex version of the Stepford Wives as His creation. Of course this begs the question why a God would need to be worshipped in the first place. Would you care if an ant, or a squirrel worshipped or obeyed you? God and man can never intersect at any point. Hence why God's depiction can only be conceptual, never perceptual.

I'm afraid I don't know what the Biblical depiction of God is. The Bible depicts God as fire, a spirit, love, or the light. These depictions are far too ambiguous to form any definite conception of God. If I had to guess, I'd say God would be the Quantum Field, permeating throughout the universe.

Unfortunately, I believe that free will is only an illusion, but this is only my opinion. I believe our decisions are all predetermined by how our genes are expressed, and how we interact with our environment. Your post does not address WHY a God would need to tempt, manipulate, or test His creation. Especially, a God that would know the outcome of any tests. I also mention other concerns of mine in my post.
​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why would a loving God, allow for sin to have occurred in the first place?

If angels and humans are incapable of sinning then:
There will be no use anticipating Christ.John 5:39
There will be no use of creating the universe Hebrews 1:2
There will be no use of the law 1 Timothy 1:9
There will be no use of faith, love and hope 1 Corinthians 13:13

My opinion
If God created beings without minds of their own, then there will be no sin from anybody.
We will be all mindless beings almost like the appliances found in our homes
I wouldn't even be able to tell of this things because you will not ask your first question
You will do your thing mindlessly and I would do mine mindlessly
We would be like the insects, animals, fishes
Incapable of faith, love and hope, only driven by instinct

Why would a loving God, not allow his own creation the gift of knowledge?

God in many times and in many ways gave the knowledge necessary for man to know him:
He spoke to us through the patriarchs [from Adam to Jacob]
He spoke to us through the prophets [from Moses to Malachi] Hebrews 1:1
He spoke to us through his Son [the Lord Jesus Christ] Hebrews 1:2
However man is really complicated Ecclesiastes 7:29
This is what they did to the prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 2:15
That is why we have the Bible Jeremiah 30:2

But the Bible could only be explained by God's chosen messengers Acts 8:26-35
Even the Lord Jesus Christ gave that knowledge to his disciples Luke 8:10
Because people are complicated and do not value this knowledge at all Romans 1:28-29
Even if one would read the Bible cover to cover, will he learn anything? 2 Timothy 3:7
Therefore we should hear the message from those who are sent Romans 10:15
So how do we know if the messenger is really sent by God? 1 John 4:1

I require time to answer Q 3-10
I don't want to answer without bible verses backing me up
Otherwise, I would be thinking in my opinion and that would mean nothing.
My golly your questions are not that simple.

I do appreciate your time and effort, but I don't think your passages are relevant to my concerns. Out of respect for your efforts I have read every scripture. So, let me clarify. Both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life existed in the Garden of Eden. By eating the fruits from the Tree of knowledge, you would possess the knowledge of Good and Evil and become Omniscient. By eating the fruits from the Tree of Life, you would become immortal. Why would a God NOT want his creation to acquire these gifts? Maybe Genesis has the answer; "Genesis 3:22, KJV: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:". Maybe God would not want man to become immortal, but to deny him the knowledge of good and evil seems counterintuitive to me. Who is the "US" mentioned in the scripture. It sounds like a "Freudian slip" representing a government or a head of state. Remember, we are talking about an Omniscient God.

My point is, if God had allowed man access to both gifts, then no sinful act would have been committed in the Garden. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was not an immoral, dangerous, criminal, or selfish act in itself. It was simply a disobedient act by the coercion of another God.Eve never stood a chance. If there was no disobedience, there would be no evil, no sin, and no Fall. If there was no Fall, there would be no Moses or a flood. There would be no need for Jesus to exist, or be sacrificed. There would be no need for a Heaven and Hell, And, there would be no need for a Second Coming.

I realize that hindsight is not an exact science, so bear with me. I think you again for your time, and sorry about the questions. Since I am not a Biblical Scholar, your opinions are just as valuable to me.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If I show you what I believe, it must come from the source and basis of my faith.
If not, then I am just talking nonsense and are just based on my opinions which does not hold water
So it is recommended to check out the bible references because posting them here
would violate some house rules and to check whether I am just putting you on or something

I have answered 1 and 2 previously and should you have questions on that please do so
I now go to questions 3 to 10
My answers are based on the bible and some opinions - which you will easily know because there are no accompanying bible references

Why would a loving God, not allow his own creation the gift of immortality?

