Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

If God created our universe, why does he object to our knowledge of it?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 337 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 7 May 2013 01:40:03 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 7 May 2013 02:00:13 BDT
S Cook says:
What if man is an abandoned technology? Would explain a lot. Maybe GOD is an acronym.

Posted on 8 May 2013 18:17:31 BDT
By what incredible misunderstanding have you got into your head the idea that God objects to our knowledge of the universe? Have you heard of the Vatican observatory.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 18:25:49 BDT
Well he certainly didn't want us to know about good and evil.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 18:27:01 BDT
Does God object to our knowledge of it?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 18:37:23 BDT
Bellatori says:
Have you heard of Galileo?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 20:58:25 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 20:59:02 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2013 11:51:24 BDT
It is not.

Since we all know something about the universe (i.e. we live in it) your implication is all are sinful and the only way to stop being sinful is to stop thinking about the universe, which is to stay to stop thinking.

Given that God gave us brains, the sinful thing is to stop thinking, which is what you appear to be doing, perhaps out of desparation to start another meaningless discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2013 23:21:25 BDT
Spin says:
WD: Indeed. The Old Testament leads us to conclude that everyone, including the prophets, are inherently and irrevocably sinful. Original sin is "original" not only in the sense of being the "first sin" but in the sense of being a constant, inherent sin. But the sin is not "thought", it is the awareness that one knows nothing; knowledge of ones lack of knowledge. Thus, to get rid of original sin, one must remain ignorant of all things, including ones own mind and body. This argument is, of course, only of worth if one actually believes in the stories of the bible and in the existence of "original sin".

Posted on 9 May 2013 23:31:56 BDT
kraka says:
Spin that's an original spin on sin? LOL :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 06:16:17 BDT
Heretic says:
Since the procreation itself cannot be the 'original sin' there is a small body of opinion that believes that Adam and Eve's problem was not what they did 'the sexual act' but when they did it (while they were not yet ready in Gods eyes) . This is based on Gen 1: 28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful , and multiply , and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " . The distinction being the first two blessings of Be fruitful and multiply, The being fruitful being to become complete and the multiply being the sexual act.

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 10:41:24 BDT
Not indeed, the Old Testament leads YOU to conclude that everyone is inherently and irrevocably sinful. I suspect that most other people studying the Old Testament would not come to the same conclusion.

I don't know where you get the idea that sin is a lack of knowledge, but it is not from the Old Testament either.

In essence you seem to be reading a completely different Old Testament from everyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 10:44:42 BDT
Spin says:
Kraka: No, its not an "original" argument. It is a question found in any philosophy or theosophy text and familiar mostly to those actively engaged in biblical studies. The question of "Original sin" is but one concept that raises serious difficulties for theologians. Unfortunately not all Abrahamic monotheists are theologians, so they do not realise the consequences to their belief by accepting standard church doctrine.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 10:48:46 BDT
Bellatori says:
"so they do not realise the consequences to their belief by accepting standard church doctrine. "

That is true of a whole host of issues. If it were a requirement that thought was necessary then organised religion would not survive (note I said religion and not spirituality). I find it amazing how apparently intelligent people can turn off all higher brain functions where organised religion is concerned. I find Scientology particularly fascinating in that respect.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 10:50:32 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 11:01:09 BDT
Spin says:
Heretic; "Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked..." (Genesis 3;7). This means they became "aware", "conscious of...", "sentient", "knowledgeable" etc. The sin occurred the moment they became aware of themselves and their environment, not before.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 11:07:14 BDT
Spin says:
Bellatori: Indeed. There is a host of doctrines that, once examined in the light of reason, either make no sense or contradict church doctrine. An Abrahamic monotheists "Faith" is so full of oddities, anomalies, contradictions, and nonsensical conclusions it makes me wonder why intelligent folk subscribe to it as an intellectual and practical lifestyle. I think it is the promise of deity, rather than the reality of theistic belief, that lures people to Abrahamic monotheism; they fit the texts around their belief in God. If a text does not fit they either ignore it or radically misinterpret it.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 11:37:36 BDT
I think you may be misreading the whole thing. Adam and Eve weren't ignorant of everything - they were ignorant of the concepts of good and evil and it is that knowledge they attained when they first sinned.

The concept of Original Sin as people today understand it (apart from you since you seem to have misunderstood it) dates back to Augustine's interepretation of the Genesis record and as I recall he did not conisder it to be true anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 11:52:37 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 12:02:08 BDT
Pendragon says:
Spin

afaik Wayne is quite right in what he says.

You say: "The argument can be found in any basic theology, theosophy or philosophy text".
Please provide the title to one of these texts.

If you can.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 12:08:37 BDT
I don't agree. Firstly Adam & Eve not being fully aware of all things around them does not make them ignorant. Indeed the text implies that they named things (Adam names all the animals) which implies a level of knowledge.

Knowledge of good and evil is about morality and A&E were innocent not knowing good from evil until after the fall. I think you place too much emphasis on the opening of eyes being a separate event from knowledge of good and evil, however the context makes them linked to the causal event ie. they ate the fruit leads to a new awareness leads to knowledge of good and evil. PS If God lied to A&E, telling them they would die and they did not, then they would still be alive today. They are not alive today, ergo God did not lie).

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 12:12:25 BDT
Pendragon says:
Wayne - your PS may just have proved the existence of God; to Spin at least.
:)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 12:12:34 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
"PS If God lied to A&E, telling them they would die and they did not, then they would still be alive today. They are not alive today, ergo God did not lie). "

Er, no. The story of Adam and Eve is invented - it is made up, they never really existed. They are not alive today because they were never alive in the first place.

Let us know when you move on from the infants' school, Wayne.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 12:17:47 BDT
Spin says:
Pen: I thought Wiki was the source of information for all you atheists? You are on an Amazon site; type in the words theology, philosophy of religion, theosophy, biblical hermeneutics, Christology, eschatology etc and you will get pages of various texts by various authors. I suggest, for atheist beginners, E. Pagels, "Adam, Eve and the Serpent", NP Williams, "The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin", John Hicks "Evil and the God of Love", Madden & Hares "Evil and the concept of God", Alvin Platagina, "God, Freedom and Evil". These works provide extensive bibliographies.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  337
Initial post:  7 May 2013
Latest post:  29 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions