As my Lord said, "Let him WITHOUT sin cast the first stone."
Resorting to questionable verses, aren't you?
Confessing of sins
by Terry 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Terry
I personally believe we seek what we lack.
Starting with the first humans.
Adam would not seek another garden; he already had one. He sought a mate until the "rib" incident:)
But, what both Eve and Adam lacked was "knowledge" of what constituted the experience of Good and Evil. The desire to be LIKE God filled the need
of not BEING LIKE God. What was lacked was sought.
Apparently, from deity's point of view, that which humans seek must come through "proper channels" and be rationed, so to speak.
Continuing life without interruption was not automatically endowed. It was a bartering chip with humanity.
I think this bargaining tool is very demonstrative of an underlying principle.
God did not expect humans to do what was asked! Otherwise, life everlasting would not require the performance of certain obligatory steps, which, once achieved would earn the next step: eating the fruit of life.
If life everlasting were already gifted, God expected man would NOT NEED divine opinion as to what was good or evil.
Here is a matter worth pause, consideration and determination: why not bestow this instinct for right choice along with the freedom to select it?
After all, humans have a gnawing hunger to eat which leads to health, energy and survival. We exercise our free will to regulate when, where and what we eat as well as how much and what quality, don't we? The INSTINCT to eat does not interfere with the free choices at all.
Why not give mankind the INSTINCT for right behavior?
The SETUP contains the OUTCOME.
Humans were not built to SUCCEED as complete functioning entities.
Humanity lacks. What it lacks it seeks.
The history of humanity is trial and error--yet--amazingly, a gradual increase in prosperity, technology, social structure, and opportunity manifests itself despite terrible setbacks!
I was born in 1947. Two years after the second World War!
Everybody smoked, it seemed, in homes, cars, grocery stores, movie theaters, restaurants around babies and children. Today, in America, few communities tolerate this behavior. I count this as extreme social progress.
As a young boy I saw black people treated as second class citizens in every possible way. "Colored" water fountains, restrooms, hotels, swimming pools and housing kept them completely segregated from white people. Today, we have a black president and black millionaires, entrepreneurs who own hotels, corporations and serve as congressional representatives. This is amazing progress.
My point? Humanity self-seeks IMPROVEMENT with many trials and travails. It self-corrects.
Humanity addresses its own "sins" and enough conscientious people are willing to sacrifice and work hard to achieve ever loftier goals.
RELIGION, on the other hand, seems to be the central IMPEDIMENT rather than the goad.
So many unecessary conflicts in our world stem from the belief that Authority from on high has granted PRIVILEGE to this group rather than another group. It becomes a license for oppression, censorship, condemnations and violence.
CONFESSING OF SINS seems more of a ritual than an ever successful SHAPING MECHANISM of benign and benevolent improvement in the human condition.
Fanatical worshippers are among the most violent even though they may pray 5 times a day, lament their own sinful state and utter the name of God with great proficiency!
All this concern over WHO is RIGHTEOUS and who is not---IMPROVES NOTHING and excludes possibilities for peace. Or so it seems to me.
I just don't see the upside.
-
AGuest
Resorting to questionable verses, aren't you?
Questionable, dear DOC (peace to you!)? How so? It comes from the primary recognized "source" of confession, the Bible, yes? And we're talking about confession, even ancient Israel, per the OP's comments. So, including it makes perfect sense to me ("who are YOU to cast a stone at her, when YOU..."?).
Apparently, from deity's point of view, that which humans seek must come through "proper channels" and be rationed, so to speak. Continuing life without interruption was not automatically endowed. It was a bartering chip with humanity.
Like many others, you again assume (well, here, you conclude)... and wrongly so. Continuing life WAS automatically endowed. There was no death. It was wanting to KNOW death (a knowledge that Adham lacked... TO HIS OWN BENEFIT) that brought an end to the continuance. Now, I understand that your perception is based on what has often been interpreted as occurring: that Adham was told he would be KILLED if he ate. There are not only no such words to indicate this, but a review of extrinsic accounts will show that that wasn't even what was meant.
