Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Bob The Mercenary]

Just wanted to add my two cents to the Council of Nicea topic brought up a couple pages ago (can't find it).

There are two real reasons why we accept the Bible being put together how it's put together. Since we acknowledge it as the inspired word of God, we assume he allowed the council to happen, put the right people there at the right time, and had them put the book together as he saw fit. But in addition to that, the Bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a course of 1500 years. And yet none of the teachings or prophecies in any of the books (taken in context) contradict each other.

Also, POST 3000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1!!OMG!LOL!!111oneel eventyone!!!!x->0sin(x)

[TheSpacePope]

And yet none of the teachings or prophecies in any of the books (taken in context) contradict each other.

Well, honestly, Leviticus kind of takes the whole ideals of the bible and turns them upside down.
As for them not contradicting themselves, well, honestly some parts do, frankly. And Bob, come on man, when in history has the powers that be not tried to manipulate the populace into their own rational.
If god allowed the council of nicea, then he allowed the crusades, and the inquisition, all the way back to the apple.

Oh and Neyo, the apple is referring to sex. The tree of knowledge, was carnal knowledge. It really goes back to the fact that men, in that time, were disdainful of women. They had no sense of modesty before, no children before, so if you take it as allegory, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by genesis

003:001 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,
hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

003:002 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
of the trees of the garden:

003:003 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall
ye touch it, lest ye die.

003:004 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

003:005 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil.

003:006 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and
that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and
gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

003:007 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made
themselves aprons.

003:008 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden
in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves
from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the
garden.

003:009 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where
art thou?

003:010 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

003:011 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou
eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldest not eat?

003:012 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

003:013 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou
hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I
did eat.

003:014 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast
of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt
thou eat all the days of thy life:

003:015 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise his heel.

003:016 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee.

003:017 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is
the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all
the days of thy life;

003:018 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and
thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

003:019 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for
dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

As far as the splitting of the toungs in concerned, in the bible, it actually says that the 'Gods" were displeased and the "Hebrew God and all others come down to crush the tower and split the toungs. The "Hebrew" god then said that no endeavor of man shall ever be stopped by the Gods.
So not only did they divide us, there is a direct reference to Polytheism in the bible

Originally Posted by some history of the tower of babel

In this classic story from the Old Testament of the Bible, the people of the Earth were building a colossal staged temple-tower or multi-storeyed ziggurat - that would reach heaven. But did they really believe they could reach their Gods? Most likely the tower would be used as a place of worship.

Actually, the purpose of the tower was to provide a common religious center as a rallying point, lest the people be scattered. The builders of the tower were in open defiance of God's command (Genesis 9:1) (53).

In the ninth chapter of Genesis, God commands Noah and his sons to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (9:1 NAS). On the fifth day of the creation of the Earth, God gave this command to the birds and fishes (Gen. 1:20-23). On the sixth day, God reiterated this command to the pinnacles of creation, man and woman (Gen. 1:26-28). Humanity was to subjugate the untamed Earth by dispersing themselves.

The builders in Shinar banded together for a common ecumenical purpose. Genesis 11:6 suggests that this assembly would have given rise to projects of a purely secular nature. The people did not consider that their misguided enthusiasm may have been just a bit shortsighted. Considering the benevolent, omniscient knowledge of God it appears that the long-term consequences of the Tower of Babel might have resulted in a plight similar to the apostate state of humanity (Gen. 6:1-5) prior to the sanctifying flood of the entire Earth (Gen. 6:6-24).

Genesis 9:18-19 and the entire tenth chapter of Genesis contain the Table of the Nations. All of the people alive at the time of Babel were descended solely from the three sons of Noah. Consequently, Shem, Ham and Japheth are the fathers of modern civilization. Hayes remarks that Genesis 10 is specifically written to demonstrate that all humanity descended from these three men (146). As Noah was a virtuous man in the eyes of God (Gen. 6:8-9), it is reasonable to presume that the commandments of God were passed on to his sons.

Genesis chapter 10, verses 5, 20 and 32 also suggest that the land of the Earth was physically divided at this time in response to Babel. Genesis specifies: ". . . the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided . . ." (10:25). Willmington comments that "Peleg" means "division" (53). The coastal outlines of the Earth's continents suggest the likely prior unification of the various land masses. The terra firma can be viewed as a once-unified puzzle now separated into its various fragments.