This is the main reason why I have my faith and my basis of faith is the Bible. Without this reason, I would be carefree and irreligious. I do not want to suffer condemnation but desire eternal life. And the Lord Almighty is going to give it willingly. Romans 2:7, Proverbs 12:28

That is why God is creating a new heaven and new earth. Full Chapter ; 2 Peter 3:13; Full Chapter

View attachment 27306

...create temptations and evil in the world?

God does not tempt James 1:13

God does not tempt but test 1 Thessalonians 2:4

Who is doing the tempting? 1 Corinthians 7:5

Others succeed when temptation comes 1 Corinthians 10:13

While others do not, why? James 1:14

Mankind is evil. Genesis 6:5, Colossians 1:21,

God is good. 1 John 1:5, Mark 10:18



... allow the innocence to suffer and die...and create His own Son, and then allow Him to die??

No one is righteous, everybody have sinned. In Context

If we are to read the Old Testament, in its entirety – God’s chosen people are the Israelites. He did not favour Egypt or other nations not even the Kingdom of Kush, the Mesoamericans, the Kingdoms of China, or even the Maharajahs of India – God chose Israel Deuteronomy 7:7

Hence, God chose Israel because He made a promise to Abraham and to his descendants, who were called Israelites. He made a covenant with them but during this age [age of the prophets, from Moses to Malachi] they continually broke God’s commandments rendering it useless. Hence after a long time, God said “I will make a new covenant” In Context

If the first covenant was mediated by Moses, the new covenant should have a mediator. Hebrews 9:15

The only man who is innocent [without sin] is the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:22

And indeed the Christ suffered and died according to the Scriptures 1 Corinthians 15:3

God made the Lord Jesus Christ be holy [without sin] so those redeemed could be righteous in front of Him 2 Corinthians 5:21

The old covenant is for the Israelites only, it is for the Jews exclusively.

So what is significant in the new covenant? God created a new man, a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17

What is this new creation all about? It is about the church. Ephesians 5:23

Did Christ establish a church for which he is the head? Matthew 16:18

....allow religious confusion among His creation....and not allow all His creation to know that "God IS God?

The knowledge about God is plain because God made it plain. Not even the pagan civilizations of Mongols, Greece, Rome, Inca, Aztecs, Mayans could say “We did not know you.” In Context

Even those who knew God did not consider it worthwhile to retain the true knowledge of God. What did they do instead? In Context

There is no religious confusion, man has been killing God’s messengers Matthew 24:9, John 15:20

View attachment 27307

... . allow sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty to exist in the world...and approve of sexism, slavery, genocide, and violence in His Bible?

The increased sickness, hunger, wars, and cruelty is actually the signs of things to come. They were prophesied a long time ago and nobody was listening. Luke 21:11, 2 Timothy 3:1, Full Chapter

approve of sexism - 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12

approve of slavery – whose invention is this by the way? Weren’t the Israelites enslaved in Egypt? Exodus 2:23 During ancient times, slavery was a method of cheap labor. The United States also employed slavery, the White House was built by slaves so was the Washington Monument. The Bible touches on slavery on the manner how a slave is to behave 1 Peter 2:18 and how masters who owned slaves are to treat their slaves – the treatment should be humane not harsh, unlike the white men in the plantation. Slavery is why the American Civil War occurred.

Approve genocide, and violence – I believe the Israelites are the victims instead of the perpetrators to these genocide and violence? Example

Hazael - Wikipedia ; 2 Kings 8:12

Xerxes I - Wikipedia; Esther 3:13

Further let me state that during those times, the sword is the language that the ancient civilizations knew. There were no Geneva Conventions, there was no United Nations, there was no International Criminal Court that would try acts of genocide or crimes against humanity. These international laws and conventions would come much later after World War 1 and 2.

When is a crime, a crime?

When there is a law stating that it is a crime.

In the absence of such, then it is not a crime.

Further laws are not retroactive – a law now is not punishable for alleged crimes committed before it was enacted.

The Roman and Proverb scriptures refer only to good works to obtain immortality, not a belief in God. Regarding God tempting man, only your James 1:3 passage states that God does not tempt man. Also the Colossians 1:22 passages seems to say, that you are either with God, or with evil. This seems a bit harsh.

Are you suggesting that many of the atrocities of the Bible were not immoral criminal acts, because there were no written as legal statutes back then? Does that mean that these actions were not criminal and immoral acts? I think you know how that argument would end.

Are you also suggesting that hunger, suffering by the innocence, disease, and sicknesses, were because of prophecy and the fact that they have all sinned? Is death the only escape from sin?

Again I think you for your efforts.