By BlogSpotThinker
October 16, 2011 01:36pm
Recommended strategies for achieving individual personal growth appear to include maximizing individual personal honesty and vulnerability regarding personal perspective.
These solutions appear to not take into account the apparently vast and weighty social structure that humanity has developed, apparently, as a tool to help facilitate humanity’s survival. Reports appear to suggest that this structure potentially destructively impacts humanity. Further, this vast, weighty, potentially destructive social structure appears to not necessarily assign the highest value to humanity.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that certain parts of this social structure appear to have been designed to not reward the vulnerability and honesty apparently recommended by these strategies. A possibly novel or less-commonly-presented, yet apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the social structure does not reward vulnerability and honesty because vulnerability and honesty appear to reveal that humanity’s knowledge and discernment are limited. Further, these human limitations appear to be reasonably considered to suggest the dramatically grave theory that humanity might not have the qualifications to assume full management of the human experience.
Apparently, human limitation has resulted in the human development of a social structure with construction errors that appear to be reasonably considered to render the outcomes of social structure implementation to be error-prone. Secular history’s reports of harm that humanity has suffered at humanity’s hand appear to be reasonably considered to support this premise. The strategy for survival and even prosperity in this apparently somewhat destructive, humanly-developed social structure appears to be to attempt to jostle oneself away from the destructive and, if necessary, to jostle others toward it.
As a result, honesty and vulnerability appear not to be respected, welcomed and reciprocally treated as they perhaps should be. Instead they appear to be viewed as indication of an opportunity for jostling toward the destructive aspects of humanly-developed social structure, somewhat like padding. Perhaps, this apparently reasonable theory reasonably offers additional explanation for apparent reluctance toward honesty and vulnerability.
I humbly and respectfully submit, as a believer in God, that the Bible appears to suggest that the true solution appears to be (a) voluntary individual recognition that there is a God, (b) voluntary individual acceptance of the premise that God is both the creator of humanity and the sovereign manager of each individual’s human experience, and (c) voluntary restoration of each individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that this restored relationship with God is the key to the unpoisoning of human perspective that allows honesty and vulnerability to be valued as traits to be embraced, cherished, protected and reciprocated rather than destroyed.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
God and Slavery
by BlogSpotThinker
October 15, 2011 12:09pm
Overview
Concern appears to have been expressed regarding the guidelines regarding slavery apparently reported in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that these guidelines do not represent the establishment or condoning by God of the practice of slavery. Rather, these guidelines appear reasonably interpreted to comprise a portion of the record of one of many apparently self-destructive phases in the history of the nation of Israel that the Bible appears to offer as part of the most comprehensive portrayal of the human experience that I am yet aware of.
God’s Design for the Human Experience
Part of this portrayal of the human experience includes God’s design for the human experience. That design appears to be well-reflected in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible appears to suggest In Genesis 1 that, at certain intervals of God’s creation, God reviewed the results and used the term “good” to describe them. After the creation of humanity, the Bible appears to suggest that God broke the pattern and use the term “very good” (King James Version).
This portrayal appears to suggest that there was no instance of any harm. In addition, there was only one explicit restriction: fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not to be consumed. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that other harmful potential did not occur to Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve’s Alteration of the Human Experience
The Bible appears to suggest that, nonetheless, Adam and Eve traded in God’s sovereignty, apparently for the leadership of another and, apparently, for the promise of self-leadership beyond the limitation imposed by God. As a result, Adam and Eve violated their only explicit restriction.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve experienced an immediate change in perspective, rather than an increase in factual knowledge. This deteriorative change or poisoning of their perspective introduced the element of shame to their previously shameless nakedness. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that this shame was only the first of a stream of other new, “evil” perspectives and resulting ideas that would be subsequently introduced. Biblical support for this theory appears to include the perception by Cain of the new “evil” perspective of envy and the new “evil” idea of murder that the Bible appears to report followed.
God’s Efforts to Restore God’s Relationship with Humanity
The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent, at least, since Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s leadership, has been to restore the relationship between God and humanity. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s efforts toward this goal implemented several varied strategies. These strategies appear to include a “new start” attempt featuring Noah and the flood; a “representative people” attempt featuring Abraham and the nation of Israel; rescuing of the “representative people” from the result of their malfeasance featuring Moses and the nation of Israel; heroes priests, prophets, Jesus Christ, the apostles and the church.
Humanity’s Apparent Penchant for Self-Destructive Self-Management
The Bible appears to suggest that humanity eventually reverted back to self-destructive self-direction after each of these attempted strategy implementations by God. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s limitations including knowledge and perception disqualify humanity for management of the human experience beyond the level of self-management delegated to humanity by God. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve’s violation Biblically introduces humanity’s refusal to accept this apparently Biblically-suggested limitation. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has, instead, developed self-directed, self-destructive social structures such as slavery in an attempt to resolve, on its own, the apparently complex human experience management that is the purview of God. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that humanity began to feed upon itself in an attempt to manage its own human experience.
A Possible Purpose of the Guidelines
The Bible appears to suggest that God has continued to attempt to lead humanity back into the balance of restored relationship with God, apparently choosing to even be involved with humanity despite humanity’s apparently self-destructive path and structures. Perhaps, the Biblical guidelines regarding slavery are an example of God being involved with humanity despite even God’s apparently Biblically-suggested “chosen” representative people’s apparent penchant for abandoning God’s standard and adopting the standards, philosophies and practices of other communities. Perhaps, these guidelines are not intended to suggest that such practice is God’s design for humanity. Perhaps, rather, these guidelines constitute an intermediate step of a step-based approach to guiding this representative people back to God’s true design for humanity.
October 15, 2011 12:09pm
Overview
Concern appears to have been expressed regarding the guidelines regarding slavery apparently reported in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that these guidelines do not represent the establishment or condoning by God of the practice of slavery. Rather, these guidelines appear reasonably interpreted to comprise a portion of the record of one of many apparently self-destructive phases in the history of the nation of Israel that the Bible appears to offer as part of the most comprehensive portrayal of the human experience that I am yet aware of.
God’s Design for the Human Experience
Part of this portrayal of the human experience includes God’s design for the human experience. That design appears to be well-reflected in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible appears to suggest In Genesis 1 that, at certain intervals of God’s creation, God reviewed the results and used the term “good” to describe them. After the creation of humanity, the Bible appears to suggest that God broke the pattern and use the term “very good” (King James Version).
This portrayal appears to suggest that there was no instance of any harm. In addition, there was only one explicit restriction: fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not to be consumed. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that other harmful potential did not occur to Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve’s Alteration of the Human Experience
The Bible appears to suggest that, nonetheless, Adam and Eve traded in God’s sovereignty, apparently for the leadership of another and, apparently, for the promise of self-leadership beyond the limitation imposed by God. As a result, Adam and Eve violated their only explicit restriction.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve experienced an immediate change in perspective, rather than an increase in factual knowledge. This deteriorative change or poisoning of their perspective introduced the element of shame to their previously shameless nakedness. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that this shame was only the first of a stream of other new, “evil” perspectives and resulting ideas that would be subsequently introduced. Biblical support for this theory appears to include the perception by Cain of the new “evil” perspective of envy and the new “evil” idea of murder that the Bible appears to report followed.
God’s Efforts to Restore God’s Relationship with Humanity
The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent, at least, since Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s leadership, has been to restore the relationship between God and humanity. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s efforts toward this goal implemented several varied strategies. These strategies appear to include a “new start” attempt featuring Noah and the flood; a “representative people” attempt featuring Abraham and the nation of Israel; rescuing of the “representative people” from the result of their malfeasance featuring Moses and the nation of Israel; heroes priests, prophets, Jesus Christ, the apostles and the church.
Humanity’s Apparent Penchant for Self-Destructive Self-Management
The Bible appears to suggest that humanity eventually reverted back to self-destructive self-direction after each of these attempted strategy implementations by God. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s limitations including knowledge and perception disqualify humanity for management of the human experience beyond the level of self-management delegated to humanity by God. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve’s violation Biblically introduces humanity’s refusal to accept this apparently Biblically-suggested limitation. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has, instead, developed self-directed, self-destructive social structures such as slavery in an attempt to resolve, on its own, the apparently complex human experience management that is the purview of God. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that humanity began to feed upon itself in an attempt to manage its own human experience.
A Possible Purpose of the Guidelines
The Bible appears to suggest that God has continued to attempt to lead humanity back into the balance of restored relationship with God, apparently choosing to even be involved with humanity despite humanity’s apparently self-destructive path and structures. Perhaps, the Biblical guidelines regarding slavery are an example of God being involved with humanity despite even God’s apparently Biblically-suggested “chosen” representative people’s apparent penchant for abandoning God’s standard and adopting the standards, philosophies and practices of other communities. Perhaps, these guidelines are not intended to suggest that such practice is God’s design for humanity. Perhaps, rather, these guidelines constitute an intermediate step of a step-based approach to guiding this representative people back to God’s true design for humanity.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Accusations Against God: Hyper-severity
by BlogSpotThinker
October 13, 2011
Concern appears to reasonably be considered to have been expressed suggesting the impropriety of certain specific, apparently Biblically-suggested, punishment of humanity, apparently suggested by God with regard to certain specific human violations. I humbly and respectfully submit that, without claiming authoritative understanding of the rationale for God’s decisions, I side with God on the basis of the Bible’s apparent depiction of God as all-knowing, supremely just and supremely interested in the well-being of humanity.
However, I similarly submit that this post appears to not be intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the concerns apparently expressed. The intent of this post appears to be to explore and analyze the issues relevant to the apparently suggested concerns.
Toward that end, therefore, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that human perspective appears to be reported to be capable of adopting a range of positions regarding, perhaps, any philosophical premise. The positions adopted appear to be reasonably considered to be both potentially related to religious perspective as well as unrelated to religious perspective. This apparently reasonable theory is presented to suggest, purely from a perspective of human logic and reason, that human perception of impropriety appears to be reasonably considered to not necessarily establish impropriety. In other words, purely from a logical perspective, the above-mentioned punishments appear to be reasonably considered to be, at least, potentially appropriate, despite the appearance, from human perspective, of impropriety.
I humbly and respectfully submit that a material difference appears to exist between the context of God’s judgment and that of humanity’s judgment. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s sense of judgment is flawed and that God’s sense of judgment is not. The apparent implication appears to be that, if God were to allow humanity to review and understand God’s rationale regarding God’s decision-making, humanity would withdraw any related reservation regarding God’s decision-making. The Bible appears to not be generally considered to indicate that God is to be expected, at any point in time, to divulge said rationale because God is sovereign.
Despite the apparent potential for (a) reasonable human opinion to vary regarding the propriety of the above-mentioned punishments, and for (b) humanity to not fully understand what might be referred to as God’s “rationale” for the above-mentioned punishments, there appears to be humanly-recognizable and understandable logic and reasoning that appears to be reasonably considered to logically and reasonably suggest the propriety of the apparently Biblically-suggested, God-authorized system of punishments.
To clarify, certain other human concerns appear to be expressed regarding malevolent acts apparently suggested to have been committed by humanity. A concern regarding these malevolent acts appears to be that God, despite God’s apparently Biblically-suggested unlimited knowledge and power, appears to have allowed such malevolence to occur and to continue. The apparent goal of behavior-shaping punishment appears to be, to be sufficiently severe to eliminate the behavior by disincentivizing the behavior. The apparent goal of violator-elimination measures appears to be reasonably considered to be elimination of the behavior by eliminating the entity exhibiting the behavior. In light of Bible and secular history’s apparent report that threat of stoning appears not to have totally prevented commission of the acts, the punishments appear to be reasonably considered to not be too severe.
Consequently, the next issue appears to be whether the above-mentioned behaviors merit that level of behavior-shaping or behavior-elimination. Here, again, given incomplete information, I side with God. From a standpoint of human logic and reason, however, given the context of an environment of purely appropriate perspective, the apparent effect on the human experience of those acts, as described in the Bible accounts of the applicable guidelines, and to the extent that those guidelines were in fact prescribed by God, appears to be reasonably considered to be harmful enough to merit their not ever occurring. This appears to be the context in which the guidelines were given.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God had established, on humanity’s behalf, another new start by freeing the Hebrews/nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that, in this context, God had apparently gifted this newly-freed community with the opportunity to reestablish an environment of purely appropriate perspective. Violations of the type apparently Biblically-suggested appear to be reasonably considered to be disastrous to this new start. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God was not aiming for a mediocre community experience, but, perhaps was aiming for restoration of the God/humanity experience that God had initially designed. Disregard for the destruction apparently projected to occur to such an environment via such willful violation appears to be reasonably considered to warrant the apparent capital disincentive and occurrence, perhaps even from a human perspective.
Apparently related concerns appear to describe God as having a mutually-exclusive pair of choices: (a) humanity not sinning, and (b) humanity having exercise of free will. I humbly and ultimately refer to God questions regarding God’s intent. However, the following, apparently reasonable theory appears to be appropriately sharable. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider these choices to be mutually-exclusive. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent is for humanity to exercise its free will to choose to recognize God’s sovereignty and to follow God’s leadership.
October 13, 2011
Concern appears to reasonably be considered to have been expressed suggesting the impropriety of certain specific, apparently Biblically-suggested, punishment of humanity, apparently suggested by God with regard to certain specific human violations. I humbly and respectfully submit that, without claiming authoritative understanding of the rationale for God’s decisions, I side with God on the basis of the Bible’s apparent depiction of God as all-knowing, supremely just and supremely interested in the well-being of humanity.
However, I similarly submit that this post appears to not be intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the concerns apparently expressed. The intent of this post appears to be to explore and analyze the issues relevant to the apparently suggested concerns.
Toward that end, therefore, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that human perspective appears to be reported to be capable of adopting a range of positions regarding, perhaps, any philosophical premise. The positions adopted appear to be reasonably considered to be both potentially related to religious perspective as well as unrelated to religious perspective. This apparently reasonable theory is presented to suggest, purely from a perspective of human logic and reason, that human perception of impropriety appears to be reasonably considered to not necessarily establish impropriety. In other words, purely from a logical perspective, the above-mentioned punishments appear to be reasonably considered to be, at least, potentially appropriate, despite the appearance, from human perspective, of impropriety.
I humbly and respectfully submit that a material difference appears to exist between the context of God’s judgment and that of humanity’s judgment. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s sense of judgment is flawed and that God’s sense of judgment is not. The apparent implication appears to be that, if God were to allow humanity to review and understand God’s rationale regarding God’s decision-making, humanity would withdraw any related reservation regarding God’s decision-making. The Bible appears to not be generally considered to indicate that God is to be expected, at any point in time, to divulge said rationale because God is sovereign.
Despite the apparent potential for (a) reasonable human opinion to vary regarding the propriety of the above-mentioned punishments, and for (b) humanity to not fully understand what might be referred to as God’s “rationale” for the above-mentioned punishments, there appears to be humanly-recognizable and understandable logic and reasoning that appears to be reasonably considered to logically and reasonably suggest the propriety of the apparently Biblically-suggested, God-authorized system of punishments.
To clarify, certain other human concerns appear to be expressed regarding malevolent acts apparently suggested to have been committed by humanity. A concern regarding these malevolent acts appears to be that God, despite God’s apparently Biblically-suggested unlimited knowledge and power, appears to have allowed such malevolence to occur and to continue. The apparent goal of behavior-shaping punishment appears to be, to be sufficiently severe to eliminate the behavior by disincentivizing the behavior. The apparent goal of violator-elimination measures appears to be reasonably considered to be elimination of the behavior by eliminating the entity exhibiting the behavior. In light of Bible and secular history’s apparent report that threat of stoning appears not to have totally prevented commission of the acts, the punishments appear to be reasonably considered to not be too severe.
Consequently, the next issue appears to be whether the above-mentioned behaviors merit that level of behavior-shaping or behavior-elimination. Here, again, given incomplete information, I side with God. From a standpoint of human logic and reason, however, given the context of an environment of purely appropriate perspective, the apparent effect on the human experience of those acts, as described in the Bible accounts of the applicable guidelines, and to the extent that those guidelines were in fact prescribed by God, appears to be reasonably considered to be harmful enough to merit their not ever occurring. This appears to be the context in which the guidelines were given.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God had established, on humanity’s behalf, another new start by freeing the Hebrews/nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that, in this context, God had apparently gifted this newly-freed community with the opportunity to reestablish an environment of purely appropriate perspective. Violations of the type apparently Biblically-suggested appear to be reasonably considered to be disastrous to this new start. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God was not aiming for a mediocre community experience, but, perhaps was aiming for restoration of the God/humanity experience that God had initially designed. Disregard for the destruction apparently projected to occur to such an environment via such willful violation appears to be reasonably considered to warrant the apparent capital disincentive and occurrence, perhaps even from a human perspective.
