Death Thread II: The Second Death.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I had my suspicions. So is the Bible in it's present form a fairytale, or does it need to be re-written into fairytale form to gain the same effect? I still do not see it written as just a "feel good story". It would seem to me that if it had been written as a scientific treatise or historical video recording, it would have been vetoed by satan as God not giving humans a choice in the matter.

It could be considered a fairy tale. And mind you, there is a negative connotation with the word which I feel fairy tales do not deserve. The Bible teaches a morality by telling stories which are about the cause and effect of ethical choices we make.

In light of the period it is written, they are very well written. It's a shame in my opinion that historical accuracy is always talked about while the artistic and historical value is overlooked.

I am pretty sure that even if you are good, you still may not have a chance, as the Bible clearly states that the end of all mankind is death. It is only God's choice in the end. Has nothing to do with any thing we do here on earth. We do not know who is a sheep or goat. We do not know who is a wheat or tare. We do not know whose name God is going to blot out of the book of life. Every one's name is there from the beginning and only those who God blots out will be blotted out and it does not seem to matter what the sheep, goats, wheat, or tares do to change God's mind. Does that mean we stop trying to figure out what life is about? NO. Does that mean we go out and do all manner of evil? NO. We are free moral agents who chisel out our own path, and even though some humans have attempted to assure us that we can know the end of all things, the only thing that we can know is our own heart and live life the best we can.

I realize that some people come across as being sure about themselves, but that comes from experience. Humans should not judge other humans, much less on their lack of certain experiences.

Is your take then that the moral stories are meant to improve life by improving the interaction we have in life?

Or am I misunderstanding you and you're reasoning that they are not moral stories but historical events devoid from moral lessons?

 

[El_Machinae]

Surely it's a cunning ploy by the patriarchy. I can't think of any other reason to do so

I think it's just laziness. Historically, they made God a male. Zeus. Odin. Thor. Etc. Etc. But, limiting a 'real' god by gender doesn't make sense in the modern age, given how quaint an idea gender is. We now know you can have personhood without gender (er, we think we know. It's something we should know, eve if we cannot imagine it).

So, let the Christians call their god a 'him'. Move to more gender-neutral term when talking about the Creator. If they want to call the Creator a 'him', then I guess gentle correction is fine. It makes no sense to call the Creator a 'him', and much less sense to insist upon it.

 

[timtofly]

It could be considered a fairy tale. And mind you, there is a negative connotation with the word which I feel fairy tales do not deserve. The Bible teaches a morality by telling stories which are about the cause and effect of ethical choices we make.

In light of the period it is written, they are very well written. It's a shame in my opinion that historical accuracy is always talked about while the artistic and historical value is overlooked.


Is your take then that the moral stories are meant to improve life by improving the interaction we have in life?

Or am I misunderstanding you and you're reasoning that they are not moral stories but historical events devoid from moral lessons?

It may just be me, but God seems pretty unreasonable in attempting to force people to do what goes against their nature to do. It was even recorded that God allowed some choices to be dealt with immediately and not in some after life. IMO the Bible is the actual human encounters with God. God did not reveal himself to every one though. If we accept God it would have to be by choice and trust in the unknown. It seems pretty assumptious to think that past history was just written down to teach future humans how to live. Perhaps even fairy tales were accounts of human life that were re-written for that very purpose. The key though being re-written.

So it goes that the Bible was written fairly well enough to be used as a moral code even in an allegorical way. Those who adhere to Judaism are assured that the Law was the actual moral code given to them by God. Even though they agree to keep the whole law, it is to be assumed that they realize that doing so is an impossibility. Speaking of assuming though, could that also not be used as a being's foresight on the matter? What if we formed a group who could be made an example of and allowed them to mingle with the rest of humanity?

I would not say that the writings that comprise the Bible are devoid of moral truth. Humanity is a constant exercise in moral truths or so it seems. Morals are what forms governments and allows social beings to get along in harmony. I don't think that the only reason humans wrote the Bible was for a moral purpose. There are some books though that the purpose was stated and those were books directed towards the application of morality. There are also books that seem to give the account in a manner to point out a moral truth as well. The whole writing point is that the writer or writers seemed to be aware of this being we call God. It should also be noted that God does not reveal himself directly to all humans. The majority of the people through out time seemed to be totally unaware of a God, much less have direct contact with him. That would negate the whole point of what got humans in this condition to begin with. We are kept being reminded that humans can only worship or accept God if God is good to them. The other side to good is evil. God is still God even if humans experience evil. The purpose of evil though is to discredit God and separate humanity from God. It would also be an observation that even those who did have direct knowledge of God would still choose to reject God.

I don't think that it can be proven that God purposely forces humans to do evil nor does he reward human deeds with evil. Death being a concept of finality even to this day, is not an evil. It is a natural phenomenon. Neither does there have to be a second death. However the second death may be used as an excuse that humans who do not know God are never given a second chance to accept him. But the whole "test" is not based on knowledge. It has always been based on the unknown, even in Adam's case who never had the experiential knowledge of what death really was. He did know who God was though.

I realize that even in modern times and the failure of religion to be all things to all people, perhaps it is not religion that people should hold their allegiance too. It would seem to be a way to keep the mind off God and solely on man's own short time and comfort here on earth. BTW, I am not against humans having a great time and enjoying life here on earth. Neither do I want humans to get comfortable with the fact that this life is all there is. There is still the unknown out there.

 

[Borachio]

I think it's just laziness. Historically, they made God a male. Zeus. Odin. Thor. Etc. Etc. But, limiting a 'real' god by gender doesn't make sense in the modern age, given how quaint an idea gender is. We now know you can have personhood without gender (er, we think we know. It's something we should know, eve if we cannot imagine it).

So, let the Christians call their god a 'him'. Move to more gender-neutral term when talking about the Creator. If they want to call the Creator a 'him', then I guess gentle correction is fine. It makes no sense to call the Creator a 'him', and much less sense to insist upon it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't "mind" anyone calling God "Him". I just think it's curious, and revealing of the state of the late Neolithic mind. Previous to that, I believe, people were more interested in fertility goddesses, and the like. Though naturally evidence is scant.

I think the patriarchy, the second-class status of women, and monotheism are linked in some way, that's all.