I think the idea of God given human rights is bullshit. Human rights are a courtesy we should extend to one another. They are a standard we should hold ourselves to, but to say that these rights are an intrinsic part of everyone is wrong. The sea doesn't acknowledge the right of a drowing man to live.
In modern philosophy, the concept of "natural rights" is widely dismissed. It's a dated Enlightenment-era concept that is not based upon any real logic. Are you aware of the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance?
I really do agree with this. I'm also pretty sure God didn't want humans to have free will, and the devil is responsible for giving them that (Eve's apple for instance). So basically God is the bad guy, and the devil is the cool carefree dude who pretty much lets everyone do what they want. Or at least that's how I see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Adam and Eve already have free will in the Garden? It was outlandish that God forbade eating from a tree that granted "wisdom" or what have you, but the devil essentially tricked them into eating the apple.
Well, if they didn't have free will they wouldn't have been able to eat the apple to begin with. In most Christian communities (at least that I've seen) the prevalent view is that God gave us free wills; it comes with having a soul. There's also the belief that the tree wasn't actually special, it was the act of disobedience that gave man knowledge of good and evil. Adam was ignorant to evil before hand, then disobeyed, and then realized he could continue to do that. Although I could see how @AlwaysOnTime came to his conclusion, as a Christian I think I have a slightly different perspective, haha
Actually I think you're right, that's why I wasn't fully sure about what I was saying. I never read the bible so I'm a bit uninformed. So did the apple actually give them something God didn't want them to have (i.e. wisom/some other devilish thing like knowledge) or was it just a test to see how they would use the free will given to them (i.e. use it to disobey or just accept it and be thankful)?
This is why, in my opinion, the bible was never meant to be taken in any literal or specific way. And now we have a lot of ignorant people using it to backup their ridiculous beliefs/statements, and cherry picking what they like or what can be interpreted to their advantage. It just sounds like a story that was meant to teach morality to people. I feel like the people who wrote it would laugh in modern religion's face for taking it so seriously. Then again, the morality aspect only went so far - they still stoned women and treated them like property, for example.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but you can't blame people for holding it all literally. The bible typically doesn't differentiate between the literal and the figurative, so it CAN be a bit hard to discern. Also, at the time that the individual segments of the bible were written they were pretty progressive. In the New Testament (the part with Jesus, I don't want to assume how much background knowledge you have) women could own property and not get married, which was a ridiculous notion in the first century. The New Testament also holds everyone as equals, where nobody is any better than anybody else. A Christian is only better off than any other human being because we've been forgiven our sins after seeking that forgiveness. We're still sinners, just sinners who get our slate wiped clean as long as we strive to improve. I know too many of my fellow believers who put themselves on a pedestal, an act which the bible specifically condemns. It's not the bible's fault that humans are fallible, it's our own.
That's what I'm saying - the bible is a decent book, and like you said, fairly progressive for its time, but people fail to apply it to their lives properly. You kind of jumped back on your point there - at first you said that it's wrong to blame people for holding it all literally (which I agree, it's too far down the road to really blame anyone), but then you admit that it's our fault for being fallible (unless those two are unrelated). But you are right, the bible is probably difficult to read through, but I still see no reason to take anything absolutely literally - its meant to serve as a moral guide, not a constitution.
Haha, I guess you could see it as me being a bit hypocritical, I'm sorry! Let me rephrase: We are, by nature, pretty messed up. I think anybody would agree with that. So it can't be helped that some would take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, even the stuff that isn't meant to be taken that way. That doesn't excuse the mistake, though, it just recognizes that it's natural.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the bible and its authors had the right ideas, but due to our nature, like you said, we were bound to make a mess of it and cause the troubles that we have today. Just the fact that Christianity has split into dozens, if not hundreds of different sects, all interpreting the bible in their own ways and modifying it, says so much about how we fail to simply follow along and be united under the same, general moral rule of "Be cool, man." (I'm pretty sure that was pretty much all Jesus talked about).
He also called the Pharisees (a self-righteous group of Jews at the time) a "Brood of Vipers" more than once, so that's neat. I think Jesus summarized himself pretty well in Matthew 22:36-40
I think an important thing is what God says as he banishes Adam and Eve.
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22).
God explicitly states that their expulsion is to prevent Adam and Eve from becoming immortal, and not as punishment for going against his word. Whether this is his true purpose, I have no idea, but throughout the Genesis, like striking down the Tower of Babel, God tries to prevent man from achieving immortality. Therefore, I think that the fruit "gave them something God didn't want them to have," as you said, and was not placed as a test. Of course, there are many other interpretations, and I'm not a scholar of the Bible. Regarding free will, I think that man had free will regardless if the fruit was a test. After all, God had only banned the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and allowed Adam and Eve to do whatever else they wanted. Unless I'm misinterpreting the meaning of "free will"?
