Pretend you are God

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's your planet now. A gift from God to occupy you in Eternity. Just as Adam was put into the Garden of Eden to look after it and tend it so you have been presented with a Planet to look after and tend. How do you manage it and keep it going? Would you appear to people to explain to them the difference between good and evil, right and worng, or do you take a hands off approach and see what results?

I'd do it as I think Godidit.

I'd ensure they know the difference between good and evil (i.e. they'd be born with that knowledge "pre-installed") - but do it in a way which allowed that knowledge to be suppressed and denied and spun out of shape. In order that they, like us, could give an unencumbered answer to God regarding their hearts desire regarding the things of God.

Do they love what's good (even though they find they can't actually do what's good). Or do they love evil (even though they find that their hindered from doing so by something demanding they do good)

And I'd do just as I think he is going to do. In response to their answer, I'd give them their hearts desire for all eternity - in spades.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Am I omnipotent?

Cause if I am I would instantly turn everyone into creatures that can't be hurt or feel pain or suffer.

Seems odd God hasn't done that already, but who am I to question our all knowing overlord

According to the story that is effectively what God did. It was called "Paradise".

Given the title of Milton's epic Poem popping into my head and the antics of "The Third Policeman" I cant help adding that I wonder if the thread was only mooted to find out the ending of the TV show "Lost"

A Primal Nut

StealthRolex wrote: »

He did it to remove wicked humans and sort out the human\angel offspring. What's wrong with that?

Didn't do a very good job of removing wicked humans then

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Nope, it is simply accurate.

You were appealing to what Jesus said for a clarification of the English word "love" and what it means in relation to choice.

"If choosing to love is beyond our control why did Jesus command us to love God and love each other as we love ourselves?"

I was merely pointing out that Jesus never used the English word "love", and thus what he said can give us no greater insight into what the word itself means or should mean.

If i use the representation "6" and you are a roman and used "vi" or you are a french person who used "six" but pronounces it "cease" then the number SIX still exists. Just because a language used "amor" or "love" does not mean the concept didn't exist. In the using of "love god and love your neighbor" Jesus looked into established scripture. don't forget he was asked what is the greatest law or commandment.
of the thousands of laws and rules he picked two! One which was widely known and expressed in Deuteronomy and another probably less known from from Leviticus 19.18
The idea that if he restated them in Greek or another language then they would mean something else is ludicrous.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why so many Biblical scholars, including yourself, return to the original Greek text in the first place. If the translations conveyed the meaning perfectly there would be no need to do this.

the "original" of "love God and love your neighbor" is Hebrew. It was well documented. The english translation of the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew doesn't change that!

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Nope, it is simply accurate.

You were appealing to what Jesus said for a clarification of the English word "love" and what it means in relation to choice.

"If choosing to love is beyond our control why did Jesus command us to love God and love each other as we love ourselves?"

I was merely pointing out that Jesus never used the English word "love", and thus what he said can give us no greater insight into what the word itself means or should mean.

It is what one does that qualifies what one says. Actions speak louder than words.

Jesus example of what He meant was shown by His being scourged at the pillar and Hid death on the cross

How many people have taken what He said to heart and practiced it? Need any hints? Try the Saints, or Mother Theresa, or John Paul II as more recent examples as their existence and actions cannot be denied.

2000 years later is no time to be arguing the semantics especially as plenty more enlightened and scholarly persons have already done the work.

You could take any work by anyone who did not write in modern English and use the same facile and ignorant argument.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

the "original" of "love God and love your neighbor" is Hebrew. It was well documented. The english translation of the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew doesn't change that!

Love in Hebrew has a similar root to the verb "to give". In Hebrew the notion of that was translated to "love" in English is connected with the act of giving, it is seen as an act.

It is not describing the emotional state one finds themselves in, which is what is the most common definition of the word love in English.

Therefore neither the Hebrew or the Greek is suggesting, through God, that the emotional state is something you choose to be in. You don't choose to love someone, in the English sense of the word (amazing I have to actual qualify that :rolleyes:), you can choose to act lovingly towards someone, which is what these words mean.

That is supported by both the Greek and Hebrew uses of these words. But in English we don't have distinct concepts, so the translators used "love"

ISAW wrote: »

If i use the representation "6" and you are a roman and used "vi" or you are a french person who used "six" but pronounces it "cease" then the number SIX still exists. Just because a language used "amor" or "love" does not mean the concept didn't exist. In the using of "love god and love your neighbor" Jesus looked into established scripture. don't forget he was asked what is the greatest law or commandment.
of the thousands of laws and rules he picked two! One which was widely known and expressed in Deuteronomy and another probably less known from from Leviticus 19.18
The idea that if he restated them in Greek or another language then they would mean something else is ludicrous.

I'm not saying that the Hewbrew or Greek concepts didn't exist, I'm saying you can't use the authority of God to determine anything about the English translation

The argument was if the word "love" doesn't imply choice why would God/Jesus use it when describing choosing to act a certain way to your neighbors. My point was simply that God didn't use the English word "love" ever. He used words in other languages that do imply choice, (such as the Hebrew word that in a basic sense means "to give") that where then translated to the English word "love" by men. There is no connection between the authority of God and the correct usage of the English word "love" because God never used the English word "love"

I am genuinely surprised that this has turned into such a "thing", it seemed like a perfectly reasonable point, I'm not sure why everyone is fighting tooth and nail over it, other than perhaps simply for the sake of arguing.

I'm certainly NOT trying to imply that God/Jesus didn't tell you to do something specific, or that these concepts don't exist in their original languages, simply that there is no 1 to 1 translation between the concepts described in Hebrew or Greek and the English term.

If you want to know what word God would us when describing his concepts to us in English you will have to ask him.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is what one does that qualifies what one says. Actions speak louder than words.

I agree entirely, but that is not relevant to the point at hand, that being that you don't choose your emotional states, including love.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

According to the story that is effectively what God did. It was called "Paradise".

That is a good point, though I'm not sure if the Bible says Adam and Eve could not be hurt? It does state they couldn't die, right?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree entirely, but that is not relevant to the point at hand, that being that you don't choose your emotional states, including love.

So how do actors earn their living? The good ones I mean, method actors included.

Is love purely an emotion? Some forms of love may be but as already discussed there are other forms of love.

A father can love their child automatically or they can choose not to.

Adoptive parents are not always given a choice as to which child they get, instead they are presented with a child and by their choice they love it.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point, though I'm not sure if the Bible says Adam and Eve could not be hurt? It does state they couldn't die, right?

No it doesn't. if you don't have a hard copy to hand there are plenty on the internet.

God says first of all that if they eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they will die.

There is a Tree of Life in Eden implying that if they did not eat of that they would die.

There bodies were human therefore could be damaged or hurt.
I note you use the English word hurt. Which meaning of hurt do you mean as there is physical hurt and emotional hurt?

God could also smite them but by an act of love He allowed them to live so they could redeem themselves.

StealthRolex

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Didn't do a very good job of removing wicked humans then

Maybe wickedness will always arise because of the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted to destroy everything but Noah was a good man so He gave the world another chance.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point, though I'm not sure if the Bible says Adam and Eve could not be hurt? It does state they couldn't die, right?

No. But it might not be relevant whether they could or not. For it appears that God was managing the situation. He was the one that placed them in the garden - the sense of the garden given being one of a boundaried place (indicated by the way in be blocked off subsequent to their dismissal from it). And it was God who permitted the serpent to do his work - permitting entry of this specific form of evil through the firewall (as it were) for the purposes of enabling choice.

That Adam could be killed by a rock falling on his head isn't relevant if it is not in God's plan that Adam be exposed to such danger. God's stage managing would make sure that rocks stayed were they were so that God's intent could be carried out.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

So how do actors earn their living? The good ones I mean, method actors included.

Are you being purposely pedantic or do you seriously think than an actor who is acting being in love with someone is actually choosing to be in love with them, ie the emotional state, for the 3 hours they are up on stage?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

No. But it might not be relevant whether they could or not. For it appears that God was managing the situation. He was the one that placed them in the garden - the sense of the garden given being one of a boundaried place (indicated by the way in be blocked off subsequent to their dismissal from it). And it was God who permitted the serpent to do his work - permitting entry of this specific form of evil through the firewall (as it were) for the purposes of enabling choice.

That Adam could be killed by a rock falling on his head isn't relevant if it is not in God's plan that Adam be exposed to such danger. God's stage managing would make sure that rocks stayed were they were so that God's intent could be carried out.

What if Eve tried to kill Adam? Free will and all that?

The reason I ask is to see how much Eden would be like the world I would create if I were omnipotent. If there is Biblical support for my ideas then all the better

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd do it as I think Godidit.

I'd ensure they know the difference between good and evil (i.e. they'd be born with that knowledge "pre-installed") - but do it in a way which allowed that knowledge to be suppressed and denied and spun out of shape. In order that they, like us, could give an unencumbered answer to God regarding their hearts desire regarding the things of God.

Do they love what's good (even though they find they can't actually do what's good). Or do they love evil (even though they find that their hindered from doing so by something demanding they do good)

And I'd do just as I think he is going to do. In response to their answer, I'd give them their hearts desire for all eternity - in spades.

This raises the question as to whether or not the knowledge we have of good and evil is intrinsic or natural, and hence if on the planet we get to govern the beings know of good and evil or know of right and wrong alone.

Is evil simply and extreme form of wrong or something entirely different?

The premise presupposes that they do not know of evil but were created good and know right from wrong.

Do some love doing wrong more than they love doing right and can it be corrected?

Is there a benefit to having an knowledge if evil and if so is it intrinsic or introduced? If it is introduced when would you introduce it, or would you?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you being purposely pedantic or do you seriously think than an actor who is acting being in love with someone is actually choosing to be in love with them, ie the emotional state, for the 3 hours they are up on stage?

You included all emotional states not just love.
you said we cannot choose our emotional states, including love.

You are implying that we have no control over any of the following

Anger
Annoyance
Angst
Apathy
Anxiety
Awe
Boredom
Compassion
Contempt
Curiosity
Depression
Desire
Despair
Disappointment
Disgust
Ecstasy
Empathy
Envy
Embarrassment
Euphoria
Fear
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hysteria
Jealousy
Joy
Loathing
Love
Lust
Misery
Pity
Pride
Rage
Regret
Remorse
Sadness
Shame
Suffering
Surprise
Wonder
Worry

Or is love your only issue?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

What if Eve tried to kill Adam? Free will and all that?

A free will isn't one until such time as stimuli this way and that are presented it. Until that point the free will is dormant.

God didn't present Eve with stimuli involving the killing of Adam - he presented her with stimuli involving the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of...

The reason I ask is to see how much Eden would be like the world I would create if I were omnipotent. If there is Biblical support for my ideas then all the better

Take it that Adam and Eve could die then. You're God - have at it.

StealthRolex

maybe there should be a poll

a) is it possible to choose our emotional states

b) it is impossible to choose our emotional states

c) our emotional states choose us

d) emotions - what are emotions?

e) I cannot control myself

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point, though I'm not sure if the Bible says Adam and Eve could not be hurt? It does state they couldn't die, right?

I should also have pointed out in my previous post that God created humans and animals and fish and birds that could eat and reproduce. These are requirements for mortals only.

Immortals have no need of food or reproduction as they cannot die.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

You included all emotional states not just love.
you said we cannot choose our emotional states, including love.

You are implying that we have no control over any of the following

Anger
Annoyance
Angst
Apathy
Anxiety
Awe
Boredom
Compassion
Contempt
Curiosity
Depression
Desire
Despair
Disappointment
Disgust
Ecstasy
Empathy
Envy
Embarrassment
Euphoria
Fear
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hysteria
Jealousy
Joy
Loathing
Love
Lust
Misery
Pity
Pride
Rage
Regret
Remorse
Sadness
Shame
Suffering
Surprise
Wonder
Worry

Or is love your only issue?

All those things. When was the last time you choose to be afraid of something? Or choose to feel shame? As in actually choose to put yourself into the emotional state of being ashamed?

BTW, before I get accused of derailing this thread again, can I ask what any of that has to do with anything? Are you actually curious as to my position or are you simply arguing for the sake of it?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

maybe there should be a poll

What is it with you guys and polls?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I should also have pointed out in my previous post that God created humans and animals and fish and birds that could eat and reproduce. These are requirements for mortals only.

Immortals have no need of food or reproduction as they cannot die.

Fair enough. I guess I've been hanging around the Creationist thread to much, they are sure death entered after the Fall, though I didn't know if this conclusion was Biblical or interpretation. I guess it is interpretational.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

All those things. When was the last time you choose to be afraid of something? Or choose to feel shame? As in actually choose to put yourself into the emotional state of being ashamed?

I can choose not to be afraid. If I can choose not to , then I can choose to.
Why else would one person say to another "have no fear".

When was the last time you heard one person say to another " Have you no shame".

Actors do regularly put themselves into particular emotional states or at least the convincing ones certainly appear to be able to.

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW, before I get accused of derailing this thread again, can I ask what any of that has to do with anything? Are you actually curious as to my position or are you simply arguing for the sake of it?

It is one of the points of the thread. If you cannot understand love as a choice, or cannot control your emotions, why would you be put in charge of a planet?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I can choose not to be afraid.

You can? How exactly?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why else would one person say to another "have no fear".

Are you seriously? Seriously is this a piss take?

A person who says "have no fear" to someone is not telling them simply to choose not to be afraid. They say it because they are going to remove or fix the thing the person is afraid of.

If a group of terrified children are huddled in a building while a rampaging gang tears through the town it would be ridiculous to say to them have no fear unless the person had a reason why they no longer need to be afraid, for example "have no fear, the UN peace keepers are here"

StealthRolex wrote: »

Actors do regularly put themselves into particular emotional states or at least the convincing ones certainly appear to be able to.

Exactly.

They put themselves into particular emotional states through manipulation of their bodies. They don't choose to be angry. They get someone slap them in the face, or the director makes them stay up all night, or the 1st assistant tells them their girlfriend just slept with the director.

They have no direct access to the emotional state they are in, it must be externally triggered.

This is precisely because they cannot control their own emotional states, any more than they can choose to be tired or ill. That is what method acting is. They have to physically trigger a physical or emotional reaction precisely because they cannot simply choose to be angry or scared or tired or hurt.

Or they can just fake it, which is traditional acting.

In neither situations, method or traditional, is anyone choosing their emotion state like you would choose to lift your leg, or blow your nose.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

They put themselves into particular emotional states through manipulation of their bodies. They don't choose to be angry. They get someone slap them in the face, or the director makes them stay up all night, or the 1st assistant tells them their girlfriend just slept with the director.

They have no direct access to the emotional state they are in, it must be externally triggered.

Wicknight wrote: »

Y
This is precisely because they cannot control their own emotional states, any more than they can choose to be tired or ill. That is what method acting is. They have to physically trigger a physical or emotional reaction precisely because they cannot simply choose to be angry or scared or tired or hurt.

Or they can just fake it, which is traditional acting.

In neither situations, method or traditional, is anyone choosing their emotion state like you would choose to lift your leg, or blow your nose.

Now who's taking the piss. If I was on the set an someone told me my girlfriend had slept with the director I would probably not believe them and if I did I would be more inclined to kill the director than act the part.

So a method actor who has no direct access to the emotional state of the fear of being executed tells the 1st assistant to load the gun with live ammunition and not to worry if things go wrong because that is part and parcel of method acting, and anyway he'll make more money when he's dead?

Ok that's a bit extreme. How about he has no experience of having lost a limb so he calls the 1st assistant and says get over here with a big axe and a bottle of whiskey.

Not only have you demonstrated a misunderstanding of emotions in general and love in particular but you have also demonstrated a misunderstanding of acting.

I think the exploration of emotions and if we can or cannot control them would be better discussed under a different thread. The best I can come up with is that you have somehow come to the conclusion that emotions are purely instinctual and have decided that you will not be swayed by reasonable argument.

I do accept that the start or initiation of some emotions are beyond our control but we can then choose whether or not to entertain them.

For example. If you are married but also believe in love at first sight, maybe because that is what led to your marriage, what will happen if you meet another person at another time who triggers that "love at first sight" emotion again? Do you act on it and divorce your spouse. Do you act on it and have an affair.
Or do you control it, subdue it and go back to your previously and hopefully still happy marriage?

If we cannot control our emotions then we are mere animals and humanity does not exist.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

This raises the question as to whether or not the knowledge we have of good and evil is intrinsic or natural, and hence if on the planet we get to govern the beings know of good and evil or know of right and wrong alone.

I'm not sure what this means. What's the difference between intrinsic and natural? And what's the difference between knowing of good and evil and knowing right and wrong. Aren't they good/right evil/wrong the same things?

Is evil simply and extreme form of wrong or something entirely different?

I'm supposing they are one and the same.

The premise presupposes that they do not know of evil but were created good and know right from wrong.

Do some love doing wrong more than they love doing right and can it be corrected?

Is there a benefit to having an knowledge if evil and if so is it intrinsic or introduced? If it is introduced when would you introduce it, or would you?

Perhaps we're talking past each other. My bad..

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps we're talking past each other. My bad..

I wouldn't say that.

Some people believe evil is unnatural because evil only exists in humans. The only evil animals I have heard of are chimps who were taught to smoke. They had a tendency to get evil when their cigarettes were removed

Nor is there much scientific evidence for evil as a function of evolution. It is a research topic but the conclusive evidence is scant.

Some may disagree entirely and present loads of evidence which I am not yet aware of.

In the religious communities people ask why God allowed evil and quietly ignore the fact that evil has no power unless it is chosen.

My considered opinion is that right and wrong are distinct from good and evil as evil has no evolutionary benefit and is not present in the animal kingdom.

Part of the planetary experiment is to see what kind of world can be constructed if good is intrinsic, right and wrong existed and evil was unknown.

By intrinsic I mean it is essential and put there by default. According to Genesis evil was neither intrinsic or natural.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now who's taking the piss. If I was on the set an someone told me my girlfriend had slept with the director I would probably not believe them and if I did I would be more inclined to kill the director than act the part.

Which was my point, that makes you angry. You require an external stimulus to make you angry, you can't just choose to be angry. You can choose to pretend to be angry, which is traditional acting as opposed to method acting.

Whether he uses the anger in the scene or decides to kill the director is actually irrelevant to my point (though you seem to be making a habit of being pointlessly pedantic)

StealthRolex wrote: »

So a method actor who has no direct access to the emotional state of the fear of being executed tells the 1st assistant to load the gun with live ammunition and not to worry if things go wrong because that is part and parcel of method acting, and anyway he'll make more money when he's dead?

No, but can you name me one actor in the history of cinema or theater who as actually sincerely afraid for his life during a scene, rather than simply pretending to be (ie acting)

You appear to be confusing an actor playing the role of someone about to die pretending to be afraid of dying (ie acting) with actually being afraid of dying. Given that I doubt you sincerely confused about this I can only conclude that once again you are being needlessly pedantic.

StealthRolex wrote: »

How about he has no experience of having lost a limb so he calls the 1st assistant and says get over here with a big axe and a bottle of whiskey.

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain to you the difference between acting and real life.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Not only have you demonstrated a misunderstanding of emotions in general and love in particular but you have also demonstrated a misunderstanding of acting.

I'm not the one who thinks actors acting scared are genuinely scared of death in the scene they are in.

You are saying the actor chooses to be afraid for his life. He doesn't. He acts afraid of his life. Reality != Acting. That is the point of acting. Bruce Willis hanging of a bridge is pretending to be afraid for his life, he isn't actually afraid for his life, nor has he chosen to be afraid for his life.

Likewise when he embraces his wife after killing all the bad guys he is pretending to love his wife, he doesn't actually love her nor has he chosen to love her.

All of which I'm sure you already know and you are simply being pointlessly argumentative.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I do accept that the start or initiation of some emotions are beyond our control but we can then choose whether or not to entertain them.

That is utterly irrelevant to the original point, as I've pointed out about 6 times already.

You can choose to bash your head in to stop feeling guilt for all I care, it has nothing to do with whether you choose to feel guilt or not.

StealthRolex wrote: »

For example. If you are married but also believe in love at first sight, maybe because that is what led to your marriage, what will happen if you meet another person at another time who triggers that "love at first sight" emotion again? Do you act on it and divorce your spouse. Do you act on it and have an affair.

The question is irrelevant to whether or not the "love at first sight" emotion is triggers.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If we cannot control our emotions then we are mere animals and humanity does not exist.

Our humanity comes from our conscious decisions, not our emotions. Lacking control over what emotional state we are in nor more makes us less humanity that not being able to control if you feel tired or not makes us less human.

And by the way we are "mere animals".

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

And by the way we are "mere animals".

I am a human being. What are you?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I am a human being. What are you?

I'm a Homo Sapien, belonging to the genus Homo, which belongs to the family Hominidae, which belongs to the order Primate which belongs to the class Mammalia, which belongs to the phylum Chordata, which belongs to the kingdom Animalia

Given that I'm not a fungus, bacteria, planet or virus, I am in fact an animal. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Did you actually have a point or is this more pedantic silliness?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm a Homo Sapien, belonging to the genus Homo, which belongs to the family Hominidae, which belongs to the order Primate which belongs to the class Mammalia, which belongs to the phylum Chordata, which belongs to the kingdom Animalia

Given that I'm not a fungus, bacteria, planet or virus, I am in fact an animal. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Did you actually have a point or is this more pedantic silliness?

Okay, so you are an animal with no control over your emotions.

Now I understand.

It won't stop me loving you but it does inform me.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

It won't stop me loving you but it does inform me.

I don't care.