Apparently related concerns appear to describe God as having a mutually-exclusive pair of choices: (a) humanity not sinning, and (b) humanity having exercise of free will. I humbly and ultimately refer to God questions regarding God’s intent. However, the following, apparently reasonable theory appears to be appropriately sharable. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider these choices to be mutually-exclusive. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent is for humanity to exercise its free will to choose to recognize God’s sovereignty and to follow God’s leadership.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
God's Purpose for the Human Experience
by BlogSpotThinker
October 12, 2011
Certain sentiment appears to refer to an apparently potential perspective regarding the purpose of the God/human experience. This apparently potentially suggested purpose of the God/human experience appears to consist of God creating humanity and giving humanity choices so that humanity might be judged.
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable suggestion that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest a different plot and purpose for the God/human experience. I humbly, and without claiming authoritative knowledge, submit an apparently reasonable interpretation of the Bible that appears to suggest that God created humanity for God and humanity to enjoy a positive relationship and for humanity to enjoy a positive human experience. When a panoramic, holistic view of the Bible is considered, the Bible’s apparent characterization of God appears to substantiate this perspective.
However, the Bible appears to suggest, in disparate passages that otherwise might reasonably be considered to be unconnected, an apparent conflict between God and one or more entities involving these entities’ challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy. One apparently, somewhat common interpretation of these passages appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy initially precedes human existence. However, this interpretation of these passages also appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s sovereignty were addressed by God via a certain level of exile of, rather than elimination of the challengers. Apparently, per this interpretation, the issue remained a conflict issue and was still such an issue when human existence was initiated. Per this interpretation of these passages, the challenge issue was introduced to the human experience via Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested encounter with the serpent.
October 12, 2011
Certain sentiment appears to refer to an apparently potential perspective regarding the purpose of the God/human experience. This apparently potentially suggested purpose of the God/human experience appears to consist of God creating humanity and giving humanity choices so that humanity might be judged.
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable suggestion that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest a different plot and purpose for the God/human experience. I humbly, and without claiming authoritative knowledge, submit an apparently reasonable interpretation of the Bible that appears to suggest that God created humanity for God and humanity to enjoy a positive relationship and for humanity to enjoy a positive human experience. When a panoramic, holistic view of the Bible is considered, the Bible’s apparent characterization of God appears to substantiate this perspective.
However, the Bible appears to suggest, in disparate passages that otherwise might reasonably be considered to be unconnected, an apparent conflict between God and one or more entities involving these entities’ challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy. One apparently, somewhat common interpretation of these passages appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy initially precedes human existence. However, this interpretation of these passages also appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s sovereignty were addressed by God via a certain level of exile of, rather than elimination of the challengers. Apparently, per this interpretation, the issue remained a conflict issue and was still such an issue when human existence was initiated. Per this interpretation of these passages, the challenge issue was introduced to the human experience via Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested encounter with the serpent.
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Bible's Representation of the God/Human Relationship
by BlogSpotThinker
October 10, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that the God/human relationship is fundamentally at the individual level. The Bible appears to show the progression of that relationship over the course of human history, including the apparent, significant role of the nation of Israel.
The Bible appears to show that the God/human relationship began at the intimate, individual level, progressed through to iconically representative persons such as Noah who was allowed to be part of a “fresh start” after humanity had progressed too far into distorted perspective.
The Bible appears to show have called an iconically representative Abraham to father an iconically representative nation when the “fresh start” progressed too far into distorted perspective.
God implemented leaders such as Moses to that iconically representative nation out of the bondage wrought upon them when they progressed too far into distorted perspective.
Priests, then prophets, then doom, then, per the New Testament, Christ, then apostles and the church. Through all this, the Bible appears to suggest that the goal remained individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that God has given humanity the clearest of instructions stemming back from the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has consistently rejected God’s leadership and directives, perhaps even substituting parts or all with humanity’s own directives. This appears to be the cause of the confusion.
The Bible appears to suggest individual approach to God (James 1:5-8).
October 10, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that the God/human relationship is fundamentally at the individual level. The Bible appears to show the progression of that relationship over the course of human history, including the apparent, significant role of the nation of Israel.
The Bible appears to show that the God/human relationship began at the intimate, individual level, progressed through to iconically representative persons such as Noah who was allowed to be part of a “fresh start” after humanity had progressed too far into distorted perspective.
The Bible appears to show have called an iconically representative Abraham to father an iconically representative nation when the “fresh start” progressed too far into distorted perspective.
God implemented leaders such as Moses to that iconically representative nation out of the bondage wrought upon them when they progressed too far into distorted perspective.
Priests, then prophets, then doom, then, per the New Testament, Christ, then apostles and the church. Through all this, the Bible appears to suggest that the goal remained individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that God has given humanity the clearest of instructions stemming back from the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has consistently rejected God’s leadership and directives, perhaps even substituting parts or all with humanity’s own directives. This appears to be the cause of the confusion.
The Bible appears to suggest individual approach to God (James 1:5-8).
Theories: Adam, Eve and the Tree of Knowledge
by BlogSpotThinker
October 10, 2011 09:09am
(Revised October 14, 2011)
Humanity's Quest for Growth
I humbly and respectfully submit an apparently reasonable complementary and/or supplementary theory regarding humanity's quest for knowledge, growth and prosperity. The Bible appears to suggest that human desire is a gift from God. The Bible appears to suggest that God, after creating humanity, extends the invitation to enjoy the earth and to realize and maximize humanity’s human potential (Genesis 1).
However, the Bible also appears to suggest that this same human desire constitutes human vulnerability to downfall. The key appears to be relationship with God. The Bible appears to describe God as suggesting repeatedly that, as long as God’s sovereignty is acknowledged, all is well. The Bible also appears to describe God as also clearly delineating the results of rejection of God’s sovereignty.
The effect of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably interpreted to have been oversold by the serpent. The serpent’s description of that effect appears reasonably interpreted as suggest that eating the fruit from the tree would reveal hidden information. Apparently, this new information would make Adam and Eve’s knowledgebase, and as an apparent result, them, equal to God. However, the Bible appears to describe the effect as solely adding new distortion to their perspective. To wit: apparently, after they ate the fruit, their clothing-free wardrobe suddenly became shameful.
Apparently, rather than new useful information having been added to their knowledgebase, their previous pure perspective had simply been poisoned with “the knowledge of evil”.
Contradiction of God's Prediction
Concerns appears to have been expressed that suggest a contradiction between (a) the apparently Biblically-suggested prediction by God of the result of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and (b) the apparently Biblically-suggested outcome of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that God predicted that Adam and Eve would lose their lives within the same 24-hour day in which they ate the fruit or, at least, within 24 hours of eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that Adam and Eve did not lose their lives by the end of the day or within 24 hours of eating the fruit and that their lack of lost life contradicts the apparently reported prediction of God.
I humbly and respectfully submit that several points of logic and reason appear to reasonably suggest that the Biblical account, as it appears to be represented, appears to be reasonably considered to not represent a contradiction between the above-referenced apparently Biblical reports of God’s prediction and the actual outcome. These points of logic and reason appear to be summarized as follows:
(a) The term “die”, as used in the account, appears to reasonably be considered to refer to the death of Adam and Eve’s purity of intellect and innocence of perspective. Said purity and innocence appears to be reported to have undergone a negative transformation from lack of shame to shame regarding Adam and Eve’s nakedness immediately after the eating of the fruit appears to be reported.
This apparently significant nature of this interpretation of “death” appears to be reasonably considered to be supported by a supplementary, apparently reasonable theory regarding life and death in the context of Adam and Eve’s experience. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the potential for death might have been initially introduced to Adam and Eve’s experience not via their eating of the fruit, but via Adam and Eve’s design. This suggestion appears to be supported by the apparently Biblical reporting of the tree of life in addition to food trees in the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to report that Adam and Eve were banned from accessing the tree of life so that their newly corrupt existence would not immortally and, therefore, eternally, negatively impact reality. Perhaps, Adam and Eve ate both (a) from the tree of life to sustain life and (b) from food trees for energy and other body-maintenance-related purposes. Perhaps, without eating from the tree of life, regardless of whether they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would die.
(b) In addition, the term “in the day” (King James Version), apparently interpreted to read “by the end of the day”, appears to also be potentially used in the “older English” to refer to a broad time period. For example, “In the day in which the dinosaurs roamed…” appears to be reasonably suggested to refer to the entire time period in which dinosaurs are considered to have existed. The New International Version appears to interpret the phrase “in the day” as “when”, which appears to be consistent with this lexicological theory. Therefore, God’s barring of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life as a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to begin the time period of Adam and Eve’s process of gradual, rather than immediate death.
Consequently, in summary, the apparently Biblical account appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction might not have been intended to suggest that Adam and Eve would lose all sign of either immortal or mortal physical life by the end of the day in which they ate the fruit or within 24 hours of eating the fruit. Rather, if any inference to a specific 24-hour day is intended, these reports appear to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction was intended, perhaps, to suggest Adam and Eve’s loss of purity and innocence of perspective as well as their God-granted invitation and access to immortality via the tree of life.
Adam and Eve Punished or Rewarded?
Perspectives also appear to suggest that the Biblical account suggests that God predicted that punishment -- death -- would result from Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree but that, instead, God rewarded Adam and Eve by giving them new life-initiating roles. The suggestion appears to be that Adam was newly made a gardener and that Eve was newly made a mother, both as a result of eating the fruit.
Without intending to either accept or deny the validity of this apparent suggestion, I humbly and respectfully submit that the Biblical account appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise. The apparent Biblical account of God’s pronouncements regarding soil-based farming and childbirth related to Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be recorded in Genesis 3:16-19. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God’s initial delegation to Adam of soil-based farming duties appears to be recorded in Genesis 2:15, apparently chronologically prior to God’s Genesis 3:17-19 pronouncement. The Bible also appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God assigned procreative privileges to humanity in general immediately after creating humanity in general in Genesis 1:28. Both of the roles apparently suggested to have been initiated after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be Biblically suggested to have been initiated earlier.
In summary, therefore, God’s apparent pronouncements related to the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be reasonably interpreted to represent punishment -- increased difficulty in the previously established roles of soil-based farming labor and child-birth labor -- rather than reward of initiating new life-giving roles.
Eve’s Deception
Concerns appear to inquire regarding whether or not the serpent deceived Eve as the Bible appears to suggest that Eve claimed when confronted by God in Genesis 3:13. I humbly and respectfully submit that the serpent offered to Eve multiple false and/or deceptive characterizations.
Firstly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would achieve for Adam and Eve as a harmless benefit.
Secondly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent mischaracterized God as maliciously withholding from humanity such a harmless benefit.
Thirdly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that Adam and Eve would not die. The apparently Biblical text appears to suggest that HuffPostThinker and BlogSpotThinker comments appear to suggest that (a) apparently viable interpretations of the terms “in the day” and “die”, (b) the deteriorative effect on Adam and Eve’s purity and innocence, (c) God’s revocation of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life, as well as (d) the relationship of (a) through (c) to Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested eventual loss of life appear to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God’s prediction regarding Adam and Eve’s death appear to be reasonably considered to have been fulfilled.
October 10, 2011 09:09am
(Revised October 14, 2011)
Humanity's Quest for Growth
I humbly and respectfully submit an apparently reasonable complementary and/or supplementary theory regarding humanity's quest for knowledge, growth and prosperity. The Bible appears to suggest that human desire is a gift from God. The Bible appears to suggest that God, after creating humanity, extends the invitation to enjoy the earth and to realize and maximize humanity’s human potential (Genesis 1).
However, the Bible also appears to suggest that this same human desire constitutes human vulnerability to downfall. The key appears to be relationship with God. The Bible appears to describe God as suggesting repeatedly that, as long as God’s sovereignty is acknowledged, all is well. The Bible also appears to describe God as also clearly delineating the results of rejection of God’s sovereignty.
The effect of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably interpreted to have been oversold by the serpent. The serpent’s description of that effect appears reasonably interpreted as suggest that eating the fruit from the tree would reveal hidden information. Apparently, this new information would make Adam and Eve’s knowledgebase, and as an apparent result, them, equal to God. However, the Bible appears to describe the effect as solely adding new distortion to their perspective. To wit: apparently, after they ate the fruit, their clothing-free wardrobe suddenly became shameful.
Apparently, rather than new useful information having been added to their knowledgebase, their previous pure perspective had simply been poisoned with “the knowledge of evil”.
Contradiction of God's Prediction
Concerns appears to have been expressed that suggest a contradiction between (a) the apparently Biblically-suggested prediction by God of the result of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and (b) the apparently Biblically-suggested outcome of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that God predicted that Adam and Eve would lose their lives within the same 24-hour day in which they ate the fruit or, at least, within 24 hours of eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that Adam and Eve did not lose their lives by the end of the day or within 24 hours of eating the fruit and that their lack of lost life contradicts the apparently reported prediction of God.
I humbly and respectfully submit that several points of logic and reason appear to reasonably suggest that the Biblical account, as it appears to be represented, appears to be reasonably considered to not represent a contradiction between the above-referenced apparently Biblical reports of God’s prediction and the actual outcome. These points of logic and reason appear to be summarized as follows:
(a) The term “die”, as used in the account, appears to reasonably be considered to refer to the death of Adam and Eve’s purity of intellect and innocence of perspective. Said purity and innocence appears to be reported to have undergone a negative transformation from lack of shame to shame regarding Adam and Eve’s nakedness immediately after the eating of the fruit appears to be reported.
This apparently significant nature of this interpretation of “death” appears to be reasonably considered to be supported by a supplementary, apparently reasonable theory regarding life and death in the context of Adam and Eve’s experience. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the potential for death might have been initially introduced to Adam and Eve’s experience not via their eating of the fruit, but via Adam and Eve’s design. This suggestion appears to be supported by the apparently Biblical reporting of the tree of life in addition to food trees in the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to report that Adam and Eve were banned from accessing the tree of life so that their newly corrupt existence would not immortally and, therefore, eternally, negatively impact reality. Perhaps, Adam and Eve ate both (a) from the tree of life to sustain life and (b) from food trees for energy and other body-maintenance-related purposes. Perhaps, without eating from the tree of life, regardless of whether they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would die.
(b) In addition, the term “in the day” (King James Version), apparently interpreted to read “by the end of the day”, appears to also be potentially used in the “older English” to refer to a broad time period. For example, “In the day in which the dinosaurs roamed…” appears to be reasonably suggested to refer to the entire time period in which dinosaurs are considered to have existed. The New International Version appears to interpret the phrase “in the day” as “when”, which appears to be consistent with this lexicological theory. Therefore, God’s barring of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life as a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to begin the time period of Adam and Eve’s process of gradual, rather than immediate death.
Consequently, in summary, the apparently Biblical account appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction might not have been intended to suggest that Adam and Eve would lose all sign of either immortal or mortal physical life by the end of the day in which they ate the fruit or within 24 hours of eating the fruit. Rather, if any inference to a specific 24-hour day is intended, these reports appear to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction was intended, perhaps, to suggest Adam and Eve’s loss of purity and innocence of perspective as well as their God-granted invitation and access to immortality via the tree of life.
Adam and Eve Punished or Rewarded?
Perspectives also appear to suggest that the Biblical account suggests that God predicted that punishment -- death -- would result from Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree but that, instead, God rewarded Adam and Eve by giving them new life-initiating roles. The suggestion appears to be that Adam was newly made a gardener and that Eve was newly made a mother, both as a result of eating the fruit.
Without intending to either accept or deny the validity of this apparent suggestion, I humbly and respectfully submit that the Biblical account appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise. The apparent Biblical account of God’s pronouncements regarding soil-based farming and childbirth related to Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be recorded in Genesis 3:16-19. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God’s initial delegation to Adam of soil-based farming duties appears to be recorded in Genesis 2:15, apparently chronologically prior to God’s Genesis 3:17-19 pronouncement. The Bible also appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God assigned procreative privileges to humanity in general immediately after creating humanity in general in Genesis 1:28. Both of the roles apparently suggested to have been initiated after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be Biblically suggested to have been initiated earlier.
In summary, therefore, God’s apparent pronouncements related to the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be reasonably interpreted to represent punishment -- increased difficulty in the previously established roles of soil-based farming labor and child-birth labor -- rather than reward of initiating new life-giving roles.
Eve’s Deception
Concerns appear to inquire regarding whether or not the serpent deceived Eve as the Bible appears to suggest that Eve claimed when confronted by God in Genesis 3:13. I humbly and respectfully submit that the serpent offered to Eve multiple false and/or deceptive characterizations.
Firstly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would achieve for Adam and Eve as a harmless benefit.
Secondly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent mischaracterized God as maliciously withholding from humanity such a harmless benefit.
Thirdly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that Adam and Eve would not die. The apparently Biblical text appears to suggest that HuffPostThinker and BlogSpotThinker comments appear to suggest that (a) apparently viable interpretations of the terms “in the day” and “die”, (b) the deteriorative effect on Adam and Eve’s purity and innocence, (c) God’s revocation of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life, as well as (d) the relationship of (a) through (c) to Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested eventual loss of life appear to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God’s prediction regarding Adam and Eve’s death appear to be reasonably considered to have been fulfilled.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Letter and The Spirit of the Law
by BlogSpotThinker
October 9, 2011
The Bible appears to point out the potential for negative human intent to seek ways to obey the “letter of the law” while not submitting to the “spirit of the law”. The term “letter of the law” here refers to the specific commands or prohibitions specified by a guideline. The term “spirit of the law” here refers to the perspective from which a guideline emanates.
The Bible appears to suggest that the subset of humanity that is referred to in this light attempts to avoid the negative consequences of non-compliance with guidelines. However, their perspective does not appropriately balance genuine concern for self-interest, the well-being of others and other aspects of life. This appears to suggest that their actions are solely symptoms of the fundamental problem: the general perspective from which those actions flow. The Bible appears to suggest that such imbalanced perspective is a direct result of humanity’s rejection of God’s leadership.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that knowledge of and compliance with guidelines is not the ultimate goal. Submission to God’s sovereign leadership and the resulting “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2) into harmony with God’s design range for human perspective appears to be. Otherwise, the ultimate loophole – rewriting the laws to allow the imbalanced perspective to be considered appropriate – appears to present itself.
October 9, 2011
The Bible appears to point out the potential for negative human intent to seek ways to obey the “letter of the law” while not submitting to the “spirit of the law”. The term “letter of the law” here refers to the specific commands or prohibitions specified by a guideline. The term “spirit of the law” here refers to the perspective from which a guideline emanates.
The Bible appears to suggest that the subset of humanity that is referred to in this light attempts to avoid the negative consequences of non-compliance with guidelines. However, their perspective does not appropriately balance genuine concern for self-interest, the well-being of others and other aspects of life. This appears to suggest that their actions are solely symptoms of the fundamental problem: the general perspective from which those actions flow. The Bible appears to suggest that such imbalanced perspective is a direct result of humanity’s rejection of God’s leadership.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that knowledge of and compliance with guidelines is not the ultimate goal. Submission to God’s sovereign leadership and the resulting “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2) into harmony with God’s design range for human perspective appears to be. Otherwise, the ultimate loophole – rewriting the laws to allow the imbalanced perspective to be considered appropriate – appears to present itself.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Theories: Creation and Humanity
by BlogSpotThinker
October 8, 2011
The Bible appears to record God’s directive to “be fruitful” in multiple contexts. The Genesis 1:20-22 context appears to apply to animals. Genesis 1:27, 28 appears to apply to humanity. Although many appear to interpret the passage as referring specifically to Adam and Eve, there appears not to be any reasonable basis to preclude the interpretation that God created multiple pairs of human beings and issued the procreative challenge to them.
An apparently reasonable interpretation appears to be that the Bible, perhaps, from that point, singles out Adam and Eve from among humanity. A reasonable theory suggesting the reason for such singling out might be that the Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve represent the lineage of the nation of Israel to whom, at least, the Old Testament appears to refer.
This theory appears to offer a reasonable possible explanation for an incestuous-less proliferation of humanity. In addition, this theory appears to offer a reasonable possible explanation for another topic of apparent concern regarding the Bible: the apparently two, redundant descriptions of creation. Genesis 1 appears to be suggested to offer one account and Genesis 2 appears to be suggested to offer the second. Perhaps Genesis 1 records the general creation of humanity. Perhaps Genesis 2 records and focuses in on the lineage of Abraham.
The Genesis 2 account appears to begin with the phrase “These are the generations…”, a phrase apparently used in certain recapitulations of Biblical history to show lineage. The Bible’s apparent use of that phrase to preface the second creation account that appears to specify Adam and Eve appears to be supportively consistent with the above theory that appears to suggest the apparently reasonable possibility of God’s creation of multiple pairs of humans.
October 8, 2011
The Bible appears to record God’s directive to “be fruitful” in multiple contexts. The Genesis 1:20-22 context appears to apply to animals. Genesis 1:27, 28 appears to apply to humanity. Although many appear to interpret the passage as referring specifically to Adam and Eve, there appears not to be any reasonable basis to preclude the interpretation that God created multiple pairs of human beings and issued the procreative challenge to them.
An apparently reasonable interpretation appears to be that the Bible, perhaps, from that point, singles out Adam and Eve from among humanity. A reasonable theory suggesting the reason for such singling out might be that the Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve represent the lineage of the nation of Israel to whom, at least, the Old Testament appears to refer.
This theory appears to offer a reasonable possible explanation for an incestuous-less proliferation of humanity. In addition, this theory appears to offer a reasonable possible explanation for another topic of apparent concern regarding the Bible: the apparently two, redundant descriptions of creation. Genesis 1 appears to be suggested to offer one account and Genesis 2 appears to be suggested to offer the second. Perhaps Genesis 1 records the general creation of humanity. Perhaps Genesis 2 records and focuses in on the lineage of Abraham.
The Genesis 2 account appears to begin with the phrase “These are the generations…”, a phrase apparently used in certain recapitulations of Biblical history to show lineage. The Bible’s apparent use of that phrase to preface the second creation account that appears to specify Adam and Eve appears to be supportively consistent with the above theory that appears to suggest the apparently reasonable possibility of God’s creation of multiple pairs of humans.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Accusations Against God: God's Vengefulness
by BlogSpotThinker
October 4, 2011
Overview
Some appear to interpret the Bible as describing God as vengeful and, perhaps so, even at the slightest of provocation. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible seems to portray God as potentially reacting strongly toward violations of God’s directives, but also as, not only overwhelmingly patient and merciful, but possibly so beyond human potential to fathom.
Appropriately Addressing The Seriousness of Disobeying God
The Bible appears to suggest that violation of God’s directives is more serious than violating the directives of humanity. God appears to be described as being the sovereign entity of all reality, apparently, with no element of human fallibility. Consequently, human discernment and human decision-making based upon human discernment, appears to include potential for error that appears not to exist in God. Consequently, the Bible appears to suggest that violation of God’s direction has dire intrinsic consequences and, perhaps as a result, therefore, warrants more immediate and intense response from God than do violations of human directives. The Bible appears to attribute the apparently reported, often-lamented depravity of the human condition to human violation of God’s directives,. The extent to which that is accurate appears to substantiate the more immediate, intense response of God regarding violations of God’s directives.
The Patience of God In Addressing Disobedience
The demonstrate the balance of God’s response to violations of God’s directives, however, a brief search on the keywords “God” and “mercy” in the King James Version appears to yield the Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Kings 8:23, and 2 Chronicles 6:14. These passages appear to possibly be applicable. In addition, Genesis 4 appears to describe God as counseling rather than punishing Cain regarding Cain’s anger related to God accepting Abel’s sacrifice and rejecting Cain’s. Upon Cain’s subsequent murder of Abel, God’s treatment of Cain appears to be portrayed as that of a caring father appropriately responding to a wayward child. Despite the grave wrong apparently perpetrated by Cain and the punishment that the Bible appears to suggest that God assigned to Cain, God appears to be described as lending the weight of God’s power to the protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
October 4, 2011
Overview
Some appear to interpret the Bible as describing God as vengeful and, perhaps so, even at the slightest of provocation. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible seems to portray God as potentially reacting strongly toward violations of God’s directives, but also as, not only overwhelmingly patient and merciful, but possibly so beyond human potential to fathom.
Appropriately Addressing The Seriousness of Disobeying God
The Bible appears to suggest that violation of God’s directives is more serious than violating the directives of humanity. God appears to be described as being the sovereign entity of all reality, apparently, with no element of human fallibility. Consequently, human discernment and human decision-making based upon human discernment, appears to include potential for error that appears not to exist in God. Consequently, the Bible appears to suggest that violation of God’s direction has dire intrinsic consequences and, perhaps as a result, therefore, warrants more immediate and intense response from God than do violations of human directives. The Bible appears to attribute the apparently reported, often-lamented depravity of the human condition to human violation of God’s directives,. The extent to which that is accurate appears to substantiate the more immediate, intense response of God regarding violations of God’s directives.
The Patience of God In Addressing Disobedience
The demonstrate the balance of God’s response to violations of God’s directives, however, a brief search on the keywords “God” and “mercy” in the King James Version appears to yield the Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Kings 8:23, and 2 Chronicles 6:14. These passages appear to possibly be applicable. In addition, Genesis 4 appears to describe God as counseling rather than punishing Cain regarding Cain’s anger related to God accepting Abel’s sacrifice and rejecting Cain’s. Upon Cain’s subsequent murder of Abel, God’s treatment of Cain appears to be portrayed as that of a caring father appropriately responding to a wayward child. Despite the grave wrong apparently perpetrated by Cain and the punishment that the Bible appears to suggest that God assigned to Cain, God appears to be described as lending the weight of God’s power to the protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Ten Commandments: Commandment One (Adam and Eve)
by BlogSpotThinker
October 2, 2011
First Commandment Versions
The verses of Exodus 20 attributed to Commandment One of the apparently Biblical Ten Commandments appear to be considered to vary somewhat, among apparently reported versions. The apparently shortest version, the “Philonic” appears to consider Exodus 20:1 to be an introduction rather than a commandment and Exodus 20:2 to be a declaration of God’s identity rather than a commandment. Consequently, the “Philonic” appears to suggest the entire First Commandment to consist of Exodus 20:3. The “Talmudic” version appears to be the next longest, attributing only Exodus 20:1, 2 to the Ten Commandment’s First Commandment. The apparently longest of these versions of the Ten Commandments’ First Commandment, the “Augustinian”, appears to include Exodus 20:1-6. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
The First Commandment’s Message
This apparently suggested variance in the Exodus 20 verses apparently attributed to the First Commandment appears reasonably considered to have little effect upon the apparent general message and “spirit”, so to speak, of the First Commandment, which appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that no entity is to be considered to be above God, for any reason, in any way, and/or at any time.
Adam and Eve’s Apparent Violation of the First Commandment
Adam and Eve, apparently Biblically-suggested to be the first of humanity recorded in the Bible, if not the first of all humanity on planet Earth, appear to be Biblically suggested to predate the Ten Commandments by some time. Nonetheless, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible’s apparent description of Adam and Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to constitute two violations of the intent or “spirit” of the First Commandment. Further, these violations, due to their pivotal impact on human history, appear to be reasonably considered to warrant inclusion of the First Commandment within the Ten Commandments and to warrant the Commandment’s placement as the first, and apparently, most important and fundamental of the apparently Biblical Ten Commandments.
Accepting An Entity’s Word Above God’s
Regarding the first apparent violation of Commandment One, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that Adam and Eve apparently chose to accept the serpent’s apparent direct contradiction of God’s word. The Bible appears reasonably considered to suggest that God directly said to Adam, “…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17, New International Version). The Bible also appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that Eve told the serpent, “…but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die’” (Genesis 3:3, New International Version). The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent directly contradicted both Adam and Eve’s apparent understanding of God’s statement by stating to Eve, “You will not certainly die,” (Genesis 3:4, New International Version).
This direct contradiction of God’s word appears to be reasonably considered to imply that the serpent claimed to be more knowledgeable and/or more honest than God. This implication of superior knowledge and/or honesty in comparison to God appears to be reasonably considered to constitute a challenge to God’s claim of ultimate superiority and sovereignty.
Accepting An Entity’s Maligning of God’s Character
In the second violation of the First Commandment, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that Adam and Eve apparently chose to accept the serpent’s apparently implied maligning of God’s character. The Bible appears reasonably considered to suggest that God directly said to Adam, “…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17, New International Version). This apparent statement of God appears reasonably considered to describe the result of eating of the fruit as a benefit – knowledge – with a side effect so undesirable that the benefit appears to be reasonably considered to have been rendered to be eclipsed by the undesirable side effect.
However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent stated to Eve, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This apparent serpent’s apparent statement appears reasonably considered to describe the result of eating of the fruit as a benefit without any undesirable side effect. The apparent difference in God’s and the serpent’s evaluations of the result of eating the fruit appears to be reasonably suggested to represent an accusation that God was harming Adam and Eve by depriving Adam and Eve of a potential benefit by describing that benefit as a potential harm. This appears to be reasonably considered to represent a maligning of God’s character and leadership by suggesting that God was mismanaging the human experience.
Perhaps more importantly, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent maligned God’s character by emphasizing God’s knowledge of the effect of eating the fruit. Representing the result of eating the fruit as a great benefit without any undesirable side effect and emphasizing God’s knowledge of that apparent unmitigated benefit appears to be reasonably considered to leave Eve with the sole task of connecting (a) God’s forbidding them to eat the fruit with (b) God’s apparent knowledge of the effect of eating the fruit and (c) the serpent’s misrepresentation of the unmitigated benefit of eating the fruit. If the serpent could misrepresent the benefit of eating the fruit as an unmitigated benefit, the serpent might be able to misrepresent God as having no reasonable cause for depriving Adam and Eve of eating the fruit. Misrepresenting God in this light appears to be reasonably considered to also facilitate misrepresenting God as having an unreasonable cause for depriving Adam and Eve of eating the fruit: willful malice.
Summary
The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that Adam and Eve eventually chose to consider the serpent’s unfounded claims as superior to God’s and to, consequently, accept them. This choice appears to be reasonably considered to constitute a decision to place an entity above God, in apparent violation of the premier of the Ten Commandments.
October 2, 2011
First Commandment Versions
The verses of Exodus 20 attributed to Commandment One of the apparently Biblical Ten Commandments appear to be considered to vary somewhat, among apparently reported versions. The apparently shortest version, the “Philonic” appears to consider Exodus 20:1 to be an introduction rather than a commandment and Exodus 20:2 to be a declaration of God’s identity rather than a commandment. Consequently, the “Philonic” appears to suggest the entire First Commandment to consist of Exodus 20:3. The “Talmudic” version appears to be the next longest, attributing only Exodus 20:1, 2 to the Ten Commandment’s First Commandment. The apparently longest of these versions of the Ten Commandments’ First Commandment, the “Augustinian”, appears to include Exodus 20:1-6. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
The First Commandment’s Message
This apparently suggested variance in the Exodus 20 verses apparently attributed to the First Commandment appears reasonably considered to have little effect upon the apparent general message and “spirit”, so to speak, of the First Commandment, which appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that no entity is to be considered to be above God, for any reason, in any way, and/or at any time.
Adam and Eve’s Apparent Violation of the First Commandment
Adam and Eve, apparently Biblically-suggested to be the first of humanity recorded in the Bible, if not the first of all humanity on planet Earth, appear to be Biblically suggested to predate the Ten Commandments by some time. Nonetheless, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible’s apparent description of Adam and Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to constitute two violations of the intent or “spirit” of the First Commandment. Further, these violations, due to their pivotal impact on human history, appear to be reasonably considered to warrant inclusion of the First Commandment within the Ten Commandments and to warrant the Commandment’s placement as the first, and apparently, most important and fundamental of the apparently Biblical Ten Commandments.
Accepting An Entity’s Word Above God’s
Regarding the first apparent violation of Commandment One, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that Adam and Eve apparently chose to accept the serpent’s apparent direct contradiction of God’s word. The Bible appears reasonably considered to suggest that God directly said to Adam, “…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17, New International Version). The Bible also appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that Eve told the serpent, “…but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die’” (Genesis 3:3, New International Version). The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent directly contradicted both Adam and Eve’s apparent understanding of God’s statement by stating to Eve, “You will not certainly die,” (Genesis 3:4, New International Version).
This direct contradiction of God’s word appears to be reasonably considered to imply that the serpent claimed to be more knowledgeable and/or more honest than God. This implication of superior knowledge and/or honesty in comparison to God appears to be reasonably considered to constitute a challenge to God’s claim of ultimate superiority and sovereignty.
Accepting An Entity’s Maligning of God’s Character
In the second violation of the First Commandment, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that Adam and Eve apparently chose to accept the serpent’s apparently implied maligning of God’s character. The Bible appears reasonably considered to suggest that God directly said to Adam, “…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17, New International Version). This apparent statement of God appears reasonably considered to describe the result of eating of the fruit as a benefit – knowledge – with a side effect so undesirable that the benefit appears to be reasonably considered to have been rendered to be eclipsed by the undesirable side effect.
However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent stated to Eve, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This apparent serpent’s apparent statement appears reasonably considered to describe the result of eating of the fruit as a benefit without any undesirable side effect. The apparent difference in God’s and the serpent’s evaluations of the result of eating the fruit appears to be reasonably suggested to represent an accusation that God was harming Adam and Eve by depriving Adam and Eve of a potential benefit by describing that benefit as a potential harm. This appears to be reasonably considered to represent a maligning of God’s character and leadership by suggesting that God was mismanaging the human experience.
