Babel - God invents war - Is god also responsible for sin now?

[Learner]

Or you could also look at it as;The potential of evil exists only in physical self aware beings.

More specifically...'evil' stemming from self interest, decisions and action taken at the expense of others, ie, with insufficient empathy. Which an Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator should have no trouble correcting unless these attributes are deliberately included in human psychology. Which implies the Creator intended evil to emerge.

We agree on how evil can come about. I wonder about this correction of traits.Lets suppose without those potential traits. Would we for example have personalities like those ever submissive 'stepford wives?' (I know some wish their wives were)

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've always believed this notion outside of religion when I was agnostic.

Okay. You miss the point, though.
Why would you believe this to be true?

Honestly I'm not sure. There is one thing though. According to the OT, the 'Ten commandments was only handed down to Moses much 'later.' The commandments were 'not' there from the beginning. These commandments were made 'after' many wars and many evils were done.

I have no idea where you're going with this.
The first four commandments protect God's ego. Nothing in them requires that he be a physical being.

 

[Learner]

Okay. You miss the point, though.
Why would you believe this to be true?

I was seeing this from the nature of humanbeings.By the mere fact that not everyone is the same when dealing with relationships to other humanbeings. The level amounts,of how good or bad between all individuals is such a great variable . This indicates to me that we choose to be one or the other, good or bad if not a little of both.

I have no idea where you're going with this.
The first four commandments protect God's ego. Nothing in them requires that he be a physical being.

I was suggesting hypothetically shall we say,that God this time may have been peed off so made these commandments due to previous continuing to ignore God and continuingly committing atrcious acts. In lesser simplistic terms, as in everyday life I'll have to use these examples " You will listen to me this time, I am boss in this house!" or " How many times have I told you.?." These are the rules and you're grounded!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've always believed this notion outside of religion when I was agnostic.

The god described in the OT is very much a self-serving ego. Just look at the first four commandments.

Honestly I'm not sure. There is one thing though. According to the OT, the 'Ten commandments was only handed down to Moses much 'later.' The commandments were 'not' there from the beginning. These commandments were made 'after' many wars and many evils were done.

You mean after god confounded man... these evils were done?

 

[Learner]

You mean after god confounded man... these evils were done?

Admittedly I'm unsure why,although I concur to some of the points you made previously.The reasoning behind confounding man would seemingly be to limit man of certain knowledge. When looking at the logic of it all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean after god confounded man... these evils were done?

Admittedly I'm unsure why,although I concur to some of the points you made previously.The reasoning behind confounding man would seemingly be to limit man of certain particular knowledge. When looking at the logic of it all.

The logic? It is written right into the story. God didn't want man in heaven, so he confounded man, which led to man fighting man. God wins, man dies, oh well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was seeing this from the nature of humanbeings.

So.... Your only example of evil is humanity, thus you conclude that evil requires physical, self-aware beings. Your sample set kind of skews your results.

I have no idea where you're going with this.
The first four commandments protect God's ego. Nothing in them requires that he be a physical being.

I was suggesting hypothetically shall we say,that God this time may have been peed off so made these commandments due to previous continuing to ignore God and continuingly committing atrcious acts. In lesser simplistic terms, as in everyday life I'll have to use these examples " You will listen to me this time, I am boss in this house!" or " How many times have I told you.?." These are the rules and you're grounded!"

Why are you veering off this way?

I'm asking about your belief that evil requires physical, self-aware beings.

 

[Learner]

The logic? It is written right into the story. God didn't want man in heaven, so he confounded man, which led to man fighting man. God wins, man dies, oh well.

Questions asked here as to why God does this or does that is the expression of "what is the 'logic' behind this Gods actions' from a human logical perspective. I'll hypothesize that since Adam. Man kept veering away from his creator entity.

 

[Thomas II]

The logic? It is written right into the story. God didn't want man in heaven, so he confounded man, which led to man fighting man. God wins, man dies, oh well.

Questions asked here as to why God does this or does that is the expression of "what is the 'logic' behind this Gods actions' from a human logical perspective. I'll hypothesize that since Adam. Man kept veering away from his creator entity.