The best analogy for free will was described as this: Free will is like God taking you to a fast food restaurant. God sets up the scenario, but you get to choose anything from the menu.
Brilliant. Where is this from? I tried googling but no results showed. Did you make it yourself?
I heard it at a youth convention when I was about in 7th grade. Mark Matlock was the speaker. He's very very good at explaining what he believes God intended.
Without getting too deep into Christian Dogma, Catholicism maintains that God expressly gave free will to humans so man is left to freely choose the right path, and this in turn makes God's creation of humans valid, as opposed to a selfish act of vanity (Making creatures that have to and can only love and worship you). Adam and Eve, however, is an allegory about the importance of obedience. The devil represents temptation, obviously, and the point of the story is really - "Listen to your parents (elders, superiors), or bad shit will happen." Parents, elders, superiors, and in this case, God, create guidelines so you don't accidentally kill yourself and learn to function well within the society you want to exist in. The difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is what those guidelines are meant for. In the Old Testament, it was quite literal, a set of rules that helped you not to die in the society and times it was written in. It is widely accepted among religious scholars that most of the Old Testament is not expressly the "word" of God, but rather the intentions of a loving, fatherly Creator working through the interpretations of the religious leaders of the time. I.E., God wants you to be happy and healthy, and I, as Abraham, have learned some things that will keep you this way - don't ingest certain types of food, don't kill other people, and don't lie with other men to keep our numbers up and people stop enslaving us. In the New Testament, the guidelines are about emotional and social well-being. The allegories start to be about sharing, caring, and loving the rest of humanity as much as possible. It's more of a "one-size fits all" mentality meant to promote understanding, self-sacrifice, and acceptance of others. Adam and Eve is the first allegory in the bible because it's the first thing we learn as humans - to trust and obey the judgment and wisdom of those responsible for our care.
Wait, I have somewhat of a problem with this. I was raised Catholic and we were always taught that original sin originated from Adam and Eve, and that's why we were baptised; to cleanse ourselves of that sin. So if it's an allegory, how can the Church maintain the idea that we actually have original sin if the Adam and Eve story was simply something used to teach a lesson?
Yay for reductionism. Adam and Eve being an allegory for obedience has nothing to do with its ability to be used as a foundation for the theological doctrine of original sin. It's a bit like saying that a car can't be used to carry birthday balloons because it is used to carry people the rest of the time. It has, magically, or rather like many other things in the universe, the ability to serve many purposes at once. I do however, tend to forsake the supernatural aspects of religion in these discussions. It's very easy to walk into a religious debate and go "You know you guys aren't really drinking the blood of a 2000 year old religious icon right?" and completely sideline any sort of real anthropological dissection of religious texts.
Yay for assumptions. I was genuinely curious, I wasn't trying to play a smug holier than thou atheist. I was curious as to how say a Catholic priest or official may answer this question; I wasn't trying to bring up a point for the sake of feeling superior in my beliefs. Sorry, I suppose.
I'm not really sure. It really depends on the priest or official you're asking. Their abilities to reason, and the depth with which they have chosen to study or interpret any given text or theological doctrine varies just as much as anything I suppose. Sorry for the assumption, it is the internet, and I know how godless all you heathens are. (I'm an atheist though, not that it matters. Tone is hard in text.)
The idea of human rights is completely a human-construct. They do not actually exist.
It's the difference between absolute and relative truth. There were no beautiful sunsets before someone came along and observed them as such. Those rights do not exist outside of human perception.
You know, this is honestly something I've never thought about before. I believe that it is such an important aspect of interaction to extend these human rights to one another that I might as well think of them as intrinsic to every person. I'm not normally one to believe in entitlement, but I do believe everyone is entitled to the basic human rights. So I guess it's more so believing something so strongly that it might as well be the other.
The golden rule as in 'treat others how you wish to be treated?' But then what happens when one person doesn't give a care in the world as to how they're treated?
Another controversial topic in and of itself. So you believe in 'an eye for an eye?'
And so I assume you're cool with the death penalty then? (I'm not trying to stir up debate, I'm just curious). I'm not sure myself of where I stand on it.
I am fine with it in principle, but there have been enough problems with ensuring they have the right guy, and over application of the penalty to minorities and the lower socio economic classes that I am concerned about how it is being used in our society today. If the authorities could address those problems and ensure it is being practiced fairly and accurately then I would be very much behind it.
Very good point. I think I agree with that. In principle, it makes a lot of sense. But like many things in life, many things good in principle are executed poorly.