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.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)