Before the Babel tower incident, there was only one language, which means people were not spreading around. Maybe "God" confused the language so that people would disseminate around the land. Language separated them into different groups...

Could it be that the purpose was not to "punish" but to "motivate"? (Trickster in action)

In Gen. 9:1,"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them,"Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth." Obviously they were not doing that because they were staying put in one place.

Is like God is kicking them "out of the home" so they can spread their wings and become all they can be...

Do I hear "Just like Adam and Eve?"...Anyone?...Anyone?...

 

[Angry Floof]

The logic? It is written right into the story. God didn't want man in heaven, so he confounded man, which led to man fighting man. God wins, man dies, oh well.

Questions asked here as to why God does this or does that is the expression of "what is the 'logic' behind this Gods actions' from a human logical perspective. I'll hypothesize that since Adam. Man kept veering away from his creator entity.

Why hypothesize about fictional characters if not to challenge the belief in fictional characters? That's why we do it, but you seem to by hypothesizing toward confirmation of the belief, and not a curiosity about what might be true outside of the religious story.

If you're really curious about what might possibly be true and not just trying to confirm something you don't want to question, try falsification. Fictional characters are easy to falsify, and at that point you are free to be curious about other possibilities.

 

[Learner]

So.... Your only example of evil is humanity, thus you conclude that evil requires physical, self-aware beings. Your sample set kind of skews your results.


Why are you veering off this way?

I'm asking about your belief that evil requires physical, self-aware beings.

I meant evil would manifest itself in the extremes of an over the top clinging to life self protection,self preservation,self interest,satisfying his or her own physical body.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The logic? It is written right into the story. God didn't want man in heaven, so he confounded man, which led to man fighting man. God wins, man dies, oh well.

Questions asked here as to why God does this or does that is the expression of "what is the 'logic' behind this Gods actions' from a human logical perspective. I'll hypothesize that since Adam. Man kept veering away from his creator entity.

And if you read the prehistoric narratives in Genesis, you'd know that isn't why these things happened the way they happened. If you want to invent your own holy book, go for it, but we are hear to discuss what the book actually says.

 

[Learner]

Why hypothesize about fictional characters if not to challenge the belief in fictional characters? That's why we do it, but you seem to by hypothesizing toward confirmation of the belief, and not a curiosity about what might be true outside of the religious story.

I just used the term 'hypothesize' in the discussion in relation to other posters who had their versions of the scriptures even if not serious. Hypothesizing is other than confirmation of these characters,(fictional or not to whoever).

If you're really curious about what might possibly be true and not just trying to confirm something you don't want to question, try falsification. Fictional characters are easy to falsify, and at that point you are free to be curious about other possibilities.

I don't know as much as other believers but I am always curious.

 

[Learner]

And if you read the prehistoric narratives in Genesis, you'd know that isn't why these things happened the way they happened. If you want to invent your own holy book, go for it, but we are hear to discuss what the book actually says.

I'm not inventing anything. But I will study more on this section and further discuss.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And if you read the prehistoric narratives in Genesis, you'd know that isn't why these things happened the way they happened. If you want to invent your own holy book, go for it, but we are hear to discuss what the book actually says.

I'm not inventing anything. But I will study more on this section and further discuss.

No you won't.

 

[abaddon]

It could just be a story of why great projects don’t work out for humans… they suck at coordinating their efforts for being prone to factionalism. If the tale takes on a punitive cast in the retellings over time, that’d be the input of a guilt-ridden people who figure whatever goes wrong has to be blamed on someone and the universe itself (the gods or God) is angry.

Isn't it rather accurately descriptive? Does it have to an historical event to be "true"? It seems silly to persons of our culture because the Hebrews anthropomorphized the causal factors. But if it’s a metaphor for what a bunch of screwballs that humans are then it's not wrong at all. It’s just taking it from teaching-tale status to sacred historical record that is absurd.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The story marvels how the people could build such tall structures from rock and mortar. This was marvel, as locally, they were stuck with bitumen. So the tower itself was being marveled by the storyteller and audience. Holy fuck! A tall stone structure?! Fucking awesome!

As with most stories, this one is trying to answer why something sucks and why it isn't necessarily god's fault because while Yahweh was one tough mutherfucker, usually when shit went down, he was punishing his people, not torturing them.

So why are there so many languages from one group of people? Tall tower, god freaks out, god overreacts, but it was man's fault because they wanted to become godly. The fuckers!

So my review of the story takes it down the road. The story opens saying mankind is kicking butt! So much so they are doing great things together, as one. I mean wasn't that the whole fucking point of Cain and Abel and putting the mark on Cain to prevent the other people (who didn't exist yet, but actually did... did JJ Abrams write that story?) from killing him too? Mankind was pushing forward and becoming great!

God shakes his head, says this has to stop. And ultimately divides man and we know this division is a major source of the warring between man. So the question posed is why isn't God held responsible here. The people who composed the story suggested that man was trying to become gods. So to stop them, he divides man. Seems a bit extreme and definitely leading to mankind being at each other's throats.

 

[abaddon]

Here’s a paraphrase of the tale:

Once upon a time everyone spoke the same language.
They travelled to the east and settled on a plain in Shinar (apparently that’s somewhere in Mesopotamia).
They planned together to use the materials at hand (bricks and bitumen) to construct a city with a tower in it that loomed into the heavens so they could unify and become a renowned people.
God saw that this signified they might do anything they please and wanted to limit their powers so he hampered their ability to make plans together to complete overly ambitious projects.
And thus there are tribes.

Now that I’ve re-read the tale I don’t see that this is a punishment, just a limitation. And I missed mention of this being the cause of wars. Seems to me it’s just a fable about how things came to be as they are: a world filled with tribes. As with creationists, “God did it” serves as the explanation. As a teaching-tale the moral lesson seems to be: "we're doing fine locally but if we get overambitious that tends to be followed by a collapse and chaos". And it’s not such a bad lesson. Humans are in fact rather fuck-ups when it comes to big projects (here’s a “Summary Of Global Problems And Crises”, all human-caused). The history of big civilizations is a history of falls. Taking our own to be destined for perpetual growth reminds me of the tale of the man who "flew" by jumping from a building and was heard to say (while falling past a 7th floor window): "So far so good!" Technophiles like to point at the devastating overshoot of the past century or two as the proof of our destiny to overcome all obstacles to every aspiration.

Our own culture’s myth (and YES, myth... it’s a narrative even if the images are stripped away to give a semblance of “objectivity”) about “more is better” isn't so axiomatic as it must seem to we fish in the fishbowl. Because there's a point where “more” turns into overshoot.

The ancients are vilified because we view ourselves we’re agents of progress (though we tend not to question if there’s such a thing as too much) and, by contrast for not valuing the way we value, we view ancients as stupid luddites (when the story tells they were aware that there can be such a thing as too much).

 

[DBT]

More specifically...'evil' stemming from self interest, decisions and action taken at the expense of others, ie, with insufficient empathy. Which an Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator should have no trouble correcting unless these attributes are deliberately included in human psychology. Which implies the Creator intended evil to emerge.

We agree on how evil can come about. I wonder about this correction of traits.Lets suppose without those potential traits. Would we for example have personalities like those ever submissive 'stepford wives?' (I know some wish their wives were)

Why would it? If God 'Himself' is said to be incapable of 'sin' or 'evil' does it mean that God Himself must necessarily have traits like the Stepford wives?

 

[Thomas II]

It could just be a story of why great projects don’t work out for humans… they suck at coordinating their efforts for being prone to factionalism. If the tale takes on a punitive cast in the retellings over time, that’d be the input of a guilt-ridden people who figure whatever goes wrong has to be blamed on someone and the universe itself (the gods or God) is angry.

Isn't it rather accurately descriptive? Does it have to an historical event to be "true"? It seems silly to persons of our culture because the Hebrews anthropomorphized the causal factors. But if it’s a metaphor for what a bunch of screwballs that humans are then it's not wrong at all. It’s just taking it from teaching-tale status to sacred historical record that is absurd.

Yep.