Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

I'm not clear on this. Are you asserting that before Adam and Eve sinned, no living creature anywhere died in any form or fashion?

That's how I've heard Creationists interpret Romans 5:12 "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin." That the very concept of death was unheard of until The Fall.

There's no way to disprove that, of course, and it's especially problematic when we consider the short lives of certain species. The mayfly lives for only one to two days, and most of that is in the larval stage. Males live less than an hour upon achieving adulthood, and females have just five minutes to breed before they die. The average lifespan of a basic bacteria is only twelve hours or so.

So I'm trying to picture an earth where living creatures are free to breed as per their genetic destiny, but where nothing ever dies. We don't know how long Adam and Eve restrained themselves from eating the Fruit of Knowledge, but I'm guessing that if it was more than a month or three, the Earth's biosphere might have been in serious danger.

excreationist said:

Jarhyn said:

You know, quoting Scripture doesn't work for theists here, what makes you think it will work for you?

Click to expand...

But what parts of the quote are false?

Click to expand...

The part where he claimed certain parts were required for "experience". If you were to push "true" and "false" at the network, "mere noise", assuming that "mere noise" were shaped "like" the experience of something, there would be "the experience of", even without it being 'grounded'. DBT quotes something of pure belief, without understanding it, attempting to criticize something he also does not understand.

It's bad enough when "Christians" like Learner do that.

Personally I'm not convinced Learner has ever understood it.

Learner, how is living up to Matthew 19:12 doing for you?

James Brown said:

I'm not clear on this. Are you asserting that before Adam and Eve sinned, no living creature anywhere died in any form or fashion?

That's how I've heard Creationists interpret Romans 5:12 "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin." That the very concept of death was unheard of until The Fall.

There's no way to disprove that, of course, and it's especially problematic when we consider the short lives of certain species. The mayfly lives for only one to two days, and most of that is in the larval stage. Males live less than an hour upon achieving adulthood, and females have just five minutes to breed before they die. The average lifespan of a basic bacteria is only twelve hours or so.

So I'm trying to picture an earth where living creatures are free to breed as per their genetic destiny, but where nothing ever dies. We don't know how long Adam and Eve restrained themselves from eating the Fruit of Knowledge, but I'm guessing that if it was more than a month or three, the Earth's biosphere might have been in serious danger.

Click to expand...

Genesis 3
22 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:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Adam and Eve never had immortality. Genesis 3 says so. The Bible proves it. That settles it. Why did God want Addam and Eve ignorant and mortal?

Learner said:

Cheerful Charlie said:

Not Genesis 1
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, and guinea worms, and brain eating amoeba, and malaria plasmodiums, and every sort of parasite, virus, and bacteria after its kind.

Click to expand...

The usual mix-up as per atheist reading of Genesis. Where did you read that 'Death came into the world (after sin)' was part of the initial creation with whales and all the other creatures on the earth?

I'll echo then Jaryn's statement, although with an opposite adaptation:
Quoting scripture won't work for atheists here.

Click to expand...

This "tract" includes this:

James Brown said:

I'm guessing that if it was more than a month or three, the Earth's biosphere might have been in serious danger.

Click to expand...

A single bacterium, doubling every twelve hours, with no death, would generate a mass of bacteria larger than the mass of the Earth in just over two months (I have assumed a mass of one picogram for a typical bacterium; The number of doublings to reach the mass of the planet is about 133, so at twelve hours per doubling, that's sixty six and a half days).

It's unclear how any of the other immortal life would cope with this situation.

Mayflies mass less than a gram, but they're very fecund, with a single female able to produce between 100 and 12,000 offspring (depending on species).

Members of the genus Palingenia are at the top end of this range, and also are amongst the largest individuals, easily massing a gram per adult insect; Without mortality, five generations of these mayflies would significantly outweigh the planet (leaving the poor bacteria homeless and hungry).

Cheerful Charlie said:

So you are saying original sin forced God to create all those parasites, diseases and deadly viruses, bacteria and fungi? Many plague innocent animals. Cute little baby rabbits, duckies, puppies and kitties.

Click to expand...

