What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?)

and it's kind of hard to beleive in a god when you're studying History and it keeps talking about how your god - Jehovah for me, i guess - is actually just a takeoff from a God that was originally represented as a square block of stone. but . . . i suppose it's no less irrational than "anything can happen will happen" - if it's theoretically possible that all of your atoms will suddenly decide to jump sideways through a wall, why isn't it possible for there to be an omni-everything celestial being? though I still definitely agree - he's completely subjective. but so's practically everything, when you get down to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mir

yeah . . . that's why i'm agnostic and not atheist. but i think one of the reasons that a lot of people (me included maybe) don't beleive in god is becasue we stereotype him - say he's kind and loving, and then the holocaust happens; or say he rewards the good, and then a wonderful person dies young. i think a lot more people would beleive in him if the prophets - people who wrote the bible - hadn't generalized from one or two deeds he did and called him kind and loving because one thing he did was good.

---

Please excuse me,

Why does God care about the holocaust? If those that died believed in him, was it not a re-unification with their creator?
Did God cause the holocaust? Because the last time I looked it was the Nazi party, who took it upon themselves to wipe their fellow humans from the earth.
How then can you rightfully say that God is to blame. That God has removed himself from his creations, like he did from Jerusalem in the times of Babylon? And gave the reigns over to Christ.
The jews had the temple, but the spirit no longer resided.
Wasn't it God who stated, that we would no longer meddle in the affairs of men, yet if you seeked him, then he would indeed find you?

God does reward the good, but more overly God rewards his faithful, whether in earthly riches, or indeed heavenly gifts.
And again, if someone is resolved in their faith, and believe then what is death but a more grander and new beginning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Theshizznigg,

It answers my question from your point of view. Thank you.

I think you already know that I don't believe any of what you wrote to be true.

It's strange how these Nephilim have crept into your arguments though. This seems to be almost as popular as Dan Brown in the list of New Age slants on the bible - and almost as convincing ;).

As far as I understand it, Nephilim comes from the Hebrew word for 'giant' and all the hocum about 'fallen angels' breeding with mankind is derived from these few verses in Genesis 6.



It still worries me that there are people that believe all of this stuff is real. It's myth and legend, nothing more. The Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. The bible was written by men, not God.

PS. I did a search and I can find no mention of Discotheques in the bible - shame, that would have been more convincing than all of your other arguments combined!

---

Since the whole punishment on the sin of the Sons of `ELOHIYM is exacted only on humans, there is no hint of a chance that they are other than human. Because it is in the context of the tragedy of their sin that the Nephiliym are mentioned, consider the following:

1)that their sort are tragically said to have been around after their destruction in the Flood, meaning that as the Sons of `ELOHIYM fell before the Flood, so too the Sons of `ELOHIYM after the Flood fell (a Scripture, corresponding to the descendants of Noah, says that according to the number of the Sons of `ELOHIYM the earth's borders were divided);

2)that in contrast to once having been the earth's Holy Heroes, Sons of `ELOHIYM lost their Legacy in falling from a State of Grace.

Nephiliym were sinners, falling beneath their GOD-given nature, and the name means "fallen ones". For those that believe that some English words derive from Hebrew ones, the Hebrew verb "nfol" means "to fall". Many ancient forms of words that we today possess in modern English that in their older English form had an initial /N/ that has since [ne-]fallen off. The Hebrew equivalent to /N/, Nun, is considered a weak consonant.

What the Genesis Passage actually says is that men that were Holy unto GOD, children of GOD (as Adam had been in Paradise), looked at beauty in women in general, rather than saving their eyes, each man, for the one from GOD alone - like when men looking for common qualities any sister can have, say several women are their "type", rather than that one alone is his only match -, and this led to them arbitrarily picking just anyone that seemed a certain quality, rather than their recognizing the peculiar beauty of the only individual made for each one, in each case.

These were now no longer Saints, but fallen ones. They, and not their offspring, were the mighty ones that were of old, famous persons. This here is a hint that many famous mythical figures in myths in Moses' day were based on real men before the Flood. All but the Remnant of the Sons of GOD (Noah and company) were the nephilim until the Flood. It no where says that nephilim were part human and part son of GOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theshizznigg

Please excuse me,

Why does God care about the holocaust? If those that died believed in him, was it not a re-unification with their creator?
Did God cause the holocaust? Because the last time I looked it was the Nazi party, who took it upon themselves to wipe their fellow humans from the earth.
How then can you rightfully say that God is to blame. That God has removed himself from his creations, like he did from Jerusalem in the times of Babylon? And gave the reigns over to Christ.
The jews had the temple, but the spirit no longer resided.
Wasn't it God who stated, that we would no longer meddle in the affairs of men, yet if you seeked him, then he would indeed find you?

