The great 19th century anarchist, Michael Bakunin, in his book God And The State starts off by saying that there are two faculties which distinguish man from the other animals and consequently which constitute our humanity, namely the power to think and the desire to rebel. He then says the following:
The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty--Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and to eat of the fruit of knowledge.
...skip a bit...
Let us disregard now the fabulous portion of this myth and consider its true meaning, which is very clear. Man has emancipated himself; he has separated himself from animality and constituted himself a man; he has begun his distinctively human history and development by an act of disobedience and science--that is, by rebellion and by thought.
I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?
Originally posted by rwingettIf God wanted man to be no more than one of the other animals why does He state that man alone is made in the image of God? We do not see in Genesis God stopping to have a conference and declaring such things in the creating of any other thing, including the other creatures:
The great 19th century anarchist, Michael Bakunin, in his book God And The State starts off by saying that there are two faculties which distinguish man from the other animals and consequently which constitute our humanity, namely the power to think and the desire to rebel. He then says the following:
The Bible, which is a very in ...[text shortened]... ght.
I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?[/b]
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ... And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created Him ..." (See Genesis 1:26,27)
Secondly, If God wanted man merely to be another brute beast why did He impute His deputy authority to man and command man to have dominion over the other creatures?
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, accoding to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth." (See Genesis 1:26)
Besides this I had a dog which could both think and clearly could be rebelous too. So I can't agree that man alone has the ability to think or rebel. You can see a dog think when you say a number of words together that the dog is familiar with like "Sit, Come, Lie Down, Here, Quiet." When you say a number of words in succession like this you can sometimes see the dog cock its head thinking, trying to figure out which word you want him to act on.
And sometime I took the dog out for a walk and she got away. She rebelled and wouldn't come back home until she was good and ready, in spite of my commands to come back.
Something more than thinking and rebellion has to set human beings apart from the other creatures.
I'd start with Genesis 1:26,27 to begin with to find an answer.
Originally posted by rwingettCompelling, but still just another example of someone reading into the Bible what isn't actually there. For instance, there is no indication that God "wished... that man... should remain an eternal beast." Genesis gives no indication what God had in store for humanity were Adam and Eve to remain obedient. Also, there are quite glaring presuppositions evident in Bakunin's writings that would prevent him from considering the Bible objectively, namely, that the Bible is merely "human wisdom and fancy" and "naive," not to mention the fundamental misunderstanding he exhibits when speaking about Jehovah's essential nature ("vain" is off the mark considerably; "jealous" and "ferocious" are no doubt interpreted in a capricious human sense).
The great 19th century anarchist, Michael Bakunin, in his book God And The State starts off by saying that there are two faculties which distinguish man from the other animals and consequently which constitute our humanity, namely the power to think and the desire to rebel. He then says the following:
The Bible, which is a very in ...[text shortened]... ght.
I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?[/b]
This is typical of the Promethean/Satanic interpretations of scripture, which tend to paint Satan as a more noble and praiseworthy character than God Himself. But Satan understood correctly is far from heroic; in fact, he is downright despicable. As both the tempter of man and his accuser, Satan's intent has always been the destruction of men rather than Bakunin's promethean vision of him as emancipator. Knowing God's law, Satan purposefully tempted Man to sin and afterward perpetually accuses him before God. What a great guy...
_____________
It is worth noting that God Himself is the Source of all knowledge, and since Adam and Eve already had full access to Him, the issue is not about "emancipation" from ignorance. After all, the full name of the Tree of Knowledge is "the tree of the knowledge of [the difference between] good and evil and blessing and calamity" (AMP) -- here God's will is the Good, and disobedience itself plus the effects of disobedience (i.e. death, misery, shame, guilt, etc.) are the Evil. It is a mistake to suppose that the Tree of Knowledge is somehow the Tree of Science and Thought, as Bakunin does here. All knowledge comes from God, not as a gift from Satan, nor merely as a result of rebellion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by rwingettI think that is brilliant, and also plausible.
The great 19th century anarchist, Michael Bakunin, in his book God And The State starts off by saying that there are two faculties which distinguish man from the other animals and consequently which constitute our humanity, namely the power to think and the desire to rebel. He then says the following:
The Bible, which is a very in ...[text shortened]... ght.