If you would condescend to read the account again (perhaps in a Bible version a little more contemporary than "Ye Olde King James"... or better yet, using proper transliterations from the Hebrew/Greek), you might be able to see that there was no bargaining chip at all, not even a rationing. There was only a warning: don't eat of IT, don't even touch IT... or you WILL die. Eat from/touch anything/everything else, but not IT. Save yourselves. Any decent parent worth their weight in salt would similarly warn their child(ren): don't touch THAT bush/eat THOSE berries because if you do you will die. That is exactly what the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, said... and did. He did not prohibit - He warned. How can He be blamed if His child CHOSE to disobey him? How can ANY parent be blamed... if a child CHOOSES to disobey?
We can use the "fence around the pool" analogy, if you wish. For a small child, a fence is necessary; however, for an older child, it shouldn't be. Dad fills the pool with chemicals in order to "shock" it and tells the, say, 12-year-old, "Don't get in the pool; the water will burn you." 12-year-old blows Pop off because, well, he thinks HE knows better than dear old dad (and his friend indicates to him that he does, or at least, he will, once he goes swimming). He goes swimming. Two days later, his skin bursts out in blisters and begins to peel off... with great pain. Can the state blame dad ("You should have put a fence around your pool; he's only 12, fer gawd's sake!")? Sonny Boy then contracts a hideous infection due to his skin condition. He gets greatly sick. About a year later... he dies. Due to the infection resulting from skin peeling resulting from the blistering... from the burning... from the swimming escapade... because he blew Dad off. Dad's fault??
You'll say, "Well, yeah, but Dad didn't have to put him out of the house and onto the street." Okay. But let's say Sonny Boy was... 24. And dad called him on swimming, after finding him hiding in the pool house. And Sonny Boy says, "Well, it's all YOUR fault! First, you make a pool, then you put chemicals in it, then you give me a sister. And she told me to go swimming! So, it's YOUR fault because you and Mom had another daughter!"
C'mon, Terry... stop trying to make up blame. If anyone is to be blamed, it's Adham. Alone.
I think this bargaining tool is very demonstrative of an underlying principle. God did not expect humans to do what was asked!
To the contrary! He absolutely expected them to! What He DIDN'T expect was (1) a non-human interferor, and (2) the others to actually be influenced by this lesser-"god".
Otherwise, life everlasting would not require the performance of certain obligatory steps, which, once achieved would earn the next step: eating the fruit of life.
Again, you have it backward: eating from the Tree of Life was not a "next" step. It was something already being done. Remember, they could... and DID... eat from EVERY tree of the garden (INCLUDING the Tree of Life)... EXCEPT the one [of two] in the middle: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad.
If life everlasting were already gifted, God expected man would NOT NEED divine opinion as to what was good or evil.
And this is where the wrong assumptions come in: it was not about opinion as to "what" was good... and "what" was evil. It wasn't about knowing good FROM bad... or good FROM evil. It was knowing good... AND bad. Read the words, dear one. And read the definition of the words "knowing"... and "knowledge of." It wasn't speaking of some kind of consciousness of the differences between that which is "right" and that which is "wrong." It was an INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE... such as when a man "KNOWS" a woman... physically... of good... LIFE... AND bad... death. They knew life - they were living beings. They did not KNOW death, however. Only God did... and yet, lived.
And so they became convinced that they could, too: know (experience) life AND know (experience) death... and live. Because that would make them, what... GODS... and thus, "like" God. And so... they ate. Unfortunately, they were wrong. They were already like God (spirit beings) with one exception: they were flesh from the earth (the physical realm) vs. flesh from the spirit realm. And that Tree, unfortunately, had an affect on that flesh: it brought death into it.
Here is a matter worth pause, consideration and determination: why not bestow this instinct for right choice along with the freedom to select it?
You miss the point of the entire account: that instinct WAS bestowed... ALONG WITH SUCH FREEDOM. It was that FREEDOM that Adham USED... when he CHOSE to eat from a tree that he KNEW would bring him death. He WANTED it to, WANTED death. CHOSE it. And... he got what his freedom led him to choose: death. The Most Holy One of Israel could have simply prevented Adham from eating... physically. May the Tree unapproachable, untouchable... either itself or by restricting Adham's physical ability TO touch/eat from it. But where is the freedom in THAT?