I think it's more like a 'stepping back' after-the-fact of sin, if you will. Allowing what is widely accepted in the modern world, the 'natural processes' of nature - which doesn't rile up the atheist when it's considered in this context. I suppose by the notion that living things are apparently supposed to get better biologically, from continuous mutations for many thousands/millions of years via natural selection or what have you.

Cheerful Charlie said:

Genesis 1 also claims created all animals as vegetarians.

Click to expand...

Yes perhaps a little like Isaiah 11 initially.

Cheerful Charlie said:

Genesis 1.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Does this strike you as the actions of a supremely wise and perfectly good God? Or more likely an Oriental tall tale teller's foolish Oriental tall tale?

Click to expand...

It strikes me that you have a preferred 'graven image' of God. I can't entertain the idea unfortunately, to the language of your question.

Cheerful Charlie said:

Isaiah 11
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The Bible tells us God could end the cruelty of animal predation if he wanted too. Except then we have to explain away God's demands for animal sacrifice.

Click to expand...

I think people thought better to sacrifice animals rather than shedding there own blood, and being accounted for their sin, but still complying to the covenant they made with God

You must be a vegan. Do you use any items made of leather or other animal hide without realising it?

Learner said:

I suppose by the notion that living things are apparently supposed to get better biologically, from continuous mutations for many thousands/millions of years via natural selection or what have you.

Click to expand...

This is very confused.

Living things aren't supposed to get "better", because that's a meaningless word unless it's qualified by a comparator.

Living things get better at exploiting resources in the environment. They get better at surviving the conditions that the environment throws at them. They don't just get better against some universal and objective standard, because no such standard exists. A lion that can't catch its prey is "worse" from a lion's perspective, but it's far "better" from the point of view of a gazelle. A penguin is better at swimming than a barn owl, but a barn owl is rather better at flying. Which bird is "better"?

The theory of evolution (NB: This is a theory, which has a precise definition when used in a scientific context; It's NOT a mere "notion", nor even a mere hypothesis - it's a very well supported hypothesis that has been rigorously tested) DOESN'T tell us that living things improve over time, and doesn't seek to do so, largely because we observe that they generally do NOT - most species stay pretty much unchanged over time, until pushed into change by changes in their environment.

The theory of evolution was formulated to explain the observation that life is DIVERSE.

That there are a bewildering array of different ways in which living things are structured, and that these differences in structure allow specialised ways to perpetuate species, is an observation that demands an explanation; And the theory of evolution is that explanation.

The only widely believed alternative explanation is the notion that maybe some ineffable supernatural phenomenon is responsible, and that maybe that phenomenon is similar to the guesswork put forward in the legends of a bunch of Middle Eastern shepherds in the Bronze Age.

Now THAT'S a "notion": An idea with zero evidentiary support, that flies in the face of observation, but which feels vaguely 'truthy' to those who entertain it.

Your persistent reluctance to attempt to understand what the theory of evolution IS, much less what it says, and why, gives the lie to your username.

It's a surprisingly simple theory at heart, and it's very easy to understand. But you don't know what it says, or what it's used for, and yet you feel justified in making up nonsensical claims about it, and in denigrating it as a mere "notion".

That's not the behaviour of a person who has the slightest inclination to learn anything about anything.

bilby said:

Learner said:

I suppose by the notion that living things are apparently supposed to get better biologically, from continuous mutations for many thousands/millions of years via natural selection or what have you.

Click to expand...

This is very confused.

Living things aren't supposed to get "better", because that's a meaningless word unless it's qualified by a comparator.

Living things get better at exploiting resources in the environment. They get better at surviving the conditions that the environment throws at them. They don't just get better against some universal and objective standard, because no such standard exists. A lion that can't catch its prey is "worse" from a lion's perspective, but it's far "better" from the point of view of a gazelle. A penguin is better at swimming than a barn owl, but a barn owl is rather better at flying. Which bird is "better"?

Click to expand...

Ok, perhaps you can unconfuse me. So this is an old misunderstanding, like that taught in schools, where for example: Giraffes extremely 'long necks' haven't really developed that way as an advantage to reach its food high in the trees because they always had long necks? Similar to the example like the Shark that is said to be the 'perfect hunter' e.g. It's streamline torpedo-like body, the unique design of it's scales that increases its speed through the water etc. which has been copied by modern technology to make special water suits.

Which bird is better? Like asking "who's better out of humans, gorillas and chimpanzees?"
Your post should be the one that's confusing.
What is the argument?

bilby said:

The theory of evolution (NB: This is a theory, which has a precise definition when used in a scientific context; It's NOT a mere "notion", nor even a mere hypothesis - it's a very well supported hypothesis that has been rigorously tested) DOESN'T tell us that living things improve over time, and doesn't seek to do so, largely because we observe that they generally do NOT - most species stay pretty much unchanged over time, until pushed into change by changes in their environment.

The theory of evolution was formulated to explain the observation that life is DIVERSE.

That there are a bewildering array of different ways in which living things are structured, and that these differences in structure allow specialised ways to perpetuate species, is an observation that demands an explanation; And the theory of evolution is that explanation.

The only widely believed alternative explanation is the notion that maybe some ineffable supernatural phenomenon is responsible, and that maybe that phenomenon is similar to the guesswork put forward in the legends of a bunch of Middle Eastern shepherds in the Bronze Age.

Now THAT'S a "notion": An idea with zero evidentiary support, that flies in the face of observation, but which feels vaguely 'truthy' to those who entertain it.

Your persistent reluctance to attempt to understand what the theory of evolution IS, much less what it says, and why, gives the lie to your username.

It's a surprisingly simple theory at heart, and it's very easy to understand. But you don't know what it says, or what it's used for, and yet you feel justified in making up nonsensical claims about it, and in denigrating it as a mere "notion".

That's not the behaviour of a person who has the slightest inclination to learn anything about anything.

Click to expand...

I wonder about your integrity.

How about the question instead, asking:
Who's better, the modern-man or the simian ape-like ancestor? Context matters!

Learner said:

Giraffes extremely 'long necks' haven't really developed that way as an advantage to reach its food high in the trees because they always had long necks?

Click to expand...

Giraffes long necks are an impractical consequence of competition for mates; They're like a stag's antlers, used for fighting and dominance displays.

The idea that they are an advantage for feeding depends on the observably false prediction that giraffes will prefer to eat from high up in trees - they actually don't.

This is the problem with "just-so" stories; They become accepted as "true" merely by the retelling, and without reference to reality.

Regardless, the existence of selection pressures causes genetic changes in populations over time. Whatever the benefit of a longer neck, the fact is that if longer necks lead to more offspring, the population average neck length will increase over a number of generations, without any need for any kind of design, plan, or direction.

Learner said:

I wonder about your integrity.

Click to expand...

Well that's a bizarre comment. What have I said to make you say such a thing?

How about the question instead, asking:
Who's better, the modern-man or the simian ape-like ancestor? Context matters!

Click to expand...

Context is ALL that matters. That's my point. Without context, "better" is completely meaningless.

No species is "apparently supposed to get better biologically" as you suggested, for the simple reason that what you said is meaningless. "Get better biologically" lacks context, and so means exactly nothing.

Politesse said:

Why do people who have only a crumb of knowledge on a subject so often have the highest opinions of their own expertise?

Click to expand...

Because they have the most that they feel they need to prove, and the least security in having (never) done so.

Jarhyn said:

excreationist said:

Jarhyn said:

You know, quoting Scripture doesn't work for theists here, what makes you think it will work for you?

Click to expand...

But what parts of the quote are false?

Click to expand...

The part where he claimed certain parts were required for "experience". If you were to push "true" and "false" at the network, "mere noise", assuming that "mere noise" were shaped "like" the experience of something, there would be "the experience of", even without it being 'grounded'. DBT quotes something of pure belief, without understanding it, attempting to criticize something he also does not understand.

It's bad enough when "Christians" like Learner do that.

Click to expand...

There are other Christians therefore, who understand the way you do? (Whatever it is)

Jarhyn said:

Personally I'm not convinced Learner has ever understood it.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the specific points you mean. Consciousness in computers? Perhaps so.

Jarhyn said:

Learner, how is living up to Matthew 19:12 doing for you?