I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?[/b]
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesSatan can do nothing that God does not allow him to do. Therefore, no man can be destroyed by Satan unless God wills it.
Compelling, but still just another example of someone reading into the Bible what isn't actually there. For instance, there is no indication that God "wished... that man... should remain an eternal beast." Genesis gives no indication what God had in store for humanity were Adam and Eve to remain obedient. Also, there are quite glaring presuppositions ...[text shortened]... i]God[/i], not as a gift from Satan, nor merely as a result of rebellion.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYour proposition is correct, Satan can do nothing that God does not allow him to do. But your conclusion is false. You need to take into consideration that Satan himself does not destroy people. Satan tempts people to break God's law, but people choose to break God's law for themselves, and it is God's law which brings them into condemnation. The condemnation of sinners is Satan's victory over God. But, of course, God has provided a substitutionary sacrifice in order to satisfy the Law and overcome Sin and the effects of sin -- a gift of grace appropriated by faith alone.
Satan can do nothing that God does not allow him to do. Therefore, no man can be destroyed by Satan unless God wills it.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesGod destroys people who break his rules, so my conclusion is true.
Your proposition is correct, Satan can do nothing that God does not allow him to do. But your conclusion is false. You need to take into consideration that Satan himself does not destroy people. Satan tempts people to break God's law, but people choose to break God's law for themselves, and it is God's law which brings them into condemnation. ...[text shortened]... Law and overcome Sin and the effects of sin -- a gift of grace appropriated by faith alone.
Originally posted by SwissGambitOops. One too many drinks tonite. Let me reword.
God destroys people who break his rules, so my conclusion is true.
You said that Satan's intent has always been the destruction of man. It was this that I responded to by pointing out that he can't do this without God allowing it. My response is in the context of your post; however you think Satan goes about destroying man, whether it be directly or indirectly, he could not do it without God allowing it.
Therefore, your next point that "Satan himself does not destroy people" is at best irrelevant and at worst contradictory to your first point [depending on how one interprets your words, since they are somewhat vague].
My error, of course, is saying that my conclusion is true because God destroys people. Oops. What I should have said is that my conclusion is true, because God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
Originally posted by jaywillYou're interpreting your dog's gestures as though he were human. It's called "anthromorphization" or something and it's something no zoologist is supposed to do. Dogs are dogs, not humans.
If God wanted man to be no more than one of the other animals why does He state that man alone is made in the image of God? We do not see in Genesis God stopping to have a conference and declaring such things in the creating of any other thing, including the other creatures:
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ... An he other creatures.
I'd start with Genesis 1:26,27 to begin with to find an answer.
It wasn't by accident that advertising for the company “RCA” once featured a dog cocking his head in front of a speaker horn. There's something about this position that most people find utterly adorable. Dogs know it, too, which is why they do it, even when they aren't trying to hear anything in particular. We give them a positive response, and they remember that. Also, dogs tilt their heads for very practical reasons as well. Tilting the head to the side puts one of the ears up and forward. By turning an ear in the direction of fuzzy or inaudible sounds, dogs are able to hear a little more clearly.
http://www.dog-toy.co.uk/dogarticles/?article=470
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesAs the bible story is told from the pro-god point of view, Satan has been cast as the villain. All evil has been attributed to him by the endless heavenly propaganda campaign. But it is the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And Satan is the original freedom fighter. Your linking him with Prometheus is very perceptive. You anticipate me in that regard. But the connection is a valid one. In the Latin, Lucifer means light bearer (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring" ). Just as Prometheus defied the gods to bring fire (knowledge) to man, Satan defied god to bring the light of reason to man. When mankind became aware that they were the 'house slaves' of god, they rebelled against his despotic tyranny. Make no mistake, when the story is interpreted from a human point of view, rather than a divine point of view, Satan is clearly the hero.
Compelling, but still just another example of someone reading into the Bible what isn't actually there. For instance, there is no indication that God "wished... that man... should remain an eternal beast." Genesis gives no indication what God had in store for humanity were Adam and Eve to remain obedient. Also, there are quite glaring presuppositions i]God[/i], not as a gift from Satan, nor merely as a result of rebellion.
And the battle continues to this day, with the theists imploring that people submit to god's despotic will, while the non-theists implore them to use their power of reason.