After all, humans have a gnawing hunger to eat which leads to health, energy and survival. We exercise our free will to regulate when, where and what we eat as well as how much and what quality, don't we? The INSTINCT to eat does not interfere with the free choices at all.
I marvel that you can make these statements... and then blame God when a human (Adham) exercised his free will and freedom of CHOICE (and chose [very] poorly). In addition, the instinct to eat very often interferes with free choice. Certainly it does today. Many have the instinct to eat lead them to CHOOSE poorly as to WHAT they eat. Twinkies over apples. And they're all in the SAME grocery store (or... garden). Some choose wisely. Some do not. Some shop the outer aisles... where the more "wholesome" foods are. Some cruise the more central aisles, loading their baskets with processed foods. But neither HAS to: both have access to the ENTIRE store (garden). They choose what they do BECAUSE no one else makes them choose otherwise. Do you not SEE this?
Why not give mankind the INSTINCT for right behavior?
Mankind WAS given the "instinct" for the "right" behavior. That man chooses to IGNORE that instinct... is a CHOICE. And if following instinct in man is NOT a choice, then so long... FREE WILL and FREEDOM of choice. The Most Holy One of Israel doesn't want robots, dear one. He WANTS people to choose. Hopefully, to choose RIGHT.
The SETUP contains the OUTCOME. Humans were not built to SUCCEED as complete functioning entities.
Humans were given ALL of the tools they needed to succeed. Including free will and the RIGHT to choose. That humans choose WRONG... is personal. Comes down to each individual. Personally.
Humanity lacks. What it lacks it seeks.
Then perhaps that why we see all the death and other atrocities at the hands of humans that we do: someone's trying to fill the void made by the lack of DEATH.
The history of humanity is trial and error--yet--amazingly, a gradual increase in prosperity, technology, social structure, and opportunity manifests itself despite terrible setbacks!
But there never had to be trial and error... and setbacks. Man HAD all that he needed. The ONLY lack... was death. He sought that lack, as you say... and so the results. True, man is making progress... but, as you also say, gradually. I would add... and painfully. Neither of which HAD to occur. They occur... because man has CHOSEN that path.
I was born in 1947. Two years after the second World War! Everybody smoked, it seemed, in homes, cars, grocery stores, movie theaters, restaurants around babies and children. Today, in America, few communities tolerate this behavior. I count this as extreme social progress.
Ummmm... I don't think man smoked... anything... in the Garden of Eden, dear one. Didn't need to. No need to get his "head straight." No need to alleviate pain or nausea. No need to look/be "cool." No boredom. So, in that light, we're only going BACK to where we were... not forward to something different.
As a young boy I saw black people treated as second class citizens in every possible way. "Colored" water fountains, restrooms, hotels, swimming pools and housing kept them completely segregated from white people. Today, we have a black president and black millionaires, entrepreneurs who own hotels, corporations and serve as congressional representatives. This is amazing progress.
Again, no racism in the garden. Or misogyny. Or presidents. Or millionaires. No corporations. And certainly no congressmen. So, your "progress" I think, is subjective. In light of the world today in the past, say, 1,000 years? Yes, great progress. In light of the world from the beginning... I'm not so sure.
My point? Humanity self-seeks IMPROVEMENT with many trials and travails. It self-corrects.
No. Western philosphy may have this result, but man in general does not. You entirely forget that there are large segments of this world, entire popluations, that still adhere to laws and lifestyles thousands of years old. C'mon... expand your "view." The world is NOT limited to the western culture, philosophies, ideas, and technologies. And many of "humanities" self-seeking "improvements" have come at GREAT loss of life. All so that some can perpetuate and establish THEIR way of life globally. Regardless of whether others want it or not. NOT because it is for the greater humanity... but because someone stands to profit. PROFIT is what drives man's progress... not humanitarianism. Because if it was humanitarianism, there would be no hungry children... and very few sick people. Because food would be FREE... as would medicine.