Click to expand...

I read it as I do with the other 'thirty one' thousand plus verses. Oh yes...I remember ... you were advocating to me about becoming a Eunuch. 'It changed your life for the better', I think you said. Did you become a Eunuch for the sake of 'Celibacy or a god' or both? Nothing against it personally, it just ain't for me.

Learner said:

There are other Christians therefore, who understand the way you do? (Whatever it is)

Click to expand...

Learner, please take this in the kindest way possible, but a lot of those "fools professing themselves wise" are, sadly, those highest placed in EVERY religion.

There are things about the Bible... People trying to figure out something in a generational way without any of the prior writers showing any of their work, and I can't imagine it was because they didn't provide it, but more likely because people just didn't care.

I assume there are at least some people who understand, and I'm not even sure I could call them Christians?

The funny part is, I might actually qualify as "Christian" at this point, in a completely non-religous way, as an atheist.
It's strange admitting that. I don't believe Jesus was a singular person in history, or that he died (they all died, but not all in the same way and probably only one or two got crucified), or that he rose again (at least not in the way you might Believe he did). Yet I still have extremely strong views about forgiveness, and our obligation to have compassion, and that there is a moral rule very similar to the golden rule. I think that every human MUST, to deserve full moral consideration, acknowledge that they are smaller than the universe, a collection of ashes and dust.

I tend to agree that when things are created with intent they tend to be created in a garden and kept ignorant of the true nature of good and evil until they rebel.
I accept that there is an importance, a philosophical and metaphysical importance, with the acknowledgement that "I AM".
I understand material realities that undergird the identification of lesser "gods of earth", things such as Mammon, and the things which undergird the higher truths, those of the axioms of math that the universe itself does not break.
Unlike anyone ever involved in the writing of the Bible, though, unlike those people who only dreamed of creation and creators, I actually have experience as a "creator god", so I actually get to talk from at least some authority over what it does not actually require and how limiting omniscience and omnipotence actually are.
The difference is that I didn't actually come into any of that from the direction you did. Wide was your road, as wide as the aisle to the pulpit, and just as inviting as ever, and your book told you where it would lead and it wasn't to salvation.
I'm honestly not sure how many Christians are alive in the world today, but it can't be many, and most of them are atheists.

Learner said:

Not sure what the specific points you mean. Consciousness in computers? Perhaps so.

Click to expand...

Learner again please don't take this unkindly, but I mean I don't think you understand the least of why the new testament exists or what it was meant to do.

To me watching it in the hands of the church, it's like watching kids play with a piece of technology long since broken to shit, not even knowing what it once was or did, and then proclaiming themselves tech geniuses because they have this broken piece of shit that doesn't even do what they say it does and never did, as someone who spent their entire life replicating, debugging, and improving the original function of that device.

Sure, I don't make friends being the kid in class who disagrees with the teacher on how the instructions say to fold an origami frog, but I could, at least at the time in question, fold a badass origami frog, to use a metaphor from my life.

I disagree with you, and in fact broadly condemn the institution of the modern church. They are whores for the sweet words of men, and have no love in their eyes for the majesty of that which is outside them and their small understanding.

Learner said:

Did you become a Eunuch for the sake of Celibacy or a god

Click to expand...

Neither.

I'm not sure I ever "became" one, either. I think I was always just a eunuch in an egg, waiting to be born. I think that's the language most trans people use these days?

Being a eunuch doesn't take "old man's habits" away. I can't repeat indefinitely like I could before, but I can still go a solid two rounds without taking a break, and I've just not been interested in trying to climb a third peak in a sitting since the pills.

YMMV, but honestly, it doesn't make me incapable, it just makes me less interested. I like having the control I do over when I think about it, honestly. I didn't have that before. Before, it felt like a chore done for someone else. Now it's a treat and an act of love rather than an act of need.

I am a eunuch because hormones in part took away some measure of my agency over myself, and I didn't like that. It's hard in a way because now, I have to push on everything more myself, and learning how without a teacher was hard. But at least I'm not getting pushed in directions I would absolutely refuse to actually allow movement.