Perhaps more importantly, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that the serpent maligned God’s character by emphasizing God’s knowledge of the effect of eating the fruit. Representing the result of eating the fruit as a great benefit without any undesirable side effect and emphasizing God’s knowledge of that apparent unmitigated benefit appears to be reasonably considered to leave Eve with the sole task of connecting (a) God’s forbidding them to eat the fruit with (b) God’s apparent knowledge of the effect of eating the fruit and (c) the serpent’s misrepresentation of the unmitigated benefit of eating the fruit. If the serpent could misrepresent the benefit of eating the fruit as an unmitigated benefit, the serpent might be able to misrepresent God as having no reasonable cause for depriving Adam and Eve of eating the fruit. Misrepresenting God in this light appears to be reasonably considered to also facilitate misrepresenting God as having an unreasonable cause for depriving Adam and Eve of eating the fruit: willful malice.
Summary
The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that Adam and Eve eventually chose to consider the serpent’s unfounded claims as superior to God’s and to, consequently, accept them. This choice appears to be reasonably considered to constitute a decision to place an entity above God, in apparent violation of the premier of the Ten Commandments.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Logic and Reason Supporting the Bible
by BlogSpotThinker
September 29, 2011
(Revised October 10, 2011)
A Comprehensive Set of Explanations
The Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations regarding the human experience. This apparently strong, Biblical set of explanations appears to include answers to questions for which science appears not yet to have offered an alternative. Consequently, ascribing more influence to the Bible’s apparent claims than to claims of a pink unicorn, magic space pizza or wizard, as appear to have been suggested, appears to be reasonably considered to be less-than-irrational.
The explanations that the Bible appears to offer appear to include (a) origins, including that of earth and of man, (b) the origin of adversity, (c) the solution for adversity, (d) some portion of the apparent conflicts in the middle east, (e) the historic development of estrangement from God, and (f) the apparently significant role of the nation of Israel. These six points appear to be drawn solely from an small, early portion of the first book of the Bible.
Comprehensive Presentation: Events, Perspectives and Principles
The Bible appears to explain the human experience by presenting relevant events, perspectives and principles. This approach appears to offer a more thorough, well-rounded and relatable presentation of the range of human experience than might an shorter or academic analysis of theory. This approach appears intended to inform regarding what representative parties did, what their thoughts were and the principles that are suggested to impact the human experience.
A Pivotal Moment: Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
The Bible appears to suggest that the Biblically-suggested rejection of God’s sovereign leadership is pivotal to the human experience and impacts every aspect of the human experience from human biology and human thought to the environment. The Bible appears to suggest that, as a result, the sole solution to this adverse human condition appears to be the restoration of the God/humanity relationship. This apparent Biblical suggestion appears to be substantiated by history’s apparent report that, despite all of the physical, intellectual and technological development throughout human history, humanity appears reported not to have resolved the adversities associated with the human condition.
Impact of Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
Aspects of the human experience apparently suggested by the Bible to have been impacted by this occurrence appear Biblically-suggested to include:(a) the human ability to discern, identify and interact with God, (b) adverse aspects of human nature such as those that might be reasonably described as evil and barbaric.
Introduction of Human and Animal Aggression
The Bible appears to suggest that the fall of man affected human perspective, eventually leading to envy and murder. Development of aggressiveness in animals appears to be reasonably explainable via transference of aggression from humanity to animals. Science appears to suggest that living entities besides humans appear to perceive emotion and, to some extent, to internalize and/or produce the emotions that they perceive. In light of this understanding, introduction of animal aggression via exposure to human aggression appears to be reasonable.
The Importance of the Bible to the World
The Bible appears to suggest that God intended to form a special relationship with Abraham’s lineage, that Abraham was to direct his lineage to keep God’s standards (Genesis 18: 19), and that all the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham’s lineage (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:1-8, 19, 21; Genesis 18: 18, 19; Genesis 22:17, 18). An apparently reasonable interpretation of these passages appears to be that God planned for the nation of Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the relationship between God and humanity. The importance of the Bible to the world appears to be that the Bible appears to be understood to be the guide to that special relationship.
Preference for the King James Version
A certain amount of preference for the King James Version of the Bible appears to be suggested by some. The King James Version appears to be reasonably understood to employ what appears to be generally referred to as the “Old English” dialect of the English language. An apparently reasonable possible explanation for this preference is that “Old English” appears to be reasonably considered to be one of several languages and dialects that appear to be reasonably considered to be the object of greater appreciation among languages and dialects. Recollection appears to suggest that other demographic groups besides that of Christians appear to be somewhat drawn to the English dialect apparently favorably associated with Shakespeare and King Arthur. An apparent, apparently attractive perception of strength and dignity appears to be associated with the dialect.
September 29, 2011
(Revised October 10, 2011)
A Comprehensive Set of Explanations
The Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations regarding the human experience. This apparently strong, Biblical set of explanations appears to include answers to questions for which science appears not yet to have offered an alternative. Consequently, ascribing more influence to the Bible’s apparent claims than to claims of a pink unicorn, magic space pizza or wizard, as appear to have been suggested, appears to be reasonably considered to be less-than-irrational.
The explanations that the Bible appears to offer appear to include (a) origins, including that of earth and of man, (b) the origin of adversity, (c) the solution for adversity, (d) some portion of the apparent conflicts in the middle east, (e) the historic development of estrangement from God, and (f) the apparently significant role of the nation of Israel. These six points appear to be drawn solely from an small, early portion of the first book of the Bible.
Comprehensive Presentation: Events, Perspectives and Principles
The Bible appears to explain the human experience by presenting relevant events, perspectives and principles. This approach appears to offer a more thorough, well-rounded and relatable presentation of the range of human experience than might an shorter or academic analysis of theory. This approach appears intended to inform regarding what representative parties did, what their thoughts were and the principles that are suggested to impact the human experience.
A Pivotal Moment: Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
The Bible appears to suggest that the Biblically-suggested rejection of God’s sovereign leadership is pivotal to the human experience and impacts every aspect of the human experience from human biology and human thought to the environment. The Bible appears to suggest that, as a result, the sole solution to this adverse human condition appears to be the restoration of the God/humanity relationship. This apparent Biblical suggestion appears to be substantiated by history’s apparent report that, despite all of the physical, intellectual and technological development throughout human history, humanity appears reported not to have resolved the adversities associated with the human condition.
Impact of Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
Aspects of the human experience apparently suggested by the Bible to have been impacted by this occurrence appear Biblically-suggested to include:(a) the human ability to discern, identify and interact with God, (b) adverse aspects of human nature such as those that might be reasonably described as evil and barbaric.
Introduction of Human and Animal Aggression
The Bible appears to suggest that the fall of man affected human perspective, eventually leading to envy and murder. Development of aggressiveness in animals appears to be reasonably explainable via transference of aggression from humanity to animals. Science appears to suggest that living entities besides humans appear to perceive emotion and, to some extent, to internalize and/or produce the emotions that they perceive. In light of this understanding, introduction of animal aggression via exposure to human aggression appears to be reasonable.
The Importance of the Bible to the World
The Bible appears to suggest that God intended to form a special relationship with Abraham’s lineage, that Abraham was to direct his lineage to keep God’s standards (Genesis 18: 19), and that all the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham’s lineage (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:1-8, 19, 21; Genesis 18: 18, 19; Genesis 22:17, 18). An apparently reasonable interpretation of these passages appears to be that God planned for the nation of Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the relationship between God and humanity. The importance of the Bible to the world appears to be that the Bible appears to be understood to be the guide to that special relationship.
Preference for the King James Version
A certain amount of preference for the King James Version of the Bible appears to be suggested by some. The King James Version appears to be reasonably understood to employ what appears to be generally referred to as the “Old English” dialect of the English language. An apparently reasonable possible explanation for this preference is that “Old English” appears to be reasonably considered to be one of several languages and dialects that appear to be reasonably considered to be the object of greater appreciation among languages and dialects. Recollection appears to suggest that other demographic groups besides that of Christians appear to be somewhat drawn to the English dialect apparently favorably associated with Shakespeare and King Arthur. An apparent, apparently attractive perception of strength and dignity appears to be associated with the dialect.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Accusations Against God: Too Few Restrictions (Adam and Eve)
By BlogSpotThinker
September 24, 2011
God appears to be accused by some of cruelly and negligently allowing adversity that He could have prevented. Other accusations apparently reasonably perceived to suggest that God’s allowing the negative circumstance to occur constitutes God’s intent for the outcome to manifest itself in the way that the Bible appears to report. The accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God as omniscient and omnipotent suggests that God could have prevented Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden. This accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God’s management of humanity falls below the human standard for parenting.
The Bible, however, appears to suggest that God established an environment with one restriction and made that restriction clear, arming Adam and Eve with the necessary knowledge (Genesis 2:16 and 17, Genesis 3:2 and 3). The Bible appears to suggest that, having done so, God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve.
Even in the context of human parenting, when given an exemplary information and child-development experience, a child appears reasonably expected to eventually make decisions on its own. It appears further generally expected that even a well-intentioned human parent will not attempt to control a child’s environment beyond a certain point. Attempts to do so appear generally considered to be excessive by the vast majority of opinion that appears to be considered reasonable, if not also considered to be similarly so by the child. Such attempts to control a child’s environment might even reasonably be considered to impinge upon the freedoms of others that are part of that environment. However, I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is not intended to opine on the apparently widely-variable context of specific parenting choices.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes. Similarly, human children, even including those perhaps considered to be impeccably-raised, appear reported to make inappropriate choices. Whether those choices are attributable to parent failings, to the child’s nature, or to some other factor appears to be a matter somewhat inconsistently assessed in retrospect.
An example of the apparently suggested intervention by God that appears to be generally considered to be undesirable appears to be eliminating the potential for murder by eliminating human physical capability to manipulate objects or by eliminating components of the environment that can be used to commit murder. Greater intervention by God to prevent undesirable human choice by eliminating human capacity to choose would appear to offer even greater potential for God to be misrepresented and misperceived as being overly restrictive and, as a result, as infringing upon human freedom, individuality and self-determined potential.
September 24, 2011
God appears to be accused by some of cruelly and negligently allowing adversity that He could have prevented. Other accusations apparently reasonably perceived to suggest that God’s allowing the negative circumstance to occur constitutes God’s intent for the outcome to manifest itself in the way that the Bible appears to report. The accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God as omniscient and omnipotent suggests that God could have prevented Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden. This accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God’s management of humanity falls below the human standard for parenting.
The Bible, however, appears to suggest that God established an environment with one restriction and made that restriction clear, arming Adam and Eve with the necessary knowledge (Genesis 2:16 and 17, Genesis 3:2 and 3). The Bible appears to suggest that, having done so, God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve.
Even in the context of human parenting, when given an exemplary information and child-development experience, a child appears reasonably expected to eventually make decisions on its own. It appears further generally expected that even a well-intentioned human parent will not attempt to control a child’s environment beyond a certain point. Attempts to do so appear generally considered to be excessive by the vast majority of opinion that appears to be considered reasonable, if not also considered to be similarly so by the child. Such attempts to control a child’s environment might even reasonably be considered to impinge upon the freedoms of others that are part of that environment. However, I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is not intended to opine on the apparently widely-variable context of specific parenting choices.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes. Similarly, human children, even including those perhaps considered to be impeccably-raised, appear reported to make inappropriate choices. Whether those choices are attributable to parent failings, to the child’s nature, or to some other factor appears to be a matter somewhat inconsistently assessed in retrospect.
An example of the apparently suggested intervention by God that appears to be generally considered to be undesirable appears to be eliminating the potential for murder by eliminating human physical capability to manipulate objects or by eliminating components of the environment that can be used to commit murder. Greater intervention by God to prevent undesirable human choice by eliminating human capacity to choose would appear to offer even greater potential for God to be misrepresented and misperceived as being overly restrictive and, as a result, as infringing upon human freedom, individuality and self-determined potential.
God and Justice
By BlogSpotThinker
September 24, 2011
Compensating injury for injury appears to be prescribed in several Old Testament passages. In Exodus 21, the context appears to pertain to two people fighting who hit a pregnant woman and serious injury results. In Leviticus 24, the context appears to cover killing a neighbor’s animal and injuring a neighbor. Deuteronomy 19 appears to refer to malicious false witness.
The guideline appears to be reasonably considered to not be intended to be applied as a general rule of thumb for addressing social conflict, but, rather the guideline appears reasonably considered to be intended to be applied to specific acts that are intentional and, perhaps, reasonably considered to be egregious.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that applying the guideline of compensating injury for injury as a general rule of thumb appears to present a problem of its own. Human fallibility regarding discernment of propriety appears generally and even scientifically widely-accepted. This fallibility appears to suggest the potential for miscarriages of justice. Such miscarriages of justice appear to add to the list of injuries that must be compensated for.
Matthew 5 appears to suggest considering the credo to be a reflection of the problem and to recommend moving beyond the letter of that guideline to the appropriate perspective that cares about one’s neighbor.
September 24, 2011
Compensating injury for injury appears to be prescribed in several Old Testament passages. In Exodus 21, the context appears to pertain to two people fighting who hit a pregnant woman and serious injury results. In Leviticus 24, the context appears to cover killing a neighbor’s animal and injuring a neighbor. Deuteronomy 19 appears to refer to malicious false witness.
The guideline appears to be reasonably considered to not be intended to be applied as a general rule of thumb for addressing social conflict, but, rather the guideline appears reasonably considered to be intended to be applied to specific acts that are intentional and, perhaps, reasonably considered to be egregious.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that applying the guideline of compensating injury for injury as a general rule of thumb appears to present a problem of its own. Human fallibility regarding discernment of propriety appears generally and even scientifically widely-accepted. This fallibility appears to suggest the potential for miscarriages of justice. Such miscarriages of justice appear to add to the list of injuries that must be compensated for.
Matthew 5 appears to suggest considering the credo to be a reflection of the problem and to recommend moving beyond the letter of that guideline to the appropriate perspective that cares about one’s neighbor.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Accusations Against God: Arbitrariness (Jacob and Esau)
By BlogSpotThinker
September 23, 2011
Among the accusations apparently levied against God, one accusation appears to be that the Bible portrays God as unconcernedly arbitrary in His judgment of humanity. One apparently suggested example of this apparently suggested arbitrariness appears suggested to pertain to the Old Testament account of Jacob and Esau and, more specifically perhaps, the New Testament, Romans 9, apparent Paulian reference to that Old Testament account. The Romans 9 passage appears suggested to portray God as arbitrarily preferring Jacob and disapproving of Esau.
I humbly and respectfully suggest that I appear to understand the logic behind the apparent concern regarding the apparent Biblical portrayal of God in Romans 9. The passage’s apparent linguistic portrayal of God appears very inconsistent with the apparent description of God elsewhere in the Bible as unfathomably just and loving.
Upon closer review, however, the writer of Romans 9 – apparently suggested to be Paul – appears to combine two “quotes” from God from two different sections of the Bible. Romans 9:12 appears suggested to quote “The older will serve the younger” from Genesis 25:23 and Romans 9:13 appears suggested to quote “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” from Malachi 1:2, 3 (both from the New International Version).
The apparent “original” context and resulting original connotation of the statements apparently suggested to have been quoted in Romans 9 appears to vary somewhat from the context and connotation apparently applied by Romans 9 to those original statements. Genesis 25:22 and 23 appear to represent a conversation between God and Rebekah, Isaac’s wife and the mother of twins Jacob and Esau. The passage appears to suggest that Rebekah sensed a great deal of movement of the two prenatal infants: “The babies jostled each other within her” (New International Version) and inquired of God regarding the reason. Genesis 25:23 appears to suggest that God replied to Rebekah that the twins would father and head two separate nations and that the “older” would “serve the younger”, apparently reversing tradition that appears to typically assign a greater leadership role to the older of siblings. Although God appears to foretell, in this passage, the destinies of the two children, there appears to be no indication at all in the passage that God preferred one child over the other. This appears suggested to be solely an explanation for the hyperactivity that Rebekah appears suggested to have sensed and a foretelling of the destiny of the two children.
In Malachi, a retrospective monologue by the prophet Malachi regarding Israel (apparently Jacob’s descendents) appears to have just started. In the passage, Malachi appears to begin by voicing God’s declaration of love for Israel. Malachi then appears to describe Israel’s apparent request to God to substantiate this declared love of Israel. Malachi then appears suggested to describe God’s substantiation of His love for Israel via a reminder of the sibling nature of the two nations’ forefathers and that, yet, God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. Being that this monologue appears to represent a retrospective, it appears reasonable to suggest that the difference in God’s treatment of the two brothers and their lineage might reasonably be considered to be related to their apparently earlier reported choices regarding acceptance of God’s leadership.
The apparent Romans 9 analysis apparently associated with Paul appears reasonably considered to address the apparent assertion of Jews that their descendance from Abraham automatically guaranteed their acceptance by God. Paul appears suggested to describe that acceptance by God is, at all times, the purview of God, rather than even descendance from Abraham. Further, Paul appears suggested to illustrate the apparently suggested disconnect between God’s approval and descendance from Abraham by suggesting that both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and that, yet, God approved of Jacob while highly disapproving of Esau. Paul appears suggested to mention that this diverse destiny was foreknown by God before the twins had been born and that God’s authority regarding foreknowledge and approval regarding humanity was demonstrated by God’s declaration to Rebekah that the younger would serve the older. The apparently suggested Paulian reference to God’s differing approval response toward Jacob and Esau and their lineage appears reasonably considered to be phrased as an afterthought, apparently perhaps, supporting the apparent Paulian assertion that descendance from Abraham did not make approval by God automatic: “just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, New International Version).
September 23, 2011
Among the accusations apparently levied against God, one accusation appears to be that the Bible portrays God as unconcernedly arbitrary in His judgment of humanity. One apparently suggested example of this apparently suggested arbitrariness appears suggested to pertain to the Old Testament account of Jacob and Esau and, more specifically perhaps, the New Testament, Romans 9, apparent Paulian reference to that Old Testament account. The Romans 9 passage appears suggested to portray God as arbitrarily preferring Jacob and disapproving of Esau.
I humbly and respectfully suggest that I appear to understand the logic behind the apparent concern regarding the apparent Biblical portrayal of God in Romans 9. The passage’s apparent linguistic portrayal of God appears very inconsistent with the apparent description of God elsewhere in the Bible as unfathomably just and loving.
Upon closer review, however, the writer of Romans 9 – apparently suggested to be Paul – appears to combine two “quotes” from God from two different sections of the Bible. Romans 9:12 appears suggested to quote “The older will serve the younger” from Genesis 25:23 and Romans 9:13 appears suggested to quote “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” from Malachi 1:2, 3 (both from the New International Version).
The apparent “original” context and resulting original connotation of the statements apparently suggested to have been quoted in Romans 9 appears to vary somewhat from the context and connotation apparently applied by Romans 9 to those original statements. Genesis 25:22 and 23 appear to represent a conversation between God and Rebekah, Isaac’s wife and the mother of twins Jacob and Esau. The passage appears to suggest that Rebekah sensed a great deal of movement of the two prenatal infants: “The babies jostled each other within her” (New International Version) and inquired of God regarding the reason. Genesis 25:23 appears to suggest that God replied to Rebekah that the twins would father and head two separate nations and that the “older” would “serve the younger”, apparently reversing tradition that appears to typically assign a greater leadership role to the older of siblings. Although God appears to foretell, in this passage, the destinies of the two children, there appears to be no indication at all in the passage that God preferred one child over the other. This appears suggested to be solely an explanation for the hyperactivity that Rebekah appears suggested to have sensed and a foretelling of the destiny of the two children.
In Malachi, a retrospective monologue by the prophet Malachi regarding Israel (apparently Jacob’s descendents) appears to have just started. In the passage, Malachi appears to begin by voicing God’s declaration of love for Israel. Malachi then appears to describe Israel’s apparent request to God to substantiate this declared love of Israel. Malachi then appears suggested to describe God’s substantiation of His love for Israel via a reminder of the sibling nature of the two nations’ forefathers and that, yet, God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. Being that this monologue appears to represent a retrospective, it appears reasonable to suggest that the difference in God’s treatment of the two brothers and their lineage might reasonably be considered to be related to their apparently earlier reported choices regarding acceptance of God’s leadership.
The apparent Romans 9 analysis apparently associated with Paul appears reasonably considered to address the apparent assertion of Jews that their descendance from Abraham automatically guaranteed their acceptance by God. Paul appears suggested to describe that acceptance by God is, at all times, the purview of God, rather than even descendance from Abraham. Further, Paul appears suggested to illustrate the apparently suggested disconnect between God’s approval and descendance from Abraham by suggesting that both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and that, yet, God approved of Jacob while highly disapproving of Esau. Paul appears suggested to mention that this diverse destiny was foreknown by God before the twins had been born and that God’s authority regarding foreknowledge and approval regarding humanity was demonstrated by God’s declaration to Rebekah that the younger would serve the older. The apparently suggested Paulian reference to God’s differing approval response toward Jacob and Esau and their lineage appears reasonably considered to be phrased as an afterthought, apparently perhaps, supporting the apparent Paulian assertion that descendance from Abraham did not make approval by God automatic: “just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, New International Version).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Misdirection of Independence
By BlogSpotThinker
September 22, 2011
A suggestion that I appear to have encountered appears to propose that humanity attempt to figure out how to prosper without relying upon God. This suggestion doesn’t appear rational in light of the apparently Biblical suggestion that God is sovereign, that we are designed for His leadership and that attempts to revise that design, regardless of how partially successful they might appear – destroyed environment exchanged for technological advances, for example – appear Biblically suggested to ultimately really represent a step backward. However, for those who apparently prefer independence from God to optimal existence under His leadership, perhaps, the prospects of a lower-quality existence appear preferable to forfeiture of self-direction that appears to have been promised once, yet that appears Biblically-suggested to be false.
Perhaps this is the beginning of what appears to have been referred to as “Hell”: an approximation of what can be constructed by those who don’t want what can be constructed because it’s not self-direction. Here again, the Bible’s apparent comprehensive explanations of concepts apparently related to human experience that appear not offered by science or other sources appears to suggest the Bible’s credibility. There appears to be no other rationale for accepting the level of destruction that appears to accompany the advances we appear to have achieved. The apparent perspective appears to be that, once the “learning curve” threshold is crossed, success will be available. This appears to be a point of faith somewhat similar to that of faith in God.
Humanity appears to include a fierce independent streak. Supposedly, this might be considered an asset. It appears useful for propelling humanity forward as even the Bible appears to suggest that God invited humanity to be (Genesis 1: 28-30). Perhaps this independent streak might even be a possible asset when dealing with other entities that would attempt to usurp God’s leadership. The Bible appears to suggest, however, that it is not an asset when convinced to be directed toward God. It appears suggested to be as fierce a liability as it is independent.
The only solution appears Biblically suggested to be recognition of the signs that neither the advances nor the independence are worth the destruction, and that the ultimate destiny of the quest is similarly much more self-destruction than it might be self-direction. Those who recognize the signs appear Biblically urged to accept the covering of God’s leadership. The Bible further appears to suggest that the alternative is not nearly as desirable.
September 22, 2011
A suggestion that I appear to have encountered appears to propose that humanity attempt to figure out how to prosper without relying upon God. This suggestion doesn’t appear rational in light of the apparently Biblical suggestion that God is sovereign, that we are designed for His leadership and that attempts to revise that design, regardless of how partially successful they might appear – destroyed environment exchanged for technological advances, for example – appear Biblically suggested to ultimately really represent a step backward. However, for those who apparently prefer independence from God to optimal existence under His leadership, perhaps, the prospects of a lower-quality existence appear preferable to forfeiture of self-direction that appears to have been promised once, yet that appears Biblically-suggested to be false.
Perhaps this is the beginning of what appears to have been referred to as “Hell”: an approximation of what can be constructed by those who don’t want what can be constructed because it’s not self-direction. Here again, the Bible’s apparent comprehensive explanations of concepts apparently related to human experience that appear not offered by science or other sources appears to suggest the Bible’s credibility. There appears to be no other rationale for accepting the level of destruction that appears to accompany the advances we appear to have achieved. The apparent perspective appears to be that, once the “learning curve” threshold is crossed, success will be available. This appears to be a point of faith somewhat similar to that of faith in God.
Humanity appears to include a fierce independent streak. Supposedly, this might be considered an asset. It appears useful for propelling humanity forward as even the Bible appears to suggest that God invited humanity to be (Genesis 1: 28-30). Perhaps this independent streak might even be a possible asset when dealing with other entities that would attempt to usurp God’s leadership. The Bible appears to suggest, however, that it is not an asset when convinced to be directed toward God. It appears suggested to be as fierce a liability as it is independent.
The only solution appears Biblically suggested to be recognition of the signs that neither the advances nor the independence are worth the destruction, and that the ultimate destiny of the quest is similarly much more self-destruction than it might be self-direction. Those who recognize the signs appear Biblically urged to accept the covering of God’s leadership. The Bible further appears to suggest that the alternative is not nearly as desirable.
God: Natural or Supernatural
By BlogSpotThinker
September 22, 2011
“Objective” appears to connote a realm beyond the influence of human perception and thought processing.
“Realness” appears to refer to actual existence and appears bifurcated for the sake of application regarding reality into (a) the “imagination-hosted”: that which exists due to and solely within human perception and (b) the “non-imagination-hosted”: that which exists not as a result of human perception.
The latter non-imagination-hosted group appears generally considered to contain a subset of its members which is represented within the former imagination-hosted group. Additionally, the former imagination-hosted group appears to contain a subset of members which is not represented in the latter non-imagination-hosted group.
“Know” appears reasonably described as referring commonly to two concepts: (a) recognition – “knowing a phenomenon exists”, and (b) understanding – “knowing a concept better than another”.
Perhaps a problem that science has is that it attempts, apparently reportedly for possibly admirable quality-control reasons, to process current perception through the analytic filter of prior perception. Apparently unfortunately, this filtering appears attempted regardless of the validity of the prior perception. Consequently, any experience perceived or reflected upon appears subject to categorizing into either imagination or non-imagination. Based upon the apparently scientific assertion that perception is fallible, “knowing God’s realness” can then never occur. One can never irrefutably determine whether a perception is (a) a real-time representation of an existence independent of that perception or (b) that which appears to be referred to by science as fabrication. Experiencing interaction with God might occur, assuming that the portion of that interaction that might be described by science as “outside of imagination” truly occurred. Science appears to suggest that neither the experiencer nor an observer can “know”.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the term “supernatural” appears to represent less of an intimidation to science than some appear to portray it to represent. The term appears reasonably defined to refer to that which exists beyond what science has yet recognized as truly existing. The term “natural” appears solely to mean “that which is a part of nature”. If nature is “that which truly exists”, and science apparently acknowledges incomplete understanding of all that truly exists, it appears to be a bit too early in science development to suggest the labeling of certain suggested phenomena as “supernatural” as an indicator that it does not exist. Science appears reasonably considered to have logic and reason to assert that it perceives no logical, reasonable basis for considering such a phenomenon to exist but not that said phenomenon does not exist.
Consequently, the term “supernatural” appears to either (a) mean that a suggested phenomenon suggested to exist but that science appears unable to verify either its existence or non-existence or to (b) have no true purpose.
September 22, 2011
“Objective” appears to connote a realm beyond the influence of human perception and thought processing.
“Realness” appears to refer to actual existence and appears bifurcated for the sake of application regarding reality into (a) the “imagination-hosted”: that which exists due to and solely within human perception and (b) the “non-imagination-hosted”: that which exists not as a result of human perception.
The latter non-imagination-hosted group appears generally considered to contain a subset of its members which is represented within the former imagination-hosted group. Additionally, the former imagination-hosted group appears to contain a subset of members which is not represented in the latter non-imagination-hosted group.
“Know” appears reasonably described as referring commonly to two concepts: (a) recognition – “knowing a phenomenon exists”, and (b) understanding – “knowing a concept better than another”.
Perhaps a problem that science has is that it attempts, apparently reportedly for possibly admirable quality-control reasons, to process current perception through the analytic filter of prior perception. Apparently unfortunately, this filtering appears attempted regardless of the validity of the prior perception. Consequently, any experience perceived or reflected upon appears subject to categorizing into either imagination or non-imagination. Based upon the apparently scientific assertion that perception is fallible, “knowing God’s realness” can then never occur. One can never irrefutably determine whether a perception is (a) a real-time representation of an existence independent of that perception or (b) that which appears to be referred to by science as fabrication. Experiencing interaction with God might occur, assuming that the portion of that interaction that might be described by science as “outside of imagination” truly occurred. Science appears to suggest that neither the experiencer nor an observer can “know”.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the term “supernatural” appears to represent less of an intimidation to science than some appear to portray it to represent. The term appears reasonably defined to refer to that which exists beyond what science has yet recognized as truly existing. The term “natural” appears solely to mean “that which is a part of nature”. If nature is “that which truly exists”, and science apparently acknowledges incomplete understanding of all that truly exists, it appears to be a bit too early in science development to suggest the labeling of certain suggested phenomena as “supernatural” as an indicator that it does not exist. Science appears reasonably considered to have logic and reason to assert that it perceives no logical, reasonable basis for considering such a phenomenon to exist but not that said phenomenon does not exist.
Consequently, the term “supernatural” appears to either (a) mean that a suggested phenomenon suggested to exist but that science appears unable to verify either its existence or non-existence or to (b) have no true purpose.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
God and Government
By BlogSpotThinker
September 21, 2011
God and government appears reasonably considered to be a critical social issue. The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme entity of all reality, the creator of humanity, and therefore, humanity’s and reality’s unchallengeable leader. Government, on the other hand, appears considered by some to claim the role of humanity’s somewhat challengeable leader. Does a line exist bordering God’s role and that of government? If so, where should the line be drawn?
Many of the founders of American government appear suggested to have held both God and the Bible in high regard while recognizing the potential for misdirection of humanity’s respect for both via unfounded claims of endorsement by both. The founders appear reported to have, therefore, weaved certain Biblical principles apparently considered fundamental into societal guideline documents along with prohibitions on government influence of most, if not all, behavior related to religious belief. These prohibitions appear reasonably interpreted to intend to respect the apparently Biblically-suggested individualized relationship between God and humanity.
While these apparently reported goals might be reasonably considered laudable, do they represent God’s design for humanity?
I primarily, humbly and respectfully submit that the following perspective is not intended to represent authoritative knowledge and that, ultimately, questions regarding God are referred, hereby, to God. The concepts expressed herein are presented as personal perspective, subject to, among other fallibilities, error.
As suggested earlier, the Bible appears to suggest that God created humanity and its reality, including His role as humanity’s leader. The Bible appears to further suggest that God made available to humanity the choice of trusting God’s leadership or that of a challenger who promised humanity self-direction beyond God’s leadership and that humanity wrongly chose the challenger. The Bible appears to also suggest that, since then, humanity has continued its quest for prosperity through self-determination. The Bible and history appear to suggest that the outcome has been undesirable, resulting in a complex, highly destructive version of the three apparently Biblically-suggested, simple goals of God’s original design: to enjoy the world of opportunity God had developed, and while doing so, to love God with all one’s heart and to love others as much as oneself.
An apparent limitation of developing life without God appears suggested by the Bible to be apparent damage done to the relationship between God and humanity and, because human discernment appears Biblically-suggested to be an aspect of that relationship, the resulting damage to human discernment. Humanity’s decision-making ability appears to have been diminished by that first decision to declare its independence from God. A step in humanity’s apparent attempts to address that apparent diminished discernment without returning to God appears to be humanity developing the practice of selecting the “best minds among us” to decide our issues as apparently suggested in Deuteronomy 1:9-18 and other Biblical passages. This appears suggested to represent humanity’s first steps toward government.
An important aspect of the apparently Biblically-suggested development of human government appears to be God’s apparent perspective regarding it. 1 Samuel 8 appears to portray God’s chosen nation’s request for human government “like all the nations” (verse 5) rather than God’s leadership. God’s response appears suggested to be to grant them their choice, but beforehand, to also foretell the disaster that human government would bring. Verses 19 and 20 appear to suggest that the people were undeterred by this warning. Their experience and the human government experience prior to and since then appears to be reasonably considered relatively consistent.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s design for humanity has and still is individual relationship with and leadership by God. The extent to which God appears Biblically-suggested to endorse government appears reasonably considered to be the extent to which God has allowed humanity to pursue its apparently Biblically-suggested, Adam-Eve-and-serpent-initiated goal of self-direction, while not completely abandoning humanity and even perhaps blessing somewhat humanity’s efforts to incorporate God in its life. The Bible appears, however, to consistently clarify God’s apparent Biblically-suggested reference to human government as not being God’s recommended design.
September 21, 2011
God and government appears reasonably considered to be a critical social issue. The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme entity of all reality, the creator of humanity, and therefore, humanity’s and reality’s unchallengeable leader. Government, on the other hand, appears considered by some to claim the role of humanity’s somewhat challengeable leader. Does a line exist bordering God’s role and that of government? If so, where should the line be drawn?
Many of the founders of American government appear suggested to have held both God and the Bible in high regard while recognizing the potential for misdirection of humanity’s respect for both via unfounded claims of endorsement by both. The founders appear reported to have, therefore, weaved certain Biblical principles apparently considered fundamental into societal guideline documents along with prohibitions on government influence of most, if not all, behavior related to religious belief. These prohibitions appear reasonably interpreted to intend to respect the apparently Biblically-suggested individualized relationship between God and humanity.
While these apparently reported goals might be reasonably considered laudable, do they represent God’s design for humanity?
I primarily, humbly and respectfully submit that the following perspective is not intended to represent authoritative knowledge and that, ultimately, questions regarding God are referred, hereby, to God. The concepts expressed herein are presented as personal perspective, subject to, among other fallibilities, error.
As suggested earlier, the Bible appears to suggest that God created humanity and its reality, including His role as humanity’s leader. The Bible appears to further suggest that God made available to humanity the choice of trusting God’s leadership or that of a challenger who promised humanity self-direction beyond God’s leadership and that humanity wrongly chose the challenger. The Bible appears to also suggest that, since then, humanity has continued its quest for prosperity through self-determination. The Bible and history appear to suggest that the outcome has been undesirable, resulting in a complex, highly destructive version of the three apparently Biblically-suggested, simple goals of God’s original design: to enjoy the world of opportunity God had developed, and while doing so, to love God with all one’s heart and to love others as much as oneself.
An apparent limitation of developing life without God appears suggested by the Bible to be apparent damage done to the relationship between God and humanity and, because human discernment appears Biblically-suggested to be an aspect of that relationship, the resulting damage to human discernment. Humanity’s decision-making ability appears to have been diminished by that first decision to declare its independence from God. A step in humanity’s apparent attempts to address that apparent diminished discernment without returning to God appears to be humanity developing the practice of selecting the “best minds among us” to decide our issues as apparently suggested in Deuteronomy 1:9-18 and other Biblical passages. This appears suggested to represent humanity’s first steps toward government.
An important aspect of the apparently Biblically-suggested development of human government appears to be God’s apparent perspective regarding it. 1 Samuel 8 appears to portray God’s chosen nation’s request for human government “like all the nations” (verse 5) rather than God’s leadership. God’s response appears suggested to be to grant them their choice, but beforehand, to also foretell the disaster that human government would bring. Verses 19 and 20 appear to suggest that the people were undeterred by this warning. Their experience and the human government experience prior to and since then appears to be reasonably considered relatively consistent.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s design for humanity has and still is individual relationship with and leadership by God. The extent to which God appears Biblically-suggested to endorse government appears reasonably considered to be the extent to which God has allowed humanity to pursue its apparently Biblically-suggested, Adam-Eve-and-serpent-initiated goal of self-direction, while not completely abandoning humanity and even perhaps blessing somewhat humanity’s efforts to incorporate God in its life. The Bible appears, however, to consistently clarify God’s apparent Biblically-suggested reference to human government as not being God’s recommended design.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Standard for Right and Wrong
by BlogSpotThinker
September 19, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme authority regarding what is right and wrong and that questions about what God wants humanity to understand regarding right and wrong should be referred to God (James 1:5).
The Bible also appears to suggest that after Adam and Eve’s rejection of God, human fallibility and intentional alteration of God’s guidelines might have created new versions (http://blogspotthinker.blogspot.com/2011/09/religious-diversity.html). Consequently, for the truth, God appears referred.
The Bible also appears to suggest that the relationship between God and humanity is fundamentally individual and that God’s perspective on what is right in a particular circumstance might be different than human perspective regarding that instance. Such misapplication might even be based on human understanding of God’s laws (Numbers 12).
September 19, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme authority regarding what is right and wrong and that questions about what God wants humanity to understand regarding right and wrong should be referred to God (James 1:5).
The Bible also appears to suggest that after Adam and Eve’s rejection of God, human fallibility and intentional alteration of God’s guidelines might have created new versions (http://blogspotthinker.blogspot.com/2011/09/religious-diversity.html). Consequently, for the truth, God appears referred.
The Bible also appears to suggest that the relationship between God and humanity is fundamentally individual and that God’s perspective on what is right in a particular circumstance might be different than human perspective regarding that instance. Such misapplication might even be based on human understanding of God’s laws (Numbers 12).
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Accusations Against God
by BlogSpotThinker
September 10 and 18, 2011
(Revised October 1, 2011)
God appears reported to be accused of varied improprieties. The Bible appears to recommend referring to God questions about God, especially in light of apparent, generally accepted limitations of general human and personal knowledge and communication and the extent to which the Bible appears to suggest God’s existence extends beyond human understanding. That apparently Biblical recommendation, ultimately, is implemented here.
In addition, however, certain logic and reason regarding the suggested accusations against God appears sufficiently clear to allow its delineation. This apparent logic and reason is presented in the following essay.
Too Many Restrictions
God appears accused by some of having too many restrictive guidelines. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God, at creation, instead delivered an invitation to a world of opportunity (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16), one responsibility (Genesis 2:15) and one restriction (Genesis 2:17).
The Bible further appears to suggest that God further clarified His standard in response to humanity’s increasing challenge to and violation of God’s minimal restrictions (various passages from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy).
Too Few Restrictions
God appears also accused by some of negligently and cruelly allowing adversity because He purportedly could and should have utilized His apparently Biblically-suggested omnipotence and omniscience to prevent Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden.
However, the Bible appears to suggest that God established an environment with only one restriction, that God made that restriction clear and that God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes.
If God had prevented the possibility of undesirable human outcome by eliminating human capacity to choose non-compliance with God’s design, as God’s accusers appear to suggest He should have, the less-than-fully-informed might, and appear reported often to, accuse God of being too restrictive and of hiding from humanity something beneficial to humanity, perhaps, including the apparently oft-suggested ability of humanity to not need God, as the apparent Biblical “Adam, Eve and serpent” story appears to suggest that Adam and Eve were convinced to erroneously think. The section “Too Many Restrictions” above also attempts to address this perspective.
Responsibility for Adversity
God also appears to be accused of responsibility for human adversity. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that humanly-caused human adversity is the result of humanity’s decision to reject God’s leadership and to initiate processes with destructive social and other dynamics. I, humbly and respectfully, ultimately refer to God questions regarding the cause of natural adversity.
Arbitrariness
This apparent accusation against God appears to be that God’s arbitrary preference for Abel’s sacrifice provoked Cain to kill Abel.
Several passages including Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11, and 1st John 3 appear to refer to the story and appear to suggest that Cain was in the wrong. A quick search near the Cain and Abel story appears not to reveal specification of a lamb rather than vegetation. However, Genesis 4:6 appears to suggest that, when Cain became angry regarding the apparently rejected vegetation sacrifice and before Cain committed his later deed, God gently appealed to Cain regarding the correlation between acceptance and doing right. Although the basis of wrong appears not clearly specified to readers in the text, it appears reasonable to conclude that the basis might have been made clear.
If so, it appears that Cain might have altered the guideline, perhaps for reasons some might consider somewhat admirable. Based upon the rejection, Cain appears suggested to make an illogical choice: causing harm to Abel although Abel does not appear suggested to have harmed Cain. Cain might have distortedly attributed his rejection to Abel. This perhaps exemplifies the distorted perspective that the Bible appears to suggest resulted from the damaged relationship and connection to God apparently Biblically suggested to result from Adam and Eve’s rejection of God.
If God’s apparently suggested advise to Cain and the New Testament consensus regarding Cain is accepted as contextually suggesting Cain’s error, it appears reasonable to suggest that, if Cain is perceived to have been provoked, the perceiver’s solution would appear to suggest that impropriety not to be rejected. Implementation of this solution appears reasonably expected to result in the conditions which appear to give rise to the apparent accusation of some that God offers too few restrictions, as discussed above.
The Misdeeds of Fallible Human Followers
The Bible appears to include various accounts of human fallible judgment, even among the self-proclaimed followers of God. Some accusations appear to attribute to God the fallibility of those who claim to believe in God. In light of humanity’s apparently Biblically suggested choice to reject God’s leadership and the apparent resulting damage done to human discernment, such accounts of fallible judgment appear attributable to humanity’s choices rather than to God.
Punishment of Humanity
The Bible’s apparent description of God’s punishment of humanity for sufficiently egregious violation of God’s guidelines appears questioned. In light of the apparent Biblically suggested propriety and clarity of God’s guidelines and patience exhibited by God regarding such violations, the Bible’s apparently described punishment of humanity by God appears reasonably considered appropriate. The punishment humanity appears to inflict upon humanity appears reported to, at times, be quite severe and compounded by humanity’s fallible discernment of right, wrong, innocence and guilt.
God’s Assertion of Sovereignty
Accusations against God appear to include a suggestion that the Bible’s apparent description of God declaring His sovereignty and requiring humanity’s acknowledgement thereof appears to depict God as petty. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s sovereignty is the fundamental premise of reality. If that is the case, making that clear appears reasonable.
Certain accusations appear to suggest that God hasn't made his guidelines clear, as described above. God’s allowing Abraham’s lineage to exemplify human relationship with God might have been challenged by other nations or God might otherwise have recognized the propriety of making clear His sovereignty.
The Unsure Accusations
Other examples appear unclear. However, unspecified context might be important to understand them. The less positive alternative appears very inconsistent with God’s character as elsewhere and even juxtapositionally described.
Accusation Summary
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that any reality that God provides and any outcome that results appears to be subjectable to retrospective accusation of fault toward God. To wit:
If God creates an excellent environment and establishes guidelines for human living, God might be accused of restricting human choice and potential.
If God removes human and/or environmental potential for violating those guidelines, God might be accused of being over-protective, of not sufficiently trusting humanity, of not allowing choice, of effectively forcing obedience, of unmeritously protecting humanity from nearly-guaranteed disobedience (Old Testament book of Job), and/or of doubting the “design strength” of God’s creation.
If God does not remove the potential for guideline violation and violation follows, God might be accused of negligently not protecting humanity from and/or preparing humanity for the potential for guideline violation, and/or of even maliciously plotting humanity’s harm. In addition, God might be accused of being overly punitive for banning humanity from the garden of Eden for its first violation on the basis that humanity appears to have had insufficient training and/or experience with violation-conducive circumstance.
If God does not remove the potential for violation and violation does not follow, God might be accused of, in fact, having removed the potential for violation. Humanity’s obedience might be attributed to a lack of potential for disobedience, rather than to humanity’s trust in and obedience toward God. The accusation might be levied at humanity that humanity would not have obeyed if potential for disobedience truly existed (Old Testament book of Job).
This tendency to find fault with God regardless of circumstance appears Biblically initially associated with Lucifer and the serpent. That tendency appears to support the apparently Biblically-suggested requirement of faith based upon existing evidence as a key ingredient of relationship and interaction with God.
September 10 and 18, 2011
(Revised October 1, 2011)
God appears reported to be accused of varied improprieties. The Bible appears to recommend referring to God questions about God, especially in light of apparent, generally accepted limitations of general human and personal knowledge and communication and the extent to which the Bible appears to suggest God’s existence extends beyond human understanding. That apparently Biblical recommendation, ultimately, is implemented here.
In addition, however, certain logic and reason regarding the suggested accusations against God appears sufficiently clear to allow its delineation. This apparent logic and reason is presented in the following essay.
Too Many Restrictions
God appears accused by some of having too many restrictive guidelines. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God, at creation, instead delivered an invitation to a world of opportunity (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16), one responsibility (Genesis 2:15) and one restriction (Genesis 2:17).
The Bible further appears to suggest that God further clarified His standard in response to humanity’s increasing challenge to and violation of God’s minimal restrictions (various passages from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy).
Too Few Restrictions
God appears also accused by some of negligently and cruelly allowing adversity because He purportedly could and should have utilized His apparently Biblically-suggested omnipotence and omniscience to prevent Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden.
However, the Bible appears to suggest that God established an environment with only one restriction, that God made that restriction clear and that God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes.
If God had prevented the possibility of undesirable human outcome by eliminating human capacity to choose non-compliance with God’s design, as God’s accusers appear to suggest He should have, the less-than-fully-informed might, and appear reported often to, accuse God of being too restrictive and of hiding from humanity something beneficial to humanity, perhaps, including the apparently oft-suggested ability of humanity to not need God, as the apparent Biblical “Adam, Eve and serpent” story appears to suggest that Adam and Eve were convinced to erroneously think. The section “Too Many Restrictions” above also attempts to address this perspective.
Responsibility for Adversity
God also appears to be accused of responsibility for human adversity. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that humanly-caused human adversity is the result of humanity’s decision to reject God’s leadership and to initiate processes with destructive social and other dynamics. I, humbly and respectfully, ultimately refer to God questions regarding the cause of natural adversity.
Arbitrariness
This apparent accusation against God appears to be that God’s arbitrary preference for Abel’s sacrifice provoked Cain to kill Abel.
Several passages including Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11, and 1st John 3 appear to refer to the story and appear to suggest that Cain was in the wrong. A quick search near the Cain and Abel story appears not to reveal specification of a lamb rather than vegetation. However, Genesis 4:6 appears to suggest that, when Cain became angry regarding the apparently rejected vegetation sacrifice and before Cain committed his later deed, God gently appealed to Cain regarding the correlation between acceptance and doing right. Although the basis of wrong appears not clearly specified to readers in the text, it appears reasonable to conclude that the basis might have been made clear.
If so, it appears that Cain might have altered the guideline, perhaps for reasons some might consider somewhat admirable. Based upon the rejection, Cain appears suggested to make an illogical choice: causing harm to Abel although Abel does not appear suggested to have harmed Cain. Cain might have distortedly attributed his rejection to Abel. This perhaps exemplifies the distorted perspective that the Bible appears to suggest resulted from the damaged relationship and connection to God apparently Biblically suggested to result from Adam and Eve’s rejection of God.
If God’s apparently suggested advise to Cain and the New Testament consensus regarding Cain is accepted as contextually suggesting Cain’s error, it appears reasonable to suggest that, if Cain is perceived to have been provoked, the perceiver’s solution would appear to suggest that impropriety not to be rejected. Implementation of this solution appears reasonably expected to result in the conditions which appear to give rise to the apparent accusation of some that God offers too few restrictions, as discussed above.
The Misdeeds of Fallible Human Followers
The Bible appears to include various accounts of human fallible judgment, even among the self-proclaimed followers of God. Some accusations appear to attribute to God the fallibility of those who claim to believe in God. In light of humanity’s apparently Biblically suggested choice to reject God’s leadership and the apparent resulting damage done to human discernment, such accounts of fallible judgment appear attributable to humanity’s choices rather than to God.
Punishment of Humanity
The Bible’s apparent description of God’s punishment of humanity for sufficiently egregious violation of God’s guidelines appears questioned. In light of the apparent Biblically suggested propriety and clarity of God’s guidelines and patience exhibited by God regarding such violations, the Bible’s apparently described punishment of humanity by God appears reasonably considered appropriate. The punishment humanity appears to inflict upon humanity appears reported to, at times, be quite severe and compounded by humanity’s fallible discernment of right, wrong, innocence and guilt.
God’s Assertion of Sovereignty
Accusations against God appear to include a suggestion that the Bible’s apparent description of God declaring His sovereignty and requiring humanity’s acknowledgement thereof appears to depict God as petty. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s sovereignty is the fundamental premise of reality. If that is the case, making that clear appears reasonable.
Certain accusations appear to suggest that God hasn't made his guidelines clear, as described above. God’s allowing Abraham’s lineage to exemplify human relationship with God might have been challenged by other nations or God might otherwise have recognized the propriety of making clear His sovereignty.
The Unsure Accusations
Other examples appear unclear. However, unspecified context might be important to understand them. The less positive alternative appears very inconsistent with God’s character as elsewhere and even juxtapositionally described.
Accusation Summary
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that any reality that God provides and any outcome that results appears to be subjectable to retrospective accusation of fault toward God. To wit:
If God creates an excellent environment and establishes guidelines for human living, God might be accused of restricting human choice and potential.
If God removes human and/or environmental potential for violating those guidelines, God might be accused of being over-protective, of not sufficiently trusting humanity, of not allowing choice, of effectively forcing obedience, of unmeritously protecting humanity from nearly-guaranteed disobedience (Old Testament book of Job), and/or of doubting the “design strength” of God’s creation.
If God does not remove the potential for guideline violation and violation follows, God might be accused of negligently not protecting humanity from and/or preparing humanity for the potential for guideline violation, and/or of even maliciously plotting humanity’s harm. In addition, God might be accused of being overly punitive for banning humanity from the garden of Eden for its first violation on the basis that humanity appears to have had insufficient training and/or experience with violation-conducive circumstance.
If God does not remove the potential for violation and violation does not follow, God might be accused of, in fact, having removed the potential for violation. Humanity’s obedience might be attributed to a lack of potential for disobedience, rather than to humanity’s trust in and obedience toward God. The accusation might be levied at humanity that humanity would not have obeyed if potential for disobedience truly existed (Old Testament book of Job).
This tendency to find fault with God regardless of circumstance appears Biblically initially associated with Lucifer and the serpent. That tendency appears to support the apparently Biblically-suggested requirement of faith based upon existing evidence as a key ingredient of relationship and interaction with God.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Religious Diversity
by BlogSpotThinker
September 17, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Theories Regarding The Origins of Religious Diversity
The Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God and humanity had a close relationship and that humanity, somehow, was convinced to reject or otherwise abandon relationship with God. The Bible appears to further suggest that, as a result, individuals’ recollection and/or understanding about God deteriorated or was purposely and inappropriately replaced with humanly-preferred concepts, leading to the diversity of religions today.