It is important to note that although chapter 10 precedes the account of Babel in chapter 11, the events described in both chapters are not rendered in a chronologically consecutive fashion. Accordingly, it must be understood that the tenth chapter of Genesis details events prior, during and after those described in chapter 11. Chapter 12 of Genesis portrays the beginning of God's redemptive plan commencing with the call of Abram.

Despite the bleak future of Babel, God had promised Himself never to destroy the Earth with a flood again due to the disobedience of mankind (Gen. 8:20-22). God also made a covenant with Noah, his descendents and "every living creature," that He would never again destroy the Earth with a flood. Genesis 9:8-17 affirms that the rainbow serves as a personal reminder to God of His covenant.

Accordingly, God separated the people to different lands and languages to frustrate their self-destructive plans. Determined to stay faithful to His covenant, this was God's only merciful alternative in response to the tower. If the people were punished, it was a light affliction administered. The reproof was quite mild compared to the prior worldwide flood (Gen. 7:21-23). Similarly, the rebuke of God at Babel hardly parallels the subsequent fiery obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-30).

Although at a casual glance this rebellion appears benign, it has been demonstrated that this autonomous or self-governing spirit would likely prove to be self-destructive. Willmington points out that the first person plural pronouns "us" and "we" occur no less than 5 times in this King James Version rendering of one sentence:

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth (Gen. 11:4) (50).

Nowhere in the entire passage referring to the Tower of Babel is there found the slightest indication that the builders considered God's will in their plans. The Bible goes to great lengths to confirm God's disdain for society's self-ruling ecumenical pursuits. The Psalmist writes of God's intervention into the affairs of humanity:

The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (Psalm 33:10 NAS).

Archaeologists have long desired to locate the Tower of Babel. They have been unfruitful in their efforts. There may be Scriptural evidence for why the ruins have not been found. The land of Shinar is shown in Zechariah 5:11 as a site for the city of Babylon. The ancient city of Babylon was located some 80 kilometers south of modern-day Baghdad, Iraq (Douglas 111). The Bible confirms that Babel and Babylon were both located in Shinar. Of the history of the Tower of Babel, Hayes states:

This episode (Gen. 11:1-9) was included . . . as the capstone of . . . primeval history. . . . The original story was . . . to explain the existence of multiple language groups with its play on the words Babel (Babylon) and babal ("confuse") (146).

Babylon is an apostate city frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. From 2nd Kings 17:24 through Zechariah 6:10 there are at least 257 direct references to Babylon (Strong's 94-95). Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines ancient Babylon as: ". . . a city devoted to materialism and the pursuit of sensual pleasure" (122). In the 18th chapter of the Book of Revelation, Babylon epitomizes mankind's final organized rebellion against the sovereignty of God and is utterly destroyed. This parallels the destruction of ancient Babylon, overthrown pursuant to the prophecy of the 13th chapter of Isaiah.

Babel's founder was Nimrod the Hunter (Gen. 10:8-12), who also was a "king of Shinar" (Webster's 798). Nimrod was a ruthless conqueror of the ancient day with ambitious political aspirations (Willmington 53). Willmington states: "Nimrod's name means 'let us revolt'" (53). Genesis 10:9-12 shows that Babel was the first of many cities that Nimrod established.

The Assyrian capital of Nineveh is enumerated (Gen. 10:11) as one of the many cities built by Nimrod. The prophecy of the Book of Jonah records God's solemn warning to the city to repent of its evil ways. God sent the reluctant prophet Jonah to deliver the admonition. Nineveh immediately repented. However, the prophecy of the Book of Nahum declares that God's judgment would fall on the subsequently backsliding and unrepentant Nineveh and that they would be pillaged by the Babylonians, Scythians and the Medes.

In Genesis 11:5-7 an exceptionally rare and uncommon event occurred. God personally visited the Tower of Babel to see what was going on. Later, God paid a visit to the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ascertain the degree of depravity of their inhabitants. These cities were completely disintegrated by a fiery earthquake metaphorically referred to as a "furnace" (Gen. 19:24-29).

The Tower of Babel is extremely significant to the epic of the Bible. The story is much more than God indiscriminately interrupting an insignificant building project. The Tower of Babel marks the origins of the nations of the Earth.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

The Tower of Babal. We all know the story.

The Tower of Babel was destroyed because the tower was either a monument to or realization of the purpose of the city around it (I don't remember now): which was to be a home and beacon for all men to gather.