God does reward the good, but more overly God rewards his faithful, whether in earthly riches, or indeed heavenly gifts.
And again, if someone is resolved in their faith, and believe then what is death but a more grander and new beginning?

---

first of all, i'm not saying that i particularly beleive that god was to blame for the Holocaust - it's just a view i've heard expressed a lot. the idea is basically that since god is omnipotent and means to do good for the world, he shouldn't have let something like that happen. and also humans are god's creations, and he let evil people like the Nazis come into the world, and let the personality traits of hate and ethnocentricism and racism and sadism exist as well. as for whether the people who died in the holocaust should be happy becasue they were reunited with their god, they may be, but the people they caused pain to by leaving behind - and the people who felt pain and sorrow becasue of the atrocities commited in the holocaust - far outweigh the hapiness of the people who died. (and by the way, Jews don't beleive in heaven or hell anyways, so they wouldn't be happier after death.) the net product of the holocaust is pain, by far.
also, i'm not talking about a religion in particular - god may have "removed himself from the Jews", but i'm talking about the existence of god in the world in general. and after god promised he wouldn't meddle in the affairs of men anymore - i think that was in Noah's time, and he set the rainbow as his covenant - he sure didn't stop influencing humans, through prophets and such. and the Commandments.
lastly, the "god reward his faithful" and "better life after death" arguments are very persuasive - but the problem is, we can't check the truth of them, so they're a bit hard to accept. also, "god rewards his faithful" in life is often disproved by the death of a good, devout person; the jailing of someone like Gandhi, who was truly good; the death on the cross of christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

It still worries me that there are people that believe all of this stuff is real. It's myth and legend, nothing more. The Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. The bible was written by men, not God.

PS. I did a search and I can find no mention of Discotheques in the bible - shame, that would have been more convincing than all of your other arguments combined!

---

Well first I think discotheques are a good argument against God... :D

Okay joke aside, here is how the earth could actually only be a few thousand:

If you compare the earth to a computer program...when one finds a dinosaur skeleton/fossil in a video game, they do not assume that the game has been playing for millions of years, and that the character the player is playing has evolved from programmed microscopic pixilated entities...one realizes that the game was created a little while ago, and the programmer just programmed the environment to look as such, just a thought.

Also about God and the Holocaust:
God did not cause the holocaust, he only allowed people free will...people caused the holocaust: there is an old japanese (I believe) tale:
three demons go into a town to cause trouble and scare the inhabitents, and they decide to read the minds of men to find there desires (so they can tempt them/ scare them better or the like) but when they see what the men imagin doing to their fellow man the demons flee in terror because their worst nightmare was not comparable to the evil of man.

So saying "I don't believe in God because good people die" is pretty lame. Death is really only a new beggining, a shedding of corporeal form, and with the death and resurection of christ, there is no death for the righteous.
Human existance is not the hight of our existance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mir

first of all, i'm not saying that i particularly beleive that god was to blame for the Holocaust - it's just a view i've heard expressed a lot. the idea is basically that since god is omnipotent and means to do good for the world, he shouldn't have let something like that happen. and also humans are god's creations, and he let evil people like the Nazis come into the world, and let the personality traits of hate and ethnocentricism and racism and sadism exist as well. as for whether the people who died in the holocaust should be happy becasue they were reunited with their god, they may be, but the people they caused pain to by leaving behind - and the people who felt pain and sorrow becasue of the atrocities commited in the holocaust - far outweigh the hapiness of the people who died. (and by the way, Jews don't beleive in heaven or hell anyways, so they wouldn't be happier after death.) the net product of the holocaust is pain, by far.
also, i'm not talking about a religion in particular - god may have "removed himself from the Jews", but i'm talking about the existence of god in the world in general. and after god promised he wouldn't meddle in the affairs of men anymore - i think that was in Noah's time, and he set the rainbow as his covenant - he sure didn't stop influencing humans, through prophets and such. and the Commandments.
lastly, the "god reward his faithful" and "better life after death" arguments are very persuasive - but the problem is, we can't check the truth of them, so they're a bit hard to accept. also, "god rewards his faithful" in life is often disproved by the death of a good, devout person; the jailing of someone like Gandhi, who was truly good; the death on the cross of christ.

---

You make some very interesting points, and I value your opinion because you seem to take a very calm decisive way of answering.