This would appear to suggest the apparently reasonable theory that there is one God and that differing religions refer to that God or some interpretation or modified version.
Theories Regarding God and Human Individualism
Regarding individualism in the God/human relationship, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship between God and humanity involves certain facets that appear to apply somewhat similarly among individuals (Adam, Eve and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 2). Violation of these of God-given guidelines, suggested to be based upon human assertion of individuality, appears described by the Bible as not sanctioned by God, but forgivable by God.
However, the Bible’s apparent depiction of an apparent conflict of opinion between Moses, Aaron and Miriam regarding God’s demands also appears to suggest that the God/human relationship also appears somewhat individualized (Numbers 12).
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship with God should be prioritized and that questions regarding God and relationship to God should be individually referred to God (James 1: 5, 6).
September 17, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Theories Regarding The Origins of Religious Diversity
The Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God and humanity had a close relationship and that humanity, somehow, was convinced to reject or otherwise abandon relationship with God. The Bible appears to further suggest that, as a result, individuals’ recollection and/or understanding about God deteriorated or was purposely and inappropriately replaced with humanly-preferred concepts, leading to the diversity of religions today.
This would appear to suggest the apparently reasonable theory that there is one God and that differing religions refer to that God or some interpretation or modified version.
Theories Regarding God and Human Individualism
Regarding individualism in the God/human relationship, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship between God and humanity involves certain facets that appear to apply somewhat similarly among individuals (Adam, Eve and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 2). Violation of these of God-given guidelines, suggested to be based upon human assertion of individuality, appears described by the Bible as not sanctioned by God, but forgivable by God.
However, the Bible’s apparent depiction of an apparent conflict of opinion between Moses, Aaron and Miriam regarding God’s demands also appears to suggest that the God/human relationship also appears somewhat individualized (Numbers 12).
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship with God should be prioritized and that questions regarding God and relationship to God should be individually referred to God (James 1: 5, 6).
Thursday, September 15, 2011
God and Economics
by BlogSpotThinker
September 15, 2011
God’s Natural Economics vs. Contemporary Economics
A reasonable theory appears to be that we have altered what the Bible appears to refer to as the original economic system, to what it is now, possibly for admirable reasons. However, some undesirable side-effects appear to make this revised economic system a much less just economic system.
Revised Economic Access
To clarify, the Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God created resources for the taking. Apparently, each person was generally responsible for retrieving them from the environment, roughly based upon consumption. The economic system appears to have been revised by industrialization and capitalism which appear reported to have increased resource production, but also to have put humanity in charge of other humans’ access to resources. Analysis of Biblical and secular history appears to suggest that the new economic system’s development of the incentive toward selfishness appears reasonably considered to have been compounded by humanity’s apparent “post-fall-of-man” tendency toward injustice.
Apparently, as a result, the basis for human access to resources has gone from free access based upon the needs of the accessor to being controlled by another person and being based on the apparently illogical, unrelated factor of whether accessing those resources represents a sufficient benefit for the controlling person.
An additional undesirable side-effect of the revised economic system appears to be that it appears to connect two apparently unrelated factors: the resources Person A needs for the day and what Person B wants Person A to do that day. Although the two concepts might at times correlate, they also might well not correlate at all.
Another undesirable side-effect of revised economic system appears to be that long-standing economic philosophy and tradition, as a result, appear to consider lack of economic opportunity to be an unfortunate, but acceptable and expectable circumstance and outcome of economics.
Revised Economic Incentives
This economic system revision also appears to replace two apparently important and well-designed incentive systems. The first well-designed incentive appears to be to obtain resources needed for consumption. The second well-designed incentive appears to be to work at what needs to be accomplished.
The revised economic system’s first revised incentive appears to be to obtain surplus consumption resources in order to gain influence. The new second incentive appears to be to work at that which will maximize influence. This new second incentive is not to be confused with working more to provide for appropriate, natural greater consumption needs.
The result of the new system appears to be that neither work nor resource allocation is related to consumption needs but rather, to political influence. In this scenario, desire to work appears to fluctuate with pay rather than what needs to be accomplished, the apparently natural, true basis.
The Possible Long-Term Solution
The Bible appears to suggest that the long-term solution for humanity’s economic problems appears to be to resolve its apparent spiritual problem, a damaged relationship and connection between God and humanity. Restoration of this relationship and connection appears suggested to restore human connection to the wisdom that comes from that relationship. The result appears suggested to include improved interaction between God and humanity and among humanity, allowing for the restoration of the simple economic system, devoid of economic injustice, that appears Biblically suggested to have worked perfectly prior to the “fall of man”.
The Possible Short-Term Solution (Matthew 20:1-16)
In the interim, until this relationship between God and humanity is fully restored, given that we appear to have put human economic systems in charge of resources access distribution, and that those systems appear to have upset the appropriate balance of resource access distribution, there appears to be no reason why an employer, such as the one in Matthew 20:1-16, cognizant of these factors, should be denigrated for giving a day’s resources to a deserving person – more than just a human resource object – whom the revised economic system might reasonably be considered to have robbed of the appropriate opportunity to access those resources. It appears important to mention that Matthew 20:1-16 appears intended to convey a similar spiritual rather than economic moral.
The unemployed in Matthew 20:1-16 apparently described themselves as not working because they hadn’t been hired, not because they didn’t want to work. Although those who considered themselves worthy of superior opportunity (as others might have agreed) might also consider themselves robbed of justice because they didn’t receive superior opportunity in this story, those who began the story robbed of any appropriate opportunity might consider the story to represent a great day for the “little man”.
September 15, 2011
God’s Natural Economics vs. Contemporary Economics
A reasonable theory appears to be that we have altered what the Bible appears to refer to as the original economic system, to what it is now, possibly for admirable reasons. However, some undesirable side-effects appear to make this revised economic system a much less just economic system.
Revised Economic Access
To clarify, the Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God created resources for the taking. Apparently, each person was generally responsible for retrieving them from the environment, roughly based upon consumption. The economic system appears to have been revised by industrialization and capitalism which appear reported to have increased resource production, but also to have put humanity in charge of other humans’ access to resources. Analysis of Biblical and secular history appears to suggest that the new economic system’s development of the incentive toward selfishness appears reasonably considered to have been compounded by humanity’s apparent “post-fall-of-man” tendency toward injustice.
Apparently, as a result, the basis for human access to resources has gone from free access based upon the needs of the accessor to being controlled by another person and being based on the apparently illogical, unrelated factor of whether accessing those resources represents a sufficient benefit for the controlling person.
An additional undesirable side-effect of the revised economic system appears to be that it appears to connect two apparently unrelated factors: the resources Person A needs for the day and what Person B wants Person A to do that day. Although the two concepts might at times correlate, they also might well not correlate at all.
Another undesirable side-effect of revised economic system appears to be that long-standing economic philosophy and tradition, as a result, appear to consider lack of economic opportunity to be an unfortunate, but acceptable and expectable circumstance and outcome of economics.
Revised Economic Incentives
This economic system revision also appears to replace two apparently important and well-designed incentive systems. The first well-designed incentive appears to be to obtain resources needed for consumption. The second well-designed incentive appears to be to work at what needs to be accomplished.
The revised economic system’s first revised incentive appears to be to obtain surplus consumption resources in order to gain influence. The new second incentive appears to be to work at that which will maximize influence. This new second incentive is not to be confused with working more to provide for appropriate, natural greater consumption needs.
The result of the new system appears to be that neither work nor resource allocation is related to consumption needs but rather, to political influence. In this scenario, desire to work appears to fluctuate with pay rather than what needs to be accomplished, the apparently natural, true basis.
The Possible Long-Term Solution
The Bible appears to suggest that the long-term solution for humanity’s economic problems appears to be to resolve its apparent spiritual problem, a damaged relationship and connection between God and humanity. Restoration of this relationship and connection appears suggested to restore human connection to the wisdom that comes from that relationship. The result appears suggested to include improved interaction between God and humanity and among humanity, allowing for the restoration of the simple economic system, devoid of economic injustice, that appears Biblically suggested to have worked perfectly prior to the “fall of man”.
The Possible Short-Term Solution (Matthew 20:1-16)
In the interim, until this relationship between God and humanity is fully restored, given that we appear to have put human economic systems in charge of resources access distribution, and that those systems appear to have upset the appropriate balance of resource access distribution, there appears to be no reason why an employer, such as the one in Matthew 20:1-16, cognizant of these factors, should be denigrated for giving a day’s resources to a deserving person – more than just a human resource object – whom the revised economic system might reasonably be considered to have robbed of the appropriate opportunity to access those resources. It appears important to mention that Matthew 20:1-16 appears intended to convey a similar spiritual rather than economic moral.
The unemployed in Matthew 20:1-16 apparently described themselves as not working because they hadn’t been hired, not because they didn’t want to work. Although those who considered themselves worthy of superior opportunity (as others might have agreed) might also consider themselves robbed of justice because they didn’t receive superior opportunity in this story, those who began the story robbed of any appropriate opportunity might consider the story to represent a great day for the “little man”.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Israel, Abraham, Isaac and the Sacrifice
by BlogSpotThinker
September 13, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Overview
Genesis 11 through Genesis 22 appear to be intended to describe God’s development of the nation of Israel, beginning with the travel of Terah, Abraham’s father from his homeland, Ur of the Chaldeans, toward Canaan. An apparently reasonable suggestion appears to be that, perhaps, Ur of the Chaldeans was a community that was involved in, or close to one or more communities that were involved in, religious child sacrifice. As a result, perhaps Abraham was familiar with the practice, and, despite possible anguish regarding the idea, especially in light of the conditions that the Bible appears to suggest surrounded the birth of Isaac, was willing to accept it based upon Abraham’s faith in this apparently “new” God that the Bible appears to suggest had apparently approached Abraham in Genesis 12.
The Bible appears to suggest that God emphasized the salient point of Abrahams’ perspective, not as being Abraham’s willingness to accomplish a horrendous act, but as being willing to not withholding his own son from an act that might have been viewed by Abraham not as necessarily inconceivable or horrible, but perhaps somewhat common, yet representative of a sacrifice of that which Abraham considered most valuable. In contrast to Adam and Eve, Abraham, here appears to exemplify the spirit of the first of the Ten Commandments: nothing and no one is to be esteemed above God.
The Possible Potential for Humanity’s Idolatry of Human Logic and Reason
The human school of thought appears to esteem logic and reason above human credentials, perhaps for good reason. Reports appear to suggest that many attempts at deception as well as many good-faith errors by the credentialed are considered to have been revealed by analysis of the logic and reason of their suggestions. As a result, secular humanity appears to consider humanly-understood logic and reason to be the “litmus test” for propriety, an apparent reliance that the Bible appears to suggest has been adopted since humanity (Adam and Eve) was convinced to turned its back on God, the original and still unreplaced standard for propriety.
One possible moral of this Biblical incident appears to suggest that God is supreme authority, even over human logic and reason. To clarify, the suggestion appears not to be that God is above logic and reason, but that logic and reason are established by God and that, therefore, it is God who establishes the point of reference for what is logical and reasonable. Further, humanity’s inability to recognize existent logic and reason appears Biblically suggested not to impact the existence of said logic and reason. Perhaps human knowledge is too limited to recognize God’s suggested superior knowledge, logic and reason. Even differences in human knowledge might result in different conclusions regarding what is logical and reasonable. Reasonable examples of such differences might include the confusion that a child might experience regarding pain imposed by the application of iodine to a cut, the medical practice of removing a body part to save the amputee's life, or threatening potential committers of homicide with death to prevent their carrying out their misdeed.
Potential Logic and Reason of Abraham
The general human logic regarding the Abraham/Isaac incident appears suggested to be that harm is not good and is not to be introduced without good reason, and that the information regarding the circumstance of the Abraham/Isaac incident appears not to suggest appropriate introduction of the apparently God-suggested harm.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that, given the additional background information that God knew Abraham well enough to know Abraham’s ability to appropriately experience the suggestion, the harm-introducing suggestion might appear less illogical and unreasonable.
God’s Apparent Purpose in the Incident
The Bible appears to suggest that this incident occurred at the apparent inception of the nation of Israel and that God intended for Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the God/human relationship. In light of this and the preceding suggestions, a possible purpose of the apparently Biblically-suggested Abraham and Isaac incident appears to be the establishment (or perhaps reestablishment, if Adam and Eve are considered) of the fundamental ground rule that there is never a valid reason to disobey or distrust God.
The Role of Fundamental Ground Rules
The role of fundamental ground rules appears not to be taken lightly. Consequently, I tread humbly and lightly. Therefore, it appears prudent to clarify that this post does not suggest that every human suggestion, regarding God or regarding any other subject, that cannot be proved to be illogical should be accepted. The Bible appears to suggest that only God merits such faith - not others claiming to be God's interpreter or other claimed representative - just God, and it appears to recommend referring and entrusting questions about any matter directly to God.
September 13, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Overview
Genesis 11 through Genesis 22 appear to be intended to describe God’s development of the nation of Israel, beginning with the travel of Terah, Abraham’s father from his homeland, Ur of the Chaldeans, toward Canaan. An apparently reasonable suggestion appears to be that, perhaps, Ur of the Chaldeans was a community that was involved in, or close to one or more communities that were involved in, religious child sacrifice. As a result, perhaps Abraham was familiar with the practice, and, despite possible anguish regarding the idea, especially in light of the conditions that the Bible appears to suggest surrounded the birth of Isaac, was willing to accept it based upon Abraham’s faith in this apparently “new” God that the Bible appears to suggest had apparently approached Abraham in Genesis 12.
The Bible appears to suggest that God emphasized the salient point of Abrahams’ perspective, not as being Abraham’s willingness to accomplish a horrendous act, but as being willing to not withholding his own son from an act that might have been viewed by Abraham not as necessarily inconceivable or horrible, but perhaps somewhat common, yet representative of a sacrifice of that which Abraham considered most valuable. In contrast to Adam and Eve, Abraham, here appears to exemplify the spirit of the first of the Ten Commandments: nothing and no one is to be esteemed above God.
The Possible Potential for Humanity’s Idolatry of Human Logic and Reason
The human school of thought appears to esteem logic and reason above human credentials, perhaps for good reason. Reports appear to suggest that many attempts at deception as well as many good-faith errors by the credentialed are considered to have been revealed by analysis of the logic and reason of their suggestions. As a result, secular humanity appears to consider humanly-understood logic and reason to be the “litmus test” for propriety, an apparent reliance that the Bible appears to suggest has been adopted since humanity (Adam and Eve) was convinced to turned its back on God, the original and still unreplaced standard for propriety.
One possible moral of this Biblical incident appears to suggest that God is supreme authority, even over human logic and reason. To clarify, the suggestion appears not to be that God is above logic and reason, but that logic and reason are established by God and that, therefore, it is God who establishes the point of reference for what is logical and reasonable. Further, humanity’s inability to recognize existent logic and reason appears Biblically suggested not to impact the existence of said logic and reason. Perhaps human knowledge is too limited to recognize God’s suggested superior knowledge, logic and reason. Even differences in human knowledge might result in different conclusions regarding what is logical and reasonable. Reasonable examples of such differences might include the confusion that a child might experience regarding pain imposed by the application of iodine to a cut, the medical practice of removing a body part to save the amputee's life, or threatening potential committers of homicide with death to prevent their carrying out their misdeed.
Potential Logic and Reason of Abraham
The general human logic regarding the Abraham/Isaac incident appears suggested to be that harm is not good and is not to be introduced without good reason, and that the information regarding the circumstance of the Abraham/Isaac incident appears not to suggest appropriate introduction of the apparently God-suggested harm.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that, given the additional background information that God knew Abraham well enough to know Abraham’s ability to appropriately experience the suggestion, the harm-introducing suggestion might appear less illogical and unreasonable.
God’s Apparent Purpose in the Incident
The Bible appears to suggest that this incident occurred at the apparent inception of the nation of Israel and that God intended for Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the God/human relationship. In light of this and the preceding suggestions, a possible purpose of the apparently Biblically-suggested Abraham and Isaac incident appears to be the establishment (or perhaps reestablishment, if Adam and Eve are considered) of the fundamental ground rule that there is never a valid reason to disobey or distrust God.
The Role of Fundamental Ground Rules
The role of fundamental ground rules appears not to be taken lightly. Consequently, I tread humbly and lightly. Therefore, it appears prudent to clarify that this post does not suggest that every human suggestion, regarding God or regarding any other subject, that cannot be proved to be illogical should be accepted. The Bible appears to suggest that only God merits such faith - not others claiming to be God's interpreter or other claimed representative - just God, and it appears to recommend referring and entrusting questions about any matter directly to God.
Self-Validation of God and The Bible
by BlogSpotThinker
September 13, 2011
The Bible and the God that appears to be suggested by the Bible appear suggested to be self-validating: this is to say that they certify themselves. Science might typically suggest such self-validation to be of little value to scientific inquiry since science appears to rely upon multiple independent certifications of an assertion as a typically sufficient indicator of the assertion’s validity.
In the case of the apparently suggested claims regarding the Bible and those of the Bible regarding God, God appears described by the Bible as the supreme being of all of reality and the Bible appears described by those who subscribe to it as documentation of the history of the relationship between that God and the nation of Israel, a documentation apparently suggested to be inspired by that God.
This God also appears to be described by the Bible as having a nature that includes what might reasonably be referred to as human physical reality. That nature also appears described as extending beyond said physical reality into what might be referred to as extra-physical or supernatural reality.
These two aspects of the suggested nature of this God appear to impact human understandings regarding this God such that little if any physical evidence appears available that is considered to be irrefutably and exclusively associatable with this God. In addition, the Bible’s apparent claim of God as the supreme entity of all reality appears to preclude the existence of a higher, entity as a certifying entity.
A reasonable example appears to be that of a business whose sole owner claims to be sole owner. Within the company, validation of the owner’s claim cannot be accomplished via certification by a superior entity since the owner’s supreme position as owner appears reasonable suggested to preclude the existence of any superior entity. Validation appears solely accomplishable via lower-positioned entities who, by faith, have accepted the owner’s claim of ownership.
As a result, science’s apparent certification requirement of multiple validations from independent physical sources appears considered to render science incapable of certifying God. Apparently, the sole basis for acceptance of the existence of this God is faith, defined as the decision to believe in the absence of irrefutable proof.
September 13, 2011
The Bible and the God that appears to be suggested by the Bible appear suggested to be self-validating: this is to say that they certify themselves. Science might typically suggest such self-validation to be of little value to scientific inquiry since science appears to rely upon multiple independent certifications of an assertion as a typically sufficient indicator of the assertion’s validity.
In the case of the apparently suggested claims regarding the Bible and those of the Bible regarding God, God appears described by the Bible as the supreme being of all of reality and the Bible appears described by those who subscribe to it as documentation of the history of the relationship between that God and the nation of Israel, a documentation apparently suggested to be inspired by that God.
This God also appears to be described by the Bible as having a nature that includes what might reasonably be referred to as human physical reality. That nature also appears described as extending beyond said physical reality into what might be referred to as extra-physical or supernatural reality.
These two aspects of the suggested nature of this God appear to impact human understandings regarding this God such that little if any physical evidence appears available that is considered to be irrefutably and exclusively associatable with this God. In addition, the Bible’s apparent claim of God as the supreme entity of all reality appears to preclude the existence of a higher, entity as a certifying entity.
A reasonable example appears to be that of a business whose sole owner claims to be sole owner. Within the company, validation of the owner’s claim cannot be accomplished via certification by a superior entity since the owner’s supreme position as owner appears reasonable suggested to preclude the existence of any superior entity. Validation appears solely accomplishable via lower-positioned entities who, by faith, have accepted the owner’s claim of ownership.
As a result, science’s apparent certification requirement of multiple validations from independent physical sources appears considered to render science incapable of certifying God. Apparently, the sole basis for acceptance of the existence of this God is faith, defined as the decision to believe in the absence of irrefutable proof.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Truth as Science, Philosophy or Religion
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
Truth appears to be considered by some to be a concern of philosophy rather than of science. I humbly submit that, for the purpose of currently discussing this topic, I consider the terms “truth” and “accuracy” to be interchangeable. In that context, science appears reasonably considered to be concerned about the accurate representation of or “truth” about phenomena.
Religion appears reasonably considered to be focused on determining truth. However, “truth” here appears reasonably considered to refer to “moral truth”. The portion of science that addresses the physical might be less than focused on such concepts. The term “portion of science” is used here since science appears considered to include the study of all reality. Some of the apparently reported moral philosophers appear also reported to have been physical scientists and to have considered science to incorporate all of reality.
An apparently subtle, yet possibly material distinction appears to be that religion appears not to claim the capability to “establish”, “determine” or “systematically or logically deduce” moral truth. Religion appears to suggest the existence of an entity (God) that establishes those values.
“Facts” and “truth” appear suggested by some to be capable of opposing each other. However, the two appear to be defined such that they cannot oppose each other. A fact appears reasonably defined to be an assertion that is true, or in other words, a “truth”. Perhaps a perspective based upon an incomplete set of facts and/or truth might be untrue but, apparently, facts, by definition, are true.
September 7, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
Truth appears to be considered by some to be a concern of philosophy rather than of science. I humbly submit that, for the purpose of currently discussing this topic, I consider the terms “truth” and “accuracy” to be interchangeable. In that context, science appears reasonably considered to be concerned about the accurate representation of or “truth” about phenomena.
Religion appears reasonably considered to be focused on determining truth. However, “truth” here appears reasonably considered to refer to “moral truth”. The portion of science that addresses the physical might be less than focused on such concepts. The term “portion of science” is used here since science appears considered to include the study of all reality. Some of the apparently reported moral philosophers appear also reported to have been physical scientists and to have considered science to incorporate all of reality.
An apparently subtle, yet possibly material distinction appears to be that religion appears not to claim the capability to “establish”, “determine” or “systematically or logically deduce” moral truth. Religion appears to suggest the existence of an entity (God) that establishes those values.
“Facts” and “truth” appear suggested by some to be capable of opposing each other. However, the two appear to be defined such that they cannot oppose each other. A fact appears reasonably defined to be an assertion that is true, or in other words, a “truth”. Perhaps a perspective based upon an incomplete set of facts and/or truth might be untrue but, apparently, facts, by definition, are true.
Science and God
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
Regarding science’s conclusion about God, two circumstances appear suggested to limit science’s ability to opine. Firstly, if science is defined as addressing solely what can be observed and tested directly, then science appears reasonably considered to be unable to offer an opinion regarding God. However, science appears to consider itself capable of opining regarding phenomena that it cannot directly observe and test if it can indirectly observe and test that phenomena by directly observing and testing the effects of the phenomena. Electrons, life and thought appear to be examples of such indirectly observed and tested phenomena.
Science, in such instances, appears to use logic, reason and interpolation (using directly observed and/or tested phenomena) to suggest the existence and/or behavior of such directly unobservable and untestable phenomena. Science appears capable, therefore, of directly observing physical phenomena suggested to be an effect of God; and the effects of phenomena whose natures appear to be other than natural or physical (the supernatural) such as life and thought and, perhaps, electrons. Science also appears capable of recognizing what might be considered logical phenomena such as apparently missing components of human interaction structure such as values standards and reports of a supernatural source of life and standards.
Science appears capable of logically, reasonably and rationally combining these components, and supporting the suggestion that they appear to logically, reasonably and rationally suggest the existence of an entity matching to some degree the reports of a supernatural entity.
September 7, 2011
Regarding science’s conclusion about God, two circumstances appear suggested to limit science’s ability to opine. Firstly, if science is defined as addressing solely what can be observed and tested directly, then science appears reasonably considered to be unable to offer an opinion regarding God. However, science appears to consider itself capable of opining regarding phenomena that it cannot directly observe and test if it can indirectly observe and test that phenomena by directly observing and testing the effects of the phenomena. Electrons, life and thought appear to be examples of such indirectly observed and tested phenomena.
Science, in such instances, appears to use logic, reason and interpolation (using directly observed and/or tested phenomena) to suggest the existence and/or behavior of such directly unobservable and untestable phenomena. Science appears capable, therefore, of directly observing physical phenomena suggested to be an effect of God; and the effects of phenomena whose natures appear to be other than natural or physical (the supernatural) such as life and thought and, perhaps, electrons. Science also appears capable of recognizing what might be considered logical phenomena such as apparently missing components of human interaction structure such as values standards and reports of a supernatural source of life and standards.
Science appears capable of logically, reasonably and rationally combining these components, and supporting the suggestion that they appear to logically, reasonably and rationally suggest the existence of an entity matching to some degree the reports of a supernatural entity.
Biblical Religion as Fallibility Escape
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
Some appear to suggest that Biblical beliefs are essentially constructed to cover for human frailty without addressing the real problems of human frailty. However, the Biblical Old Testament appears to quite thoroughly address human frailties by illustrating the lineage of those frailties (Adam, Eve and the Tree, Lucifer’s inappropriate ambition and subsequent exile); the effect of those frailties (Adam, Eve and their exile from the Garden); examples of the achievability of greater character goals (Noah, Moses and the prophets); God’s presence and power even among the frail (David, Samson); context-sensitive, comprehensive behavior guidelines (Genesis 1 and 2; Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy); God’s disdain and promised punishment for preferring those frailties (the “doom” prophecies, Jeremiah 32:32-34); and God’s appeals to turn from those frailties even while foretelling the doomed future of those frailties (Jeremiah 18: 7-8).
September 7, 2011
Some appear to suggest that Biblical beliefs are essentially constructed to cover for human frailty without addressing the real problems of human frailty. However, the Biblical Old Testament appears to quite thoroughly address human frailties by illustrating the lineage of those frailties (Adam, Eve and the Tree, Lucifer’s inappropriate ambition and subsequent exile); the effect of those frailties (Adam, Eve and their exile from the Garden); examples of the achievability of greater character goals (Noah, Moses and the prophets); God’s presence and power even among the frail (David, Samson); context-sensitive, comprehensive behavior guidelines (Genesis 1 and 2; Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy); God’s disdain and promised punishment for preferring those frailties (the “doom” prophecies, Jeremiah 32:32-34); and God’s appeals to turn from those frailties even while foretelling the doomed future of those frailties (Jeremiah 18: 7-8).
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Role of Religion in Social Conflict
by BlogSpotThinker
September 6, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
In one way, belief in God appears similar to other issues in that difference of perspective constitutes a conflict. Reports appear to suggest divorces are based on sufficiently different views on money and the propriety of extra-marital relationships; physical fights appear reported to be based upon differences in the way a look was interpreted; feuds appear reported regarding borrowed possessions or actual or perceived wrongs; civil wars appear reported to have been fought over civil rights; and world wars apparently reported fought over socio-economic strategy, imperialism and related issues. As a result, it seems somewhat misleading to blame divisiveness and social conflict on belief in God.
On the other hand, belief in God appears suggested to be the fundamental issue of all reality. Per this perspective, all non-discretionary issues, if not all issues, appear to be impacted by whether God whether God exists, whether God establishes the standard of right and wrong, and what that standard is. Importantly, as well, the existence of God appears reasonably suggested to impact possibly the two next most important aspects of human reality: purpose and destiny. If all issues are based upon these factors, then different understandings about God’s existence and philosophy (possibly, the definition of religion) might reasonably be expected to be the focus of a large portion of social controversy.
Concern regarding the spiritual impact of such differences of opinion regarding God might constitute the most common concern regarding changes in the spiritual beliefs of valued associates.
In addition, perhaps the “tinderbox effect” might also be attributable to the theory that personal relationship with God appears to be considered an important facet of belief in God. The questioning of the value of one’s relationship with God might also be perceived as a personal affront.
History and the Bible appear to suggest that there is no solution for such conflict over religious or secular issues other than God. Attempting to humanly, even violently eradicate religion or secularism appears reported to be unsuccessful. The freedom of choice that God appears to have granted to individuals appears to allow both religion or secularism to grow. The suggested solution appears to be for each individual to recognize and voluntarily acknowledge God’s existence and sovereignty. If God is indeed sovereign, then voluntary individual recognition and acceptance of God’s sovereignty and direct reference to God for understanding regarding relationship with God appears reasonably considered to resolve the problem.
September 6, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
In one way, belief in God appears similar to other issues in that difference of perspective constitutes a conflict. Reports appear to suggest divorces are based on sufficiently different views on money and the propriety of extra-marital relationships; physical fights appear reported to be based upon differences in the way a look was interpreted; feuds appear reported regarding borrowed possessions or actual or perceived wrongs; civil wars appear reported to have been fought over civil rights; and world wars apparently reported fought over socio-economic strategy, imperialism and related issues. As a result, it seems somewhat misleading to blame divisiveness and social conflict on belief in God.
On the other hand, belief in God appears suggested to be the fundamental issue of all reality. Per this perspective, all non-discretionary issues, if not all issues, appear to be impacted by whether God whether God exists, whether God establishes the standard of right and wrong, and what that standard is. Importantly, as well, the existence of God appears reasonably suggested to impact possibly the two next most important aspects of human reality: purpose and destiny. If all issues are based upon these factors, then different understandings about God’s existence and philosophy (possibly, the definition of religion) might reasonably be expected to be the focus of a large portion of social controversy.
Concern regarding the spiritual impact of such differences of opinion regarding God might constitute the most common concern regarding changes in the spiritual beliefs of valued associates.
In addition, perhaps the “tinderbox effect” might also be attributable to the theory that personal relationship with God appears to be considered an important facet of belief in God. The questioning of the value of one’s relationship with God might also be perceived as a personal affront.
History and the Bible appear to suggest that there is no solution for such conflict over religious or secular issues other than God. Attempting to humanly, even violently eradicate religion or secularism appears reported to be unsuccessful. The freedom of choice that God appears to have granted to individuals appears to allow both religion or secularism to grow. The suggested solution appears to be for each individual to recognize and voluntarily acknowledge God’s existence and sovereignty. If God is indeed sovereign, then voluntary individual recognition and acceptance of God’s sovereignty and direct reference to God for understanding regarding relationship with God appears reasonably considered to resolve the problem.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Faith and Science: The Role of Doubt
by BlogSpotThinker
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 17, 2011)
Doubt regarding the validity of assertions appears to have different impacts when experienced regarding science and regarding God.
Generally, science’s focus might be described as the desire to understand some part of reality. Although lives might be affected by scientific conclusions such as within health science, the individual scientific inquirer might desire appropriate perspective, but, in general, appears to fear no worse outcome than continued work toward the goal of discovery. Doubt, in this context, might be considered an asset.
Belief in God, however, appears reasonably considered to be the fundamental issue of reality. Issues at that level appear considered to have life-altering impact. As a result, the perception of potential error in such a fundamental belief and in other beliefs which are based on it appears reasonably disconcerting.
In addition, the Bible’s appears to suggest that a primary aspect of the God/human relationship is belief in God. Consequently, perhaps, an individual might perceive potential misunderstandings about God or what God desires to be a negative reflection on the individual’s faith in God and, in turn, upon God’s acceptance of the individual.
While some might consider the relatively greater impact of doubt to be irrational, in light of the Biblically suggested importance of God’s existence and of humanity’s relationship with and trust in God, the relatively greater implications of doubt to believers in God appears reasonable. Perhaps an important aspect of relationship with God is acceptance of God’s leadership and sovereignty, and focus on individual relationship with God, which appears suggested to allow each individual to entrust growth in understanding to God.
Perhaps, when relationship with God is an individual’s focus rather than doctrine, doubt regarding doctrine or observed phenomena might be considered by the individual not to be a matter warranting fear of error, but a matter for further and possibly continuous inquiry. In this case, inquiry might or might not include referral to scientific tests or other study. The individual’s primary course of inquiry, however, appears Biblically suggested to be to God via individual relationship with God.
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 17, 2011)
Doubt regarding the validity of assertions appears to have different impacts when experienced regarding science and regarding God.
Generally, science’s focus might be described as the desire to understand some part of reality. Although lives might be affected by scientific conclusions such as within health science, the individual scientific inquirer might desire appropriate perspective, but, in general, appears to fear no worse outcome than continued work toward the goal of discovery. Doubt, in this context, might be considered an asset.
Belief in God, however, appears reasonably considered to be the fundamental issue of reality. Issues at that level appear considered to have life-altering impact. As a result, the perception of potential error in such a fundamental belief and in other beliefs which are based on it appears reasonably disconcerting.
In addition, the Bible’s appears to suggest that a primary aspect of the God/human relationship is belief in God. Consequently, perhaps, an individual might perceive potential misunderstandings about God or what God desires to be a negative reflection on the individual’s faith in God and, in turn, upon God’s acceptance of the individual.
While some might consider the relatively greater impact of doubt to be irrational, in light of the Biblically suggested importance of God’s existence and of humanity’s relationship with and trust in God, the relatively greater implications of doubt to believers in God appears reasonable. Perhaps an important aspect of relationship with God is acceptance of God’s leadership and sovereignty, and focus on individual relationship with God, which appears suggested to allow each individual to entrust growth in understanding to God.
Perhaps, when relationship with God is an individual’s focus rather than doctrine, doubt regarding doctrine or observed phenomena might be considered by the individual not to be a matter warranting fear of error, but a matter for further and possibly continuous inquiry. In this case, inquiry might or might not include referral to scientific tests or other study. The individual’s primary course of inquiry, however, appears Biblically suggested to be to God via individual relationship with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)