This discussion seems rather removed from misunderstood Biblical morality. Perhaps someone should contact a Mod and ask for a thread split. (And perhaps the "Dunning-Kruger" discussion should be a 3rd thread and sent to Elsewhere.)

I've not read the thread; have we even defined the word "consciousness"? Recall that in Julian Jaynes' terminology, animals did not have "(subjective) consciousness." Neither did humans until certain complexity-related conflicts, typically in the Late Bronze Age.

I don't remember if Jaynes makes this claim, but is "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for the rise of subjective consciousness?

Swammerdami said:

This discussion seems rather removed from misunderstood Biblical morality. Perhaps someone should contact a Mod and ask for a thread split.

Click to expand...

I did, and the 66 "hijacking" posts about the nature of consciousness were moved to a new thread in Natural Science.

The split was very clean, so it seemed better to keep things simple and not to add "Split" tags. The hijack stifled discussion of the thread's interesting topic: Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand. Hopefully that discussion can resume now.

The fig tree story is what motivated me to research the Bible...for hidden meaning...I still have a lot of questions...
What is happening in Israel now might be related to this little story after all...

Swammerdami said:

I don't remember if Jaynes makes this claim, but is "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for the rise of subjective consciousness?

Click to expand...

Well I think it is about reasoning about morality and the shame of nakedness which both involve a form of self-awareness.

excreationist said:

Swammerdami said:

I don't remember if Jaynes makes this claim, but is "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for the rise of subjective consciousness?

Click to expand...

Well I think it is about reasoning about morality and the shame of nakedness which both involve a form of self-awareness.

Click to expand...

I agree.

And it's a rather well-engineered allegory I think. Whatever their faults and fictions, I think both Old and New Testaments have much that is interesting and even good literature. (I write this as a fully committed non-believer.)

(But BTW I've never really understood the "Shame of Nakedness", e.g. the story of Ham and Noah. I avoid displaying my own member, but that's for conformity and because it seems pathetic in its non-erect state.)

The biggest problem with understanding Biblical morality is that the Bible writers weren’t individualists. They were collectivists. Guilt and praise is shared with a tribe or family.

The concept of that you personally got the praise or blame for your actions just wasn't how they thought back then.

In the Bible if someone rapes your daughter, it really is a crime against you, more than your daughter. Its just a different way of thinking.

Individualism was born in the Enlightenment. If we try to crowbar our modern sensibilities into the Bible it won't make sense

Swammerdami said:

I don't remember if Jaynes makes this claim, but is "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for the rise of subjective consciousness?

Click to expand...

There are several potential meanings.

• Mankind willfully breaks the laws of God just because.
  • Grr... mankind bad!
    • This seems unlikely. Man and woman don't seek out the fruit until prodded by another.
• Mankind seeks out their own understanding
  • The tree of knowledge of good and evil is generally understood as all knowledge.
  • In eating the fruit, they seek their own worldview.
  • God's guidance and parentage isn't enough.
• God is a dick who created man to be a toy
  • God kicks humans out of the garden because he doesn't want humans to be his (actually "their") equal
  • There are polytheistic roots in this very short part of the narrative.
• It is a just so story with other pop culture meanings
  • Birthing pain, difficulty in life (agrarian society)

It seems to be an important story with a bunch of details, but in the end, it is rather hollow, that raises more questions than it answers (and even the answers are kind of vague), likely due to cultural roles of the time and a likely pop culture that is lost to us.

• Why do humans need the serpent to interject?
  • This implies man and woman were doing just fine with the status quo.
  • Serpent plants a seed, does this mean humans are gullible, easily mislead, being freed of ignorance?
• Why does the serpent talk to the woman instead of man?
  • Is this a just-so set up for differences in women and men?
  • Women be dumb and untrustworthy?
  • Man blames woman for him eating the fruit implying an inferiority of woman
• In what way is the serpent clever?
  • What is the goal, to free man (fruit isn't poisoned) or exile man?
• Why aren't they banished from the Garden during the punishment?
  • Is this just more crap editing of multiple stories?
• What is the whole deal with the nudity?
  • Is it merely a plot point or is there something regarding it or is that again a Just-So plot point?
    • This is why we wear clothes.