Humanity addresses its own "sins" and enough conscientious people are willing to sacrifice and work hard to achieve ever loftier goals.
Yeah, you go on believing that. In the meantime, reread what I wrote above. Yes, there are a few conscientious souls among us who do what they can. But there are many... many... more who only do the good they do because there is some financial, proprietary, or power-yielding gain to be had. "Doing good" is one the BEST forms of PR a company/person can utilize. People buy MORE from "conscientious" companies. You don't think those companies know that? And if it would make no difference, a whole lot of them would stop doing good.
RELIGION, on the other hand, seems to be the central IMPEDIMENT rather than the goad.
Here, I agree. Totally. Absolutely.
So many unecessary conflicts in our world stem from the belief that Authority from on high has granted PRIVILEGE to this group rather than another group. It becomes a license for oppression, censorship, condemnations and violence.
In addition to such beliefs, there is also those who have no such belief at all, but use the illusion of it to advance their own agendas. For profit.
CONFESSING OF SINS seems more of a ritual than an ever successful SHAPING MECHANISM of benign and benevolent improvement in the human condition.
As man has wielded it, yes. But that is not according to its purpose and intention. Again, you blame God for what MAN has chosen... and chooses... to do. As to himself... and his fellowman.
Fanatical worshippers are among the most violent even though they may pray 5 times a day, lament their own sinful state and utter the name of God with great proficiency!
I am glad you wrote "among the most violent." We can't disregard the Pol Pots of the world, can we? Or other non-religious atrocities? True, those done in the name of the "god" of whatever religion far outweigh the others, but if we're talking levels of violence I don't think it matters whether there is a belief [in God/a god] involved or not. Kill one person by hacking them to pieces while they're awake and without anesthia... kill 200 by having them fall asleep after drinking poisoned kool-aid... all dead. 200... not so violently.
All this concern over WHO is RIGHTEOUS and who is not---IMPROVES NOTHING and excludes possibilities for peace. Or so it seems to me.
Here again, you and I agree. However, it seems to ME that you're saying, at least as to your OP... that you ARE righteous... and God is NOT... because YOU wouldn't have done what [you think, but again, wrongly] what HE did. It seems to ME... that that is the actual gist... and purpose... of your OP... that YOU are "concerned" as to this issue, who's righteous and who is not. Do you not see THAT?
I just don't see the upside.
There is no upside to religion. There is, however, an upside to living... and letting others live... even with their beliefs that you don't see or agree with... so long as they're not harming anyone by means of such beliefs. Trying to censor (which is what many non-believers AND so-called believers attempt to do)... is the beginning of the "harms" you seem to take issue with: you MUST see things/believe as I do/don't... or you need to go! Allowing others to freely put their beliefs/non-beliefs out there... VERBALLY or in writing, however... is what allows true "humanity." You don't have to agree... and of course, you're free to disagree.
But not everyone can handle being disagreed with. And THAT is the "problem." THAT is what leads to the war and violence most often (not always; greed plays a big part, sometimes, as does taking offense at slights).
I like your comments, Terry, NOT because I agree with them but because often what you write serves to reinforce why I DON'T agree. Many times you contradict your own position. I think that you do that, sometimes, because the thing you want to take issue with... and blame God FOR... is the very thing you assert SHOULD be. Here, free will and freedom of choice. Those WERE the underlying reasons for what occurred.
Personally, I wouldn't have had it any other way. True, we may have had to spend many millenia working out how to "humanely" USE free will/freedom of choice. But as someone who values freedom... including free will/choice... I am glad to the opportunity to learn. I say, better for man to have received it, misused it, lost it... and had to relearn it... than to have never had it at all.
Again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
AGuest
Oh, and if I ever murder someone, I will confess it. Not because I'm "good"... but because I will have already worked out, within myself, that rotting in jail... or being executed... would be worth the life I took and the reason I took it. And I have to say, there are some instances where I just might take a life (really, I am NOT good!). I pray to JAH it never occurs, of course, but through Christ we've already had that discussion so He'll already know what compelled me.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA