Greatest I am wrote:I was born into Catholicism in a so called Christian nation but was never a believer.
If born in a Jewish community I would likely be a kabalist. If born in a Muslin country, I might be dead or afraid to speak out. I gave my reasons for my Gnostic label. Accept them or not.
As I said, I can't put a label on you. I read your explanation, and if you choose not to respond to my reply, OK.
Greatest I am wrote:The religion or label is not important as compared to spirituality.
Language is important to us understanding each other. It depends on us agreeing on common definitions.
Greatest I am wrote:You spoke of Jews and David and their beliefs.
They have none in the literal sense.
There may be real place names and what not but the tale itself is a myth.
I realize that you believe it is a myth. But your claim is more than that - that the original authors also took it as a myth. All the evidence I am aware of points the other way.
I read your link, and it is the same type of polemic I've seen before. It starts with a bold declaration that something "never happened", and then waits until late in the article when few people are reading to quote scholars who are qualifying their research with words like "probably". I am familiar with historical method, and this is the typical misrepresentation done in the popular media. It leaves out the other side of the story from scholars like Dr. Paul Maier (a respected professor of ancient history from Western Michigan whom I know), and doesn't mention that these topics are not settled in the history profession, but continue to be debated. Even then, all it says is that some modern scholars think Genesis is a myth. It says nothing about what the authors thought.
Further, it is not part of historical method to "prove" that something "never happened". It can't be done. And yes, that includes even the FSM and Pegasus. I don't personally believe those things, and there is no historical evidence for them, but even I will admit that I can't "prove" Pegasus never existed. Further note that my comments were about David. I wasn't talking about the historicity of Moses (or the topic of this thread - A&E). I was talking about what ancient Hebrews believed - David being one whose historicity I would think we could agree on.
Greatest I am wrote:If you know of their custom of midrash you will know that they too just use their scriptures to prompt discourse.
Yes, I know the midrash, but even Jews don't consider it canonical (if that's the right word). Even then, the oldest midrash I am aware of comes from the Tannite era - 1st/2nd century AD - not a good indicator of the ancient Hebrew mindset. In fact, there are accusations that the Tannite writings were an intentional reaction to Christianity. I don't know how well that can be substantiated, but from what I've read of some of the Tannite polemics it seems a plausible idea.
Greatest I am wrote:Do you believe in those? Talking animals and staffs that turn into snakes or water that moves on command?
I don't understand questions like this. You don't question my belief in a God who can create an entire universe, but you do question whether I think that God powerful enough to part the Reed Sea - something a modern Harrier has done to one of our local rivers.
The serpent thing is even more interesting because the Egyptians in that narrative were unimpressed by a staff turning into a snake. It was a "magic" trick they themselves could perform. Yet modern skeptics say it didn't happen. Hmm. Don't you think David Copperfield could produce an illusion like that?
Greatest I am wrote:I am also curious as to your personal apotheosis if that is what you would name it.
Care to share?
I wouldn't call it apotheosis. "Epiphany" might be a better word. Much of it is more personal than I would share here. I might share one personal experience, but let's start with the confessional Lutheran response. As one starts to ask questions like, "what is spirit?" and "if spirit is non-physical, how can it interact with the physical?", the confessional Lutheran response is that this happens through the Word and Sacraments.
Greatest I am wrote:My focus in the O P was the morality of what God did in Eden as discussions of God are always speculative and opinion. No facts or knowledge. All hearsay.
That depends. If we restrict ourselves to what the Bible says, we are dealing with facts. Let me explain with an example. John said, "I can fly." Whether John can fly might be debatable, but that he said he can fly is a fact. The facts are: In the Genesis narrative God told Eve not to do something. She did it. He punished her. Whether you believe in God or Eve is irrelevant. The story makes it clear that (in the story) God is the authority, and Eve disobeyed that authority. It also makes it clear that God had the power to enact his punishment.
Are you arguing the right of an authority to enact punishment for disobedience? If so, I don't think you'll get far. Are you arguing that banishment was an improper punishment? I don't think it is. Again, the story makes it clear that God "owned" the "property" of Eden. It's a pretty well established aspect of law that if a tenant breaks the rules of the landlord, eviction is an acceptable result. It is also clear that God told Eve the consequence of living outside Eden. It meant death. She chose to disobey anyway. Within the "facts" of the story, I don't really see what there is to debate.
But I suppose that's not where you're going. As I said a long time ago. It seems what you're questioning is that she died. You're trying to call that result murder. I see it like someone who puts a guard on a saw because they realize it could seriously hurt someone. If someone chooses to remove the guard and gets hurt, is the manufacturer of the saw responsible? Just because they made a tool that could hurt someone? I don't think so. It's the fault of the person who removed the safeguards.
So, next I think you were moving into an argument that she had no free will to do otherwise. Shrug. I don't see where that's going to go. Suppose we don't have a free will. Then you have no choice but to be offended by God's action, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise ... unless that is the determined result of this conversation. If you have free will ... well ... then so did Eve.
I guess what you'll argue next, then, is that Genesis is being logically inconsistent. So, we come to theodicy.
Greatest I am wrote:Opine on that please so that I can get a glimmer of your moral thinking to see if it is led by faith or dogma as opposed to logic and reason. Speaking of your God will also be helpful.
Was that enough to give you a glimmer? I will note that "dogma" is often used as a pejorative ... even "faith" is often meant that way by non-believers. Is that what you're trying to discern here? Whether my position is preposterous or not? I often get the impression that you've already concluded that. If not, I think we'll need more than a glimmer.