=============================
You're interpreting your dog's gestures as though he were human. It's called "anthromorphization" or something and it's something no zoologist is supposed to do. Dogs are dogs, not humans.
==================================
No, no, no K-young. I'm doing no such thing.
Dogs THINK. Sorry.
Dogs have dreams and nightmares. I have seen it with my own eyes. And they sometimes cock their head in a jesture which humans also do that reveals thinking.
I don't think that to suggest this is applying "anthromorphization".
Now you don't really mean that do you? Should we say that for the dog to get hungry and come to his plate to eat a meal is also "anthromorphization"?
I am clear that dogs and cats are not human. But we three do nonetheless have certain creaturely similarities you know.
Where's the evolutionists when you need em ? LOL.
==========================
It wasn't by accident that advertising for the company “RCA” once featured a dog cocking his head in front of a speaker horn. There's something about this position that most people find utterly adorable.
===============================
First of all I did not refer to that famous ad. I refered to my personal experience. Now let's also get emotion out of the matter. how "adorable" or lovable the scene of a dog's cocked head is has nothing to do with this. Don't bring it up as a distraction to the point.
Look if you want to argue that a blade of grass doesn't think then probably I would agree. If you want to say a tree or some form of vegatation doesn't think then I would agree.
I don't think you are going to get even most zoologists to agree with you that a dog does not think.
You can train them - because they can THINK. They remember because they can THINK.
They have a soul according to the Bible. And the functions of the soul are Mind, Emotion, and Will.
How adorable the RCA dog's cocked head is in their ad has nothing to do with it. We cannot deny the creature the ability to think on those grounds.
I wonder if B.F. Skinner the noted Behavior Modification expert agree with you that dogs can't think?
==============================
Dogs know it, too, which is why they do it, even when they aren't trying to hear anything in particular. We give them a positive response, and they remember that.
===================================
ThousandYoung even if that WERE true it still demonstrates that they THINK. Your argument here does nothing to deny the thinking of a dog but rather confirms it.
So you say that they remember the cute behavior and do it again? That doesn't envolve any thinking on the dog's part?
===================================
Also, dogs tilt their heads for very practical reasons as well. Tilting the head to the side puts one of the ears up and forward. By turning an ear in the direction of fuzzy or inaudible sounds, dogs are able to hear a little more clearly.
====================================
This "also" reason is perfectly acceptable to me. However, it still reveals some thinking doesn't it?
So the dog excercises its will to do something so that it can hear better. You still have a thinking and deciding dog.
Originally posted by rwingett[b]"...one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy,"
The great 19th century anarchist, Michael Bakunin, in his book God And The State starts off by saying that there are two faculties which distinguish man from the other animals and consequently which constitute our humanity, namely the power to think and the desire to rebel. He then says the following:
The Bible, which is a very in ...[text shortened]... ght.
I thought this was a very interesting interpretation. Anyone care to comment?[/b]
Here at the very outset, Bakunin's reasoning is flawed. The Bible, God's Word, is the manifestation of God's wisdom, and not man's.
The Bible is what it is, and no amount of human intervention is going to change that.
Originally posted by josephwYou are wrong. The bible is nothing but a history of human interventions.
"...one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy,"
Here at the very outset, Bakunin's reasoning is flawed. The Bible, God's Word, is the manifestation of God's wisdom, and not man's.
The Bible is what it is, and no amount of human intervention is going to change that.
Originally posted by jaywillQuit yapping like a dog, will you? Whether dogs can think is irrelevant. That isn't the point of the story.
[b]=============================
You're interpreting your dog's gestures as though he were human. It's called "anthromorphization" or something and it's something no zoologist is supposed to do. Dogs are dogs, not humans.
==================================
No, no, no K-young. I'm doing no such thing.
Dogs THINK. Sorry.
Dogs have dream ...[text shortened]... it can hear better. You still have a thinking and deciding dog.[/b]
========================
ou are wrong. The bible is nothing but a history of human interventions.
=============================
No it is not solely the history of human interventions. It is also a book quite taken up with the intervention of God into human history.
However, God usually had someone on earth praying or desiring Him to act.
But the book goes out of its way to prove that it was God acting at certain times. And this was beyond the ability of man to act.