Ayn Rand

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

faith of Abraham, not faith in Abraham. The Jews believe in the convenant promises given to Abraham also apply to them, but they are all based in faith of God.

There's a difference between "of" and "in"? Unless someone witnessed Abraham's experience with God, we all would have to have faith in Abraham. Faith that he wasn't pulling our leg, faith he wasn't a loon, faith he told the truth.

Why does God ask these questions, if he knows the truth? God is testing Adam and Eve to see if they are truthful. Rather than admitting guilt, both Adam and Eve passed the buck.

So when God couldn't find Adam and Eve and had to call out, he was testing them? Where in those verses did you find evidence of this test? And why didn't God know the Serpent and his plan? Why did God have to test them when he supposedly knew they'd fail? Why didn't God know that telling a child to not look in a box (the forbidden fruit) would only motivate them to look in the box? And what did God say to his un-named colleagues after discovering what Adam and Eve had done? "Behold, the Adam has become like us, to know good and evil". The Adam's eyes had been opened and that was what the Serpent said would happen. When God was questioning Cain about Abel, did God know beforehand what Cain had done? No, God discovered what Cain did and was surprised (and angry).

God asks these questions, expecting Job to submit. He is laying out a case that should be obvious to Job.

Obiwan, God was bragging to the Serpent ("Satan"?) about Job and the Serpent challenged God. Who won the bet? The Serpent! Job did get angry with God and God responded with anger. You've only explained that God had to remind Job who runs the show, not that God knew Job would fail the test beforehand.

No, not I, but Christ. Christ says that these are the two greatest commandments and that the rest of the Law depends on these two.

Since I was not their to hear Jesus for myself, I have to rely on what you (and others) claim he said.

He wants to offer solutions to specific problems of the day, to make the right actions more clear, applications of the two general principles.

Does that mean this love for God doesn't make the right actions clear?

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

You may not surprise God, but you surprise me.

Who won the bet? The Serpent! Job did get angry with God and God responded with anger. You've only explained that God had to remind Job who runs the show, not that God knew Job would fail the test beforehand.

Job passed the test! He did not forsake God despite the temptations of Satan. That's the most important part of the book, that God won the bet with Satan.
Job complains, insisting that he does not deserve his punishement, but he does not forsake God.

You really need to re-read Job if you think Satan won.
The bet was this:

Job 1:11

"But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

There's a difference between "of" and "in"? Unless someone witnessed Abraham's experience with God, we all would have to have faith in Abraham. Faith that he wasn't pulling our leg, faith he wasn't a loon, faith he told the truth.

Now I see. Who wrote the Pentateuch? Jewish tradition ascribes this to Moses.

Therefore, this is not so much faith in Abraham, but faith in Moses to accurately record the testimony of Abraham.

The entire account did not portray Abraham in a purely positive light, so it has the ring of truth.

So when God couldn't find Adam and Eve and had to call out, he was testing them?

God sees them hiding, and then asks himself, why do they hide? He can see them anyways, something Adam and Eve should know. Therefore, he asks them so that they ask themselves, 'why am I hiding?'

And why didn't God know the Serpent and his plan?

Did I ever say God did not know? He knew, and chose to see how Adam and Eve would respond.

Why didn't God know that telling a child to not look in a box (the forbidden fruit) would only motivate them to look in the box?

This assumes Adam and Eve are like children. They may not know the difference between good and evil, but they still have their capacity to reason. God expects that when he commands them, that they will obey his commands.

And what did God say to his un-named colleagues after discovering what Adam and Eve had done? "Behold, the Adam has become like us, to know good and evil".

How is this surprising?

When God was questioning Cain about Abel, did God know beforehand what Cain had done? No, God discovered what Cain did and was surprised (and angry).

Angry, yes, but surprised? Hardly. He saw Cain slaughter his brother, even the blood of Abel shouted to God.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Job passed the test! He did not forsake God despite the temptations of Satan. That's the most important part of the book, that God won the bet with Satan.
Job complains, insisting that he does not deserve his punishement, but he does not forsake God.

The bet did not include temptations, only that Job would turn on God. He did, that's why God had to put him in his place. If Job passed the test, God would never have had to chastise him.

You really need to re-read Job if you think Satan won.
The bet was this:

"But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

God never showed his face to Job, and since what is in a man's heart matters, rebuking a God who won't appear face to face is no different than doing so in private or among friends. I suggest you read the last chapter of Job and explain why Job had to repent if he passed the test, your assertion makes no sense.

Now I see. Who wrote the Pentateuch? Jewish tradition ascribes this to Moses.

Therefore, this is not so much faith in Abraham, but faith in Moses to accurately record the testimony of Abraham.

The entire account did not portray Abraham in a purely positive light, so it has the ring of truth.

An historical account need not be flattering all the time to still contain falsehoods. Now, if God effectively dictated to Moses the history of the Jews up until that time, then maybe we can expect complete accuracy, but that still requires faith in Moses to be truthful and sane and faith in God to be the same.

God sees them hiding, and then asks himself, why do they hide? He can see them anyways, something Adam and Eve should know. Therefore, he asks them so that they ask themselves, 'why am I hiding?'

God saw them hiding? Which verse says that? And why would God need to ask himself why they are hiding? According to you, he already knows. Adam and Eve know why they are hiding, or they wouldn't have been hiding in the first place.

Did I ever say God did not know? He knew, and chose to see how Adam and Eve would respond.

But he supposedly already knew how they would respond. That's the point, if God is all-knowing, he knew they'd partake of the tree of knowledge, and therefore, God set them up to sin.

This assumes Adam and Eve are like children.

That's human nature. Tell someone, a child is the usual example, to not look in a box, and you plant the motivation to look. An all-knowing God should have known that.

How is this surprising?

Because that's exactly what the Serpent said would happen while God originally told Adam he would surely die the very day he "ate" from the tree. Don't you find it just a little curious that the Serpent predicted the outcome and that the all-knowing God either lied or was mistaken? And how did Jesus advise his disciples? To be gentle as the dove and wise as the serpent? The point being there is much more to this relationship between God and the Serpent than most Christians know. Understanding the Sumerian religion helps explain this relationship.

Angry, yes, but surprised? Hardly. He saw Cain slaughter his brother, even the blood of Abel shouted to God.

And he didn't stop Cain from committing murder? God had to ask Cain where his brother was and what he had done. It was only after questioning Cain that he figured out what happened. Furthermore, an all-knowing God would have known that by respecting Abel's offering and dis-respecting Cain's, he was setting up the enmity that resulted in the murder he should have known would occur.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Berzerker
My death does not constitute coercion on others.

You obviously are using a different definition of coercion than Ramo, who plainly said that dying of cancer is coercion. He indicates natural causes as being a cause of coercion, and you apparently do not. I like his definition better.

The phrasing of your statement indicates that your death is coercion on yourself. Which is the greater coercion, dying of cancer or paying a small tax on your drugs?

Taken to the extreme, your philosophy seems to indicate that it is morally wrong to confiscate one dollar from a citizen in order to buy medicine that saves the lives of ten people. Are you really saying that?

I know about the yacht example. I would consider it a good omen, considering that the whole purpose of a tax on drugs and alcohol is to decrease their consumption. If consumption decreases, society is helped. If it does not decrease, the governemnt raises a lot of money. The only potential problem is smuggling and black markets, which people will avoid if taxes are reasonable, since black market goods are dangerous and of lower quality than properly regulated goods.

[Berzerker]

RB -

You obviously are using a different definition of coercion than Ramo, who plainly said that dying of cancer is coercion. He indicates natural causes as being a cause of coercion, and you apparently do not. I like his definition better.

Hehe, so if I smoke tobacco, I'm coercing myself? Sorry, that's a bogus definition and one that would lead to totalitarianism in the name of freedom since we could no longer make our own decisions about how we live since "government" would now have the power to coerce us in the name of reducing coercion.
Consider the ramifications: hard booze, gambling, prostitution, drug use, tobacco use, over eating (fat people), under eating (skinny people), homosexual males, people who don't exercise enough, dangerous or stressful jobs, risky activities like rock climbing or contact sports, just to name a few, can all be banned by government to reduce "coercion". The irony of course is that the "solution" to all this alleged "coercion" we impose upon ourselves is that armed people will physically abduct us and put us in cages with violent people with money stolen from others all in the name of making our lives safer.

Here is the definition of "coerce":

coerce verb [T] FORMAL - to persuade someone forcefully to do something which they are unwilling to do: The court heard that the six defendants had been coerced into making a confession.

coercive adjective - using force to persuade people to do things which they are unwilling to do:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

As you can see, coercion is an act of force (or threat) by one person against another, not what a person does to themself. I don't skydive, am I coercing myself?

The phrasing of your statement indicates that your death is coercion on yourself. Which is the greater coercion, dying of cancer or paying a small tax on your drugs?

Even making the convenient and false assumption that drug use = dying of cancer, paying the tax is coercion.

Taken to the extreme, your philosophy seems to indicate that it is morally wrong to confiscate one dollar from a citizen in order to buy medicine that saves the lives of ten people. Are you really saying that?

Yup, stealing is stealing regardless of what the thief spends the money on.

I know about the yacht example. I would consider it a good omen, considering that the whole purpose of a tax on drugs and alcohol is to decrease their consumption. If consumption decreases, society is helped. If it does not decrease, the governemnt raises a lot of money. The only potential problem is smuggling and black markets, which people will avoid if taxes are reasonable, since black market goods are dangerous and of lower quality than properly regulated goods.

You've just explained why such taxes that seek to punish us for our freedom don't achieve the stated goals of making society better. Prohibitive taxes on high demand products do create black markets and the related crime. Take a look at the homicide rates over the last 30 years and compare them with the rates for the 20th century and you'll see just how disastrous drug wars really are. Btw, a prohibitive tax on drugs might reduce consumption by some people, but it will increase property crimes by others seeking the money to buy the more expensive drugs.

Check it out:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

Notice the homicide rates during the current drug war, alcohol prohibition, and the period in between?

[Ben Kenobi]

The bet did not include temptations,

But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has

Sounds like temptation to me.

If Job passed the test, God would never have had to chastise him.

God chastised Job?

Job 42:7

"After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

This says to me that God won the bet, and that Job has been entirely forgiven. Later all his losses are restored.

God never showed his face to Job, and since what is in a man's heart matters, rebuking a God who won't appear face to face is no different than doing so in private or among friends.

Indeed, but did Job rebuke God in his heart?
All we have for evidence is the things that Job says.
So does Job ever curse God in his words?

Job 3:1-4

After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. He said:

"May the day of my birth perish,
and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
That day-may it turn to darkness;
may God above not care about it;
may no light shine upon it."

This is as close as Job comes to rebuking God.

Job 2:9

"His wife said to him, 'Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!' "

Yet Job still refuses to curse God with his words, given a prime opportunity to do so.

Now, if God effectively dictated to Moses the history of the Jews up until that time, then maybe we can expect complete accuracy, but that still requires faith in Moses to be truthful and sane and faith in God to be the same.

Interestingly, if God dictated to Moses the history of the Jews, then that also requires faith in God. I'll drop this point because we are not really arguing for different things anymore.

God saw them hiding? Which verse says that? And why would God need to ask himself why they are hiding? According to you, he already knows. Adam and Eve know why they are hiding, or they wouldn't have been hiding in the first place.

Do they know why they are hiding? Not necessarily. Their testimony shows they do not understand that their actions are a symptom of the knowledge of good and evil.

God saw them hiding? If he can create the world, he can perceive everything inside of the world.

That's the point, if God is all-knowing, he knew they'd partake of the tree of knowledge, and therefore, God set them up to sin.

Off the dock, into deep waters again.

Predestination vs. Free will are all bundled up in this one question.

God is not responsible for the actions of man. If you believe that Adam and Eve do have consciences, then only then can they be held responsible.

Else, God cannot justly punish them for eating the fruit.

Did not God say, don't touch? They had a choice, to listen to the serpent or to listen to God. They chose to believe the serpent over God, and so God punished them.

Now for foreknowledge. If this is true, God knows all of our actions before we do them. Why does he not take away all the obstacles in front of us? For the same reason we have Free will at all. He would rather we make our own mistakes and grow.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has

Sounds like temptation to me.

Here is what you said:

Job passed the test! He did not forsake God despite the temptations of Satan.

Satan didn't tempt Job, he challenged God to withdraw his blessings to see how just Job really was. If you want to call that a temptation, then Satan successfully tempted God, not Job.

God chastised Job?

Yes, the last 2 or 3 pages of the Book of Job contain a lengthy diatribe from God explaining why Job should not have rebuked him.

This says to me that God won the bet, and that Job has been entirely forgiven. Later all his losses are restored.

Job did not start out rebuking God immediately, but as the tragedies kept piling up, Job did become disgusted with God. How do you interpret the tongue-lashing God gave Job near the end of the book?

Indeed, but did Job rebuke God in his heart?
All we have for evidence is the things that Job says.
So does Job ever curse God in his words?

Job 3:1-4

After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. He said:

"May the day of my birth perish,
and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
That day-may it turn to darkness;
may God above not care about it;
may no light shine upon it."

This is as close as Job comes to rebuking God.

Cursing the day he was born when God created him is quite a rebuke.

Do they know why they are hiding? Not necessarily. Their testimony shows they do not understand that their actions are a symptom of the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam said they were hiding because they knew they were "naked", where this knowledge came from is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

God saw them hiding? If he can create the world, he can perceive everything inside of the world.

Then God would not have to walk around looking for and calling out to Adam. Btw, God did not create the world, he "created" the dry land called "earth" by exposing it from underneath the waters. And he did not create the waters, he formed the "Seas" by setting up boundaries to contain the receding waters.

God is not responsible for the actions of man. If you believe that Adam and Eve do have consciences, then only then can they be held responsible.

I hold God responsible too. Only ignorance absolves God of responsibility in the Garden.

Else, God cannot justly punish them for eating the fruit.

God killed the first-born of Egypt because of a dispute between Moses and Pharaoh, so I don't expect just punishments from the biblical God.

Did not God say, don't touch? They had a choice, to listen to the serpent or to listen to God. They chose to believe the serpent over God, and so God punished them.

God said, don't touch or you will die that very day. They didn't die, their eyes were open, they became like God(s), to know good and evil. That was what the Serpent said would happen and that is what God said did happen. God didn't say he would punish them for touching the fruit...

Now for foreknowledge. If this is true, God knows all of our actions before we do them.

If God is all-knowing, true.

Why does he not take away all the obstacles in front of us? For the same reason we have Free will at all. He would rather we make our own mistakes and grow.

And yet there are passages in the Bible showing God in search of answers from humans. For example, Gen 18-20/21, God has heard accusations against the people of Sodom, and he tells Abraham that he will investigate to see if the accusations are valid. Why would an all-knowing God need to investigate?

[Ben Kenobi]

Satan didn't tempt Job, he challenged God to withdraw his blessings to see how just Job really was.

Not quite. God gave Job's body over to Satan, so that Satan could inflict painful sores on Job's body.

Yes, the last 2 or 3 pages of the Book of Job contain a lengthy diatribe from God explaining why Job should not have rebuked him.

Job 40:6-8

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"

These questions assume that Job has not yet spoken out against God. God is giving him an opportunity to reject his authority. He is challenging Job to decide. This is less of a diatribe, so much as a test.

Cursing the day he was born when God created him is quite a rebuke.

Job stops short of attributing his sufferings to God.

Adam said they were hiding because they knew they were "naked", where this knowledge came from is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

Adam did not stop to ask himself, 'how do I know I am naked?' Or the better question, why is nakedness sinful? He's been naked up until now, why does he now hide?

And he did not create the waters, he formed the "Seas" by setting up boundaries to contain the receding waters.

Condensing your argument here. One clause, depending on your interpretation makes all of the difference.

Gen 1:2

"Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

What does 'formless and empty' mean? The idea is of chaos, disorder, conveyed in the Hebrew. The KJV might render this better as the Earth was formless and void.

Therefore, it makes sense to say that God created the Earth, at least according to Scripture.

I hold God responsible too. Only ignorance absolves God of responsibility in the Garden.

It's either/or Berzerker. Either God is responsible or man responsible, since God is all-knowing, ignorance cannot be a defence.

God killed the first-born of Egypt because of a dispute between Moses and Pharaoh, so I don't expect just punishments from the biblical God.

Pharoah refused to release the Israelites from bondage so that they might worship God. God gave Pharoah numerous opportunities to recant, including a demonstration of his power by enabling Moses to work miracles. God, through Moses, also warned Pharoah of the consequences if Pharoah refused to release the Israelites. Still, Pharoah persisted, and God punished Pharoah so that he might release Israel.

God said, don't touch or you will die that very day.

Gen 2:16-17

"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

There are several ways to interpret this.

1. That the death is not a physical death, but a seperation from God, a spiritual death.

2. It is not clear from the passage when the death will occur. Immediately after? From this uncertainty, it seems reasonable to conclude that it could apply to the death Adam experienced later, that might not have come had he not eaten the fruit.

For example, Gen 18-20/21, God has heard accusations against the people of Sodom, and he tells Abraham that he will investigate to see if the accusations are valid. Why would an all-knowing God need to investigate?

The key point is in your word, 'need.' Now we do not see this in the passage. Did God need to come down and investigate? No. Why did he choose to do so? There are several suggestions. Perhaps it would be more effective, to convince the people of Sodom of the need to repent, if God investigates in this manner.