God had decreed, at some point, somewhere, that men were to spread the world over, yadda yadda yadda. So, clearly, this doodad wouldn't fly in Godtown. Population: Me

Therefore, for violating the decree of God or whosiwhatsit, he stomped on their toys and told them to go stand in the corner (s of the earth). And so that they wouldn't talk and joke with their friends in time out... er... I mean, gather in one place on the earth so easily, God fiddled with their talkymabobs.

That's the story. It's still kinda'... off, but at least it's off about the correct things, rather than a whole new set of made-up things, which are more derived from the principles of Greek Tragedy than Biblical Morality.

[And The Space Pope came in with this before I did. It takes me too long to write this crap...]

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Sorry, but I seem to remember something in the Bible, right after Eve had eaten the fruit, about her eyes "being opened," and her realizing stuff, like the fact that she was naked. After Adam eated it, they were both utterly confused as to this whole "knowing" bit, so they went to Big Daddy for help, only to realize that "knowledge" is bad, and ban-worthy.

I've always considered it the world's oldest (not actually the world's oldest, but it sounds better this way) allegory for "ignorance is bliss". One that still gets thrown around. Once you begin to realize shit... and... like... think 'n' stuff, well you can't be happy all the time.

Besides that, the whole thing never seemed, to me, to... I don't know, fit properly with the rest of Biblical works. It has all the earmarks of classical creation myths the world over. Being made of clay accounts for everything from Native American to early Greek. It contains a paradise area (which is suspiciously lacking in Greek, but not in most animistic versions) and an explanation for why things are as hard as they are, via some manner of terrible Aesop. And let's not forget the talking animal and superfluous explanation for why that animal behaves as it does.

Not to mention conspicuous explanation for what and why "the sun" separately from "light". Most Creation Narratives (occasionally just separate traditional narratives, admittedly, but they addend the creation of something that might well have simply been in the original narrative) take it upon themselves to explain the sun separately from the creation of everything else. Occasionally, it's made as its own, separate pre-creation being: typically a God. More often it's the result of some action, like theft of fire or guardian of easterly lands or what have you. I have no idea what this means, but there it is.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

They were only doing as they were told. Adam was told to name all the animals. So he did. They were both told not to eat the fruit. So they didn't. Then, Eve was told to eat the fruit, so she did. Then she told Adam to eat the fruit, so he did. They didn't think, they only acted on what they were told.

This is actually something I'd not noticed, myself. I'll have to think on it.

It's actually, there, starting to look like Adam and Eve got the good side of that deal, if that's their alternative.

Of course, I already felt that way, so who knows?

Still, I've often wondered about the assumption that God didn't want people to think... then why did he even put the Knowledgefruit in there anyway? Of course, my mind just goes back to the allegory thing, so it doesn't have to make sense.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

It took an act from the Devil to give us this power. The power to question. To reason. To learn. God never wanted that.

While this has little point, my experience and interpretations of Genesis are rooted in the Judaic. Which is to say, while mainstream Christian thought connects the serpent with Satan, in the Judaic (at least, as of Job), Satan was simply a member in God's court doing as was his to do. Not, even by that point in time, a rebel: though I do not think it is popular in Judaic characterizations to consider him as ever a true rebel.

In any case, there, the serpent is just a serpent, as I've heard. Not Satan, just a talking snake.

However, it's also possible to consider that it was an act of Satan, but since Satan cannot act against, or even independently, of God's will, it was something God wanted done.

I think the Satan-in-God's-court model can also be folded into Christianity to produce a new kind of idea: God was perfectly willing to allow Man to think... it was just not the kind of thing that was going to make us happy, and therefore, Satan would propose it. Knowledge won out, and here we are.

Originally Posted by Neyo the King

Linkz to this guy please. Until I read what he said, this also sounds alot like the Classic Chiristan Cop-out.

Well, I forget who tried to illustrate this before, and have never seen it in-depth, but it was just a formulation of a fairly simple logical construct.

I know of this construct because it appears in the early formulation of the Philosophy of Science. Or, to be more accurate, Scientific Metaphysics.

Scientific Metaphysics assumes the universe is logical because it seeks to examine the universe with logic. It assumes the universe is logical because, if the universe is illogical, there'd be no way to tell. Science would be required to approach it by applying logic to the functioning of the universe, and there would be no way to tell what you get. It could, in fact, appear logical from any standpoint, and then just change because it felt like it.

It could (as much as this is somewhat like attributing a mind to the universe, and this is not my point) simply prevent you from obtaining a clear, or even true understanding of how the universe functions, because you are governed by its nonsensical laws.

It also plays into the principles of experimental symmetry: which is that, we assume that physical processes work the same at point A as they do at point B. The same for times A and B. This is, in part, because we haven't seen any (recent enough to matter) indication that anything else is true.

But, if it were true, and the laws of physics could change depending on where in space you are, there'd be no, legitimate way to tell if the laws of physics are the same everywhere... or just kinda' the same. And testing the different areas may not be able to yield insight, because we don't know how vastly different laws will affect our ability to test, or our results when we test.

To be, perhaps less obtuse, if:

A. We are governed by the laws of the universe, and

B. The laws of the universe make no friggin' sense, then:

C. There's no way to tell what we'll see or how we'll interpret it.

There is, actually, another model of perception-proof universe that I like to, affectionately call, Rational Universe: One Inch to the Left (after a That 70s Show episode). Which is to say: that universe is rational, but anything your tests and logics don't produce "the universe", but actually an ostensibly identical version "one inch to the left". Effectively, all your science works, but gives you insight only into an odd construct of the base-universe's laws, rather than how the actual universe works.

I call it "rational" because it could still very well make sense, and science itself would still work... it just wouldn't actually give insight into the real universe's causes and workings.

And these universes may seem contrived, to you, but that's only because of social conditioning. There's no reason to think a rational universe is more likely than any of these. There's no reason to think we live in a rational universe instead of either one of these. Rational universe is not the default, but it is our assumption. It's our assumption for the same reason that Rational Man is the Economist's assumption: it's useless to even bother with anything else.

And God damn it we feel like bothering!

[Fifthfiend]

I've always considered it the world's oldest (not actually the world's oldest, but it sounds better this way) allegory for "ignorance is bliss". One that still gets thrown around. Once you begin to realize shit... and... like... think 'n' stuff, well you can't be happy all the time.

I always thought the whole Eden story would have worked a lot better if it weren't just God freaking out and pitching a fit at them. Like maybe they got all intelligentsed and shit, and all of a sudden being naked and surrounded by all these animals freaked the fuck out of them and they bolted and lived in dirt-country cause they were all a'skeered of the talking snakes and such. Or like, they got their brains going and all of a sudden they discover fire and burn the garden down and God's like see you silly fuckers, don't look at me to make you a new one I am fresh out of paradises go plant and grow your fucking dinner you ingrates.

Just the whole God going "Hosnaps, I can't have these fuckers doin' all their thinking and like, cogitating and shit all over my nice pretty garden" and kicking everyone out, that kind of struck me as... I dunno.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I always thought the whole Eden story would have worked a lot better if it weren't just God freaking out and pitching a fit at them. Like maybe they got all intelligentsed and shit, and all of a sudden being naked and surrounded by all these animals freaked the fuck out of them and they bolted and lived in dirt-country cause they were all a'skeered of the talking snakes and such. Or like, they got their brains going and all of a sudden they discover fire and burn the garden down and God's like see you silly fuckers, don't look at me to make you a new one I am fresh out of paradises go plant and grow your fucking dinner you ingrates.

Just the whole God going "Hosnaps, I can't have these fuckers doin' all their thinking and like, cogitating and shit all over my nice pretty garden" and kicking everyone out, that kind of struck me as... I dunno.

While I see your point, I've always considered it like God is the personification of natural forces. To backtrack a bit, spiritual narratives, and most old stories in this area, take what modern stories would mark as the normal flow of events and realizations, and attribute them to something. The personification of 'nature' -- so much as the personification of the natural flow of things -- comes out and puts a human face on what could very well stand to be just, like... a timeline of happenings an' whatnot.

So, instead of all the events happening, as they would in modern narratives, God comes down and bitches at you. And while it may seem like a giant father-figure coming down and spanking you for breaking your own toys that he has no vested interest in, what it actually is, is nature taking it's course.

And what does nature do? It bitchslaps you.

For no reason!

And, to this extent, I feel it works.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well Neyo asked for a link (but it's early so I'll take the easy option!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel.
Our claims about the nature of God fit into mainstream maths and physics. It's not addressed often because it's not all that useful to discuss ( like post-structuralism in the arts) but its always there and looming. It far from a christain copout.
Surely you are making the copout, by instead of trying to understand God's nature (if that's possible) you are just assuming He acts and thinks solely like a human?

As for things about Eve's eyes being open etc, as those above have stated, it mostly about carnal knowledge etc not about the ability to actually think. Before they eat the apple Adam and Eve can talk and can function so at least have some measure of thinking ability.

As for the god going apeshit, well I'm mostly a latidunarian so my ideas are far from mainstream ( I'm not too sure how others interpret this) but I've always seen ideas of God's emotions and actions pictured in ways we can understand, which may be accurate or may not.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

Surely you are making the copout, by instead of trying to understand God's nature (if that's possible) you are just assuming He acts and thinks solely like a human?

The behavioral patterns of God are consistently described in the bible in terms of anthropomorphic emotions (God is angry, God is sad, God is jealous), and despite his non-physical existence he supposedly made humankind in his own image, but you say that he doesn't act like a human?

He acts like a human, sometimes like a jealous lover or sometimes like a fascist dictator or sometimes like an irrational mindless hateful destroyer. He says to love your neighbor as yourself and then gives countless commandments of hate and loathing.

But in addition to that, the Bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a course of 1500 years. And yet none of the teachings or prophecies in any of the books (taken in context) contradict each other.

Bullshit. I could point out several minor inconsistencies or several patterned inconsistencies, but I'm just going to point out this webpage

[Archbio]

which may be accurate or may not

This is why in this context your argument was a cop out.

Why are you making claims, if no claims can be reliably made? I mean there's no rational reason why this collection of ancient texts should be considered reliable accounts of their supposed subjects to begin with, but if you're going to start on the assumption that there is, you might not want to throw out all of the parts where it actually describes the psychology of its main character. It sorts of calls attention to the problem of how the narrator is aware of an alien, supernatural intelligence. If the narrator is unreliably reporting why Babel was scrambled, why couldn't they unreliably report what did the scrambling? The emotional state of the deity is as confidently stated as its identity. And so on.

Not that I prefer for the religious to be all literalists.

[neyo the king]

Originally Posted by KP

I call it "rational" because it could still very well make sense, and science itself would still work... it just wouldn't actually give insight into the real universe's causes and workings.

Alright, I think I see...

It's like, visiting a town where every other day the citizens' toes are smashed with a board, and being all like, "What the deuce?", and having the townspeople all confused that you're confused about it, because it's normalcy to them.

Or something.

The Tower of Babel was destroyed because the tower was either a monument to or realization of the purpose of the city around it (I don't remember now): which was to be a home and beacon for all men to gather.

God had decreed, at some point, somewhere, that men were to spread the world over, yadda yadda yadda. So, clearly, this doodad wouldn't fly in Godtown.

Therefore, for violating the decree of God or whosiwhatsit, he stomped on their toys and told them to go stand in the corner (s of the earth). And so that they wouldn't talk and joke with their friends in time out... er... I mean, gather in one place on the earth so easily, God fiddled with their talkymabobs.

That's the story. It's still kinda'... off, but at least it's off about the correct things, rather than a whole new set of made-up things, which are more derived from the principles of Greek Tragedy than Biblical Morality.

[And The Space Pope came in with this before I did. It takes me too long to write this crap...]

Alright, so now we all know the story. If my story was inaccurate, that's only because that's how I was taught it in church.

I've always considered it the world's oldest (not actually the world's oldest, but it sounds better this way) allegory for "ignorance is bliss". One that still gets thrown around. Once you begin to realize shit... and... like... think 'n' stuff, well you can't be happy all the time.

Makes... sense? God didn't want us to know things, because knowing things meant not being always happy? But... then... why even bother with all this? God only wants us to be happy? Then why let all that "original sin" stuff happen. He could have just, you know, not put the tree into the garden, within man's reach...

While this has little point, my experience and interpretations of Genesis are rooted in the Judaic. Which is to say, while mainstream Christian thought connects the serpent with Satan, in the Judaic (at least, as of Job), Satan was simply a member in God's court doing as was his to do. Not, even by that point in time, a rebel: though I do not think it is popular in Judaic characterizations to consider him as ever a true rebel.

In any case, there, the serpent is just a serpent, as I've heard. Not Satan, just a talking snake.

However, it's also possible to consider that it was an act of Satan, but since Satan cannot act against, or even independently, of God's will, it was something God wanted done.

I think the Satan-in-God's-court model can also be folded into Christianity to produce a new kind of idea: God was perfectly willing to allow Man to think... it was just not the kind of thing that was going to make us happy, and therefore, Satan would propose it. Knowledge won out, and here we are.

You see, my version, the serpent being the Devil and all that, was just what I was taught in church. Also, if God was willing to let us think, why didn't he give it to us in the first place, instead of pussy-footing around with all this tree nonsense?

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

Surely you are making the copout, by instead of trying to understand God's nature (if that's possible) you are just assuming He acts and thinks solely like a human?

Well, sorry, but, you know, being not a god and all that severely limits the ways that I can imagine things. I assure you, I make no cop-outs. I merely try to understand things to the best of my abilities, whereas the Classic Christian Cop-out's sole purpose is to avoid confrontation and debate.
Also, I fully realize that it's entirely possible that God is beyond act and thinking human. It's just that, this gets into the realm of "mysterious ways", and I, for one, do not believe that to be a convincing argument. The problem is that, it can be applied to so many contexts...

"Wow! I won the lottery... twice! That God sure is mysterious and stuff!"
"My whole family died tragically in a horrible aardvark attack! But it's ok, because God planned it! And God works in mysterious ways." <- It's about this point that I have to get the kill-stick out.

By the way, I really hope that that last example just grated at your thinky bits. Here's a person who lost everyone they loved, but, yo, is cool, cause, like, the Big Man thinks it's best, ya know?

As for things about Eve's eyes being open etc, as those above have stated, it mostly about carnal knowledge etc not about the ability to actually think. Before they eat the apple Adam and Eve can talk and can function so at least have some measure of thinking ability.

Ah, but! It was said numerous times that eating of the fruit would "make them as God." So, either the tree was of knowledge, which would mean that God could think, or it was of sex, which would mean that God is big pimpin'. But, then who would God have sex with? Would God have sex? No? Then why have a tree of sex fruit?

As for the god going apeshit, well I'm mostly a latidunarian so my ideas are far from mainstream ( I'm not too sure how others interpret this) but I've always seen ideas of God's emotions and actions pictured in ways we can understand, which may be accurate or may not.

Emotions? Is that a human trait? Are you now saying that God acts and feels like a human?

Hypocrite.

The point is, God's an emotionless bastard that wanted us to obediently follow his every command, even though what he really wanted was for us to think for ourselves, but he couldn't just give us the power for whatever reason, so he made it look like it was some big ol' accident.

Or, you know, it could mean that the story is false, and God doesn't exist.

But, you know, what do I know?

EDIT Ninja'd twice. I wanted to say this:

Originally Posted by Serenity

He acts like a human, sometimes like a jealous lover or sometimes like a fascist dictator or sometimes like an irrational mindless hateful destroyer. He says to love your neighbor as yourself and then gives countless commandments of hate and loathing.

I love you. Have my babies.

And:

Originally Posted by Archbio

This is why in this context your argument was a cop out.

Why are you making claims, if no claims can be reliably made? I guess this would get the same answer as the simple question "how do you know all this?" Faith. Not exactly a pertinent topic of discussion.

We can make it a threesome!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Ah sorry. I didn't mean to portray that God has emotions but that he is represented as having emotions.
I'm been trying to avoid using post-structucal terms but I think I shall have to.
God is signified as an emotive being because this is the way our discourse is structured. Anything outside that discourse is fundamentally nonsensicle to us and can't be concieved, let alone written.
It doesn't matter who wrote the text as authorship is limited by the signifiers (and thier signified) that exist within the discourse of the reader, thus making it actually impossible to reconstruct the original nature or the purpose of the text or its author. The best we can hope for is to deconstruct the text and hope to seperate the signifiers from the signified and attempt some measure of discourse analysis but this can never work fully.
Thus our answer can never be beyond where we started.
A cop-out? This is a fundamental principle of history.
Quantum uncertainity is a fundamental principle of physics and chemisty, showing that we can never know the full answer.
It is a principle that arrives from dealing with systems and if you deny it then your claims have no basis.

So why do I make any claims at all? A very valid question.
Because while we can't be certain we can be attempt to be at least reasonably accurate. While I can't be sure that the witchcraft trials of the 17th century operated under the antithesis of protomodern discourses with premodern discourses it is useful for analysis and seems reasonable accurate.
While I can't be certain my potential energy maps for my chemical systems are accurate I can be sure I'm reasonably close.
So we can reasonably close to answers without being entirely accurate.
This breaks down, however, when we deal with metasystems as the entirety of our thought is within a system/range of discourses and if we try to extend it outside that then we are thinking about things in a non-sensicle way. It's like applying the laws of our universe to a different universe where they may or may not apply.
How then do I get to the existence of God? Well I don't. It's not something that can or cannot be argued and I can't prove it, just like you can't disprove it.
What I have a problem with, however, is those who are trying to apply rationality to him when rationality is merely a way that humans think and structure our thought and there is no basis for assuming that God acts in rational ways.