Firstly I'd like to state, that.
God himself destroyed the old order of things when Christ fufilled his prophecy.
Also it makes several references in the bible, and the gospels of paul in particular, that God does not temp humans to do evil acts, it is the evil spirit within those humans that calls them to do evil things.
Hence the reasoning "A human can be a saint, or a devil, it all depends on the person."
Hitler when you look at him in the beginning, while having a large contempt for the Jews, merely wanted to rebuild a better Germany, and it was when he slowly gained power that his mental faculties started to shut down.
He, in the words of Albert Speer, "Surrounded himself with evil, pigs! Of men, who would do anything to keep the power that they had gained."
Many of those who disagreed with Hitler's policies were either thrown out of the country, or murdered along with those they tried to protect.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that it says several times in the bible, that it is regardless of how good a person you are, you be forced to suffer at times, (Job for example) and eventually perish.
It is only if you believe, (As the bible states.) that you will be given a second life.

God does reward those who lead a good Christian life, whether in life or afterward.
Wasn't it said that the greatest amounts of wealth on earth, are only baubles compared to the gifts of heaven? Or the fact that instead of death, Christians are given everlasting life?
Can I prove this? No, I can't, I can't prove a thing about Christianity that isn't written in the bible.
But that is what Christianity is, it is believing with all your faith that God will remember you, and not let you perish.
There is no proof of it, otherwise it would be faith, it would be fact. But then it is stated in the bible to "Trust God." And believe that he will forget no one.

Also Gandhi wasn't a Christian at the end of his life, and whether or not he was actually a good thing for India is a matter of debate for many.

"Without faith, there is no Christianity, without faith, there is nothing."

Nice arguments - you're nearly convincing me!
but there's one thing i'm trying to stay away from here - focusing on one religion, such as christianity. the new and old testaments are fine, but i wasn't talking about Gandhi being a Christian, i was just talking about him being a generally good person - and anyways, he did practice, more than anyone else i've ever heard of, the base idea of christianity - agape, love for everyone, enemy or friend.
i understant what you're saying about the bad and good parts of people influencing them, rather than god; this idea appears in Judaism as well, as the yetzer ha-ra and yetzer ha-tov. but if God created humans in the first place, why didn't he just create them without the yetzer ha-ra? eliminate the devil sitting on your left shoulder and just leave the angel on the right?

also, Hitler alone could have been considered deranged or just an unfortunate coincidence - a madman at the right place at the right time - but think of all the other terrible things - even more terrible in my mind - that happened while WWII was going on! did other countries step up to help the Jews? Churchill was the only one pressing for a fight! and he was only doing that becasue he thought his own country would be threatened - not out of concern for the people dying in Germany and its principalities. and worst of all was the way America acted, turning away Jews who only wanted a place of refuge where they wouldn't be gassed simply becasue one of their grandparents didn't beleive what the Aryans did. Hitler i could beleive in as an act of nature or man, not god - but the way the rest of the world acted, the selfishness and egotism and unconcern - that is what i can't beleive was a random act.

sorry, i get really mad about that.

the one thing that really does make me belive more in God is the fact that pretty much every society throughout history has thought up some sort of God. but is this so that they could have an easy solution to all the problems and occurences that they couldn't explain, and in some societies, a hope of a better life after death - or becasue it is a theme as universal as the fact that we are alive?

no more right now - it's almost time for next class. if God created school, then i really will beleive in him - no one but a celestial being could have thought up something that evil! : )

"The Unnamable": "I think an uneasy alliance is possible, though – perhaps born out of a kind of grudging mutual respect? "

I didn't answer this at the time - "silence implies assent." However, in view of various comments that have been scattered around lately, I think I ought to make that assent explicit, albeit with one amendment. Delete "grudging," at least on my part.

I don't always agree with your views - certainly would not defend to the death your right to make them, what do you think I am? - but I enjoy your wind-ups and approve of your caustic confrontations, and occasionally think that you are right.

.

Thanks – as you know, I hardly ever agree with your views but I nevertheless consider them the product of thought - for which I will always have a regard.

As for qui tacit consentire, it didn’t do Thomas More much good.

"As for qui tacit consentire, it didn’t do Thomas More much good."

Thomas More, definitely the thinking man's martyr. He did not attempt to force his view on others, but refused to act against his own principles. Did not seek martyrdom, but would not compromise to save himself from it. It's hard to say what good any of it was after 500 years, but he still stands as the best example of how to behave when the powers around are totally in the wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"As for qui tacit consentire, it didn’t do Thomas More much good."

Thomas More, definitely the thinking man's martyr. He did not attempt to force his view on others, but refused to act against his own principles. Did not seek martyrdom, but would not compromise to save himself from it. It's hard to say what good any of it was after 500 years, but he still stands as the best example of how to behave when the powers around are totally in the wrong.

---

From what I know of him, he was a remarkable man. I really like Bolt’s play, even though it contains More’s comment to Richard Rich when Rich perjures himself:

"Richard, the Lord said that it did not profit a man to gain the whole world if he lost his soul. The whole world, Richard ... but for Wales?"

He's got a point, though. :D

When ever I watch a man for all seasons I can scarce breathe. All that and I think you are referring to who I call Saint Thomas Moore, all he held dear I do too, all he believed I believe to the core of me. I like when he said that he was no hero, no martyr and wanted if possible to just live and be and carry on with the family he loved. But if he had to stand, he would stand. I have had to many times and lost everything. I neither judge the persons who wielded that power over me nor think ill of them. I think whatever you DO believe you ought to be whole souled and be prepared to accept the consequences, even if that leaves you standing utterly alone in a wasteland at the end of the day.

hey, we have to read one of More's books for history this summer. Utopia. what does he write on? is he good? should i start the book in June rather than the last week of August?

Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.

---

Is this based on your personal experiences with More or what you heard through the grapevine?

.............................??? Could you rephrase the question to make it more answerable in English. On the grapevine I've heard Caligula was a naughty chap. Are you from the Mr Irving school of history?

Passion begets passion.

Could we agree that More was many sided?

The More of the play was not unreal.

The More who condoned or ordered the torturing of heretics was not less real.

The More who was a humanist scholar was real too.

The More who loved both law and justice was real, as was "the most affectionate father to his children that ever was in the world."


I think the phrase I would draw the line at is "The real More was quite vile." More was no Caligula, or Torquemada even. Torture was a standard legal procedure in More's day, and indeed for some centuries afterwards. Even More's enemies did not claim that More particularly enjoyed or encouraged the use of torture more than the law required. To condemn More as vile for using torture is to condemn all our ancestors as vile, up to the nineteenth century.

It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers. I stand by that judgement on More. As for being good to one's children even the Nazis were that, in fact they were very strong on that as a principle and the road to Hell is paved with.. etc. But more importantly for me is any attempt to whitewash history through art. I'm not necessarily accusing Bolt of doing that; he may just not have known about More's torture of Bible smugglers in his own home (or considering Bolt was a one-time commie he may not have cared that rich and powerful state servants could and can torture others). If I treat Bolt's More a little differently from Shakespeare's Macbeth (another unhistorical but once real person) it's that Macbeth is relatively unimportant and is not presented as admirable whereas More is. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I take your comments on board. My comment on Caligula was a facetious response to a facetious question.

"It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers."

It is almost certain that anyone, within two or three centuries either side of More, who was responsible for administering the law was involved to a greater or lesser degree in torture. Equally certain it is that law abiding citizens accepted torture as a normal part of the administration of justice.

You may think of More as a torturer, and you may have reliable evidence that he enjoyed torturing people. I think that is unlikely, but my only evidence is from the more or less neutral Encyclopedia Britannica, and Foxe's Book of Martyrs, a Protestant polemic that would be expected to be very hostile to More.

In the Encyclopedia, amongst a great deal of good, there is the following:
"On the other hand he appears to have been merciless to heretics. In the epitaph which he wrote, he described himself as hereticus molestus, and, although the accusations of Protestants may be discounted, his own words and unimpeachable documents bespeak his severity."

In Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the book above all in which Protestant accusations against More might be expected, all I could find was:
"One Bainham, ...,was taken on suspicion of heresy, and whipped in the presence of Sir T. More, and afterwards racked in the Tower, yet he could not be wrought on to accuse any...
Soon after this More delivered up the great seal, in consequence of which the preachers had some ease."

So I acknowledge that More's enemies, or victims if you like, declare him to be a persecutor, and he himself considered that persecution of heretics was acceptable. The one instance recounted by Foxe does not however show More to command torture more than was required by his office, and certainly not, as you imply, one who carried out torture himself or enjoyed watching it.



Your off-hand dismissal of Bolt scarcely stands up either - the play portrays More, heroically, as one who stood firm against the apparatus of the state. Whether or not that is a fair portrayal of More, it is certain that Bolt did not condone misuse of the state's power in any way.

Silence of the lemmings implies consent eh. It could imply fear. Anyway leave that. Bolt is not interested in portraying the real More. Nor was he under obligation to do so. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing about More's interrogation techniques when he (More) himself was an agent of state power and note that there is no attempt in the play to suggest such techniques were good when used against More himself. I am not under any obligation to treat Bolt as a politically/socially moral individual just because he was a good playwright and good writer for the screen.So far from dismissing him I take him very seriously indeed. For art as propaganda is a powerful tool or weapon. Several modern historians have gone further than consulting Foxe who you rightly say may be seen as a polemicist. (Perhaps he's a case of propaganda becoming art). These historians have been much harsher than my mild 'quite vile'. More was certainly scholarly, clever, interesting in conversation and maybe talented in other directions. He still supervised torture of other human beings in his own home. Facts are chiels that winna ding as someone or other said. Anyway I rather think you want to remember him as a humanist scholar and I wouldn't say much against that reasonable position.
PS We wont fall out over it, I like a lot of your thoughts