A question on God and Indian giving.

[Greatest I am]

A question on God and Indian giving.

 

You are given a gift, use it for a time, and then the one who gave you that gift takes it back without your permission or consent.

 

In other words, showing himself to be an Indian giver.

 

Would you call that a sin?

 

I call it a form of lying.

 

The giver is in effect saying, I am giving you this gift, when in reality, he is not, as demonstrated by his taking it back or away from you.

 

If not a lie, is that a sin and what is the sin called?

 

God himself in scriptures seems to do this regularly as he kills those he supposedly loves and takes away the free will gift he supposedly gave them. Their free will was obviously to live.

 

Is God an Indian giver?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2KNmB69EM&feature=related

 

 

[zapatos]

Maybe it is just me but I find your regular denigration of Christians to be rather pointless. And now you are moving on to native Americans. I'm curious as to why so many of your posts follow in this vein.

[lemur]

Overlooking the offensiveness of using the phrase "indian giving" to describe re-taking a given gift, I think the question is addressed by the fact that death as punishment for sin is simply the mechanical logic of nature, not some deus ex machina. E.g. when people commit the sin of killing, the consequence is logically death because death results from killing. Adultery is similar, except for what dies is a marriage/family instead of an individual. Stealing is another form of death, the thing stolen is like a part of you that gets killed by the thief. So when the "karma comes around" and the creation delivers its effects back to the agents of their causes, the first become last and the last first, etc. Another way to put it is that it's not God directly taking things away from sinners - it's them doing themselves in by failing to heed God's warning. E.g. in the garden of Eden, God warns them that if they eat the apple they'll surely die but they ignore the warning. How can you call that God taking away their lives? It would be like if you told someone that they can taste anything in your flavor-chemistry lab except the green stuff with the purple lumps in it because it's a poison with no antidote. Then if you found out they went ahead and drank it while you were in the bathroom, you would be angry at them and maybe banish them from your lab and tell them they are cursed to die - because you knew what would happen to them as a consequence of drinking the green and purple stuff and you even warned them about it to protect them.

Edited April 10, 2011 by lemur

[ydoaPs]

I was under the impression that "Indian Giving" was referring to the way the Native Americans were treated by the USA.

[Ringer]

Actually I'm pretty sure Indian Giving was a derogatory slam against Native Americans when they started to petition to gain some of their land back and such.

[swansont]

AFAICT it's similar in origin to "Indian summer" being the misleading bit of warm weather you often get in the fall. "Indian" was not a nice description of someone or something.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_phrase_Indian_giver

 

Hmm. Cultural misunderstanding. What were the odds?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

God himself in scriptures seems to do this regularly as he kills those he supposedly loves and takes away the free will gift he supposedly gave them. Their free will was obviously to live.

God does not give "gifts"; he entered into a covenant (contract) with the Israelites, and when they did not uphold their side of the contract, He was not obligated to uphold his. Whenever Israel suffered a major tragedy (the Babylonian exile, the destruction of the Temple, etc.), it was interpreted theologically as a sign that the Israelites had done something terribly wrong. The Old Testament is full of stories of the Israelites worshiping idols (violating the Commandments) and being punished, for example.

 

I don't see how this could be interpreted as a free unconditional gift being stolen back.

[Marat]

Natives had a different sense of possession and property from the Europeans they encountered, and this was bound to create conflicts. Ultimately the murder of Captain Cook by the Hawaiian natives may have arisen from such a confusion over whether handing something over to someone meant loaning or giving it, or whether something belonging to someone but temporarily abandoned was still legally the property of that person. The question is, what is the politically correct name for this cultural confusion today? First Nations-Giving?

 

The karmic theory of God's punishments cannot relieve him of guilt for the injuries inflicted, since he ultimately determined the design of the universe, and when he was deciding how to make the real world, it was not necessary that misbehavior ultimately lead to injury. Many bad things we do have no negative consequences, or much milder negative consequences than they arguably deserve, so why didn't God just make a padded universe where no one can ever be bruised, but just perhaps mildly rebuked for doing the wrong thing? If you've ever seen children turning themselves inside out with wretching after chemotherapy in a hospital, you might wonder whether the karmic punishments for sin are not a tad over the top.

 

The real transcendental silliness of the whole God idea emerges when he flatly says, "Thou shalt not steal." You have to wonder, does he mean that anything which the entirely arbitrary and often profoundly unjust legal systems of all the various states of the world establish as 'legal ownership and its violation' is carefully noted by God with a massive ledger in Heaven so that he can keep pace with the evolving legal codes of each nation? If for example some jurisdiction's legal system were suddenly to permit a defense of necessity where it had not done so before, so that destroying private property by breaking into an abandoned cabin to save yourself from dying from exposure was no longer defined as a criminal act, does God then have to erase that type of 'stealing' of property from his roster of punishable sins and revise it, depending on the decisions of the earthly legal commission or the changing rulings of the local supreme court? Does he have to let out of Hell everyone he imprisoned there earlier for committing that type of stealing which is now no longer defined as such? What about people from less modern legal jurisdictions which don't yet recognize the defense of necessity? Does God still feel obligated to keep their souls burning in Hades because the laws are slow to change in their home jurisdiction?

[Greatest I am]

Maybe it is just me but I find your regular denigration of Christians to be rather pointless.

 

Not all Christians. Just literalists and fundamentals.

 

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

 

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

 

They also do much harm to their own.

 

African witches and Jesus

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

 

Jesus Camp 1of 9

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

 

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

 

 

And now you are moving on to native Americans. I'm curious as to why so many of your posts follow in this vein.

 

 

Because you do not understand my thinking.

 

I do not denigrate Indians.

 

It happens that all my in laws are FBI in Canada.

 

My use of the term Indian giver is used to shame white men, not Indians.

 

It opens a door for these and I thank you for the opportunity for me to educate and show who should be called white man giver.

 

http://uaddit.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=1152

 

http://www.modernherbaleducation.com/261.html

 

You might have noted, in our zeal for political correctness, that we are taking the word Niger out of books that were written by people like, Marc Twain and changing the message that he wanted to give the white world.

 

The white word is being quite hypocritical in my view and trying to show themselves as more tolerant than what they were, while covering up it's prejudices instead of facing them.

 

If we forget history, we are bound to repeat it.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Overlooking the offensiveness of using the phrase "indian giving" to describe re-taking a given gift, I think the question is addressed by the fact that death as punishment for sin is simply the mechanical logic of nature, not some deus ex machina. E.g. when people commit the sin of killing, the consequence is logically death because death results from killing. Adultery is similar, except for what dies is a marriage/family instead of an individual. Stealing is another form of death, the thing stolen is like a part of you that gets killed by the thief. So when the "karma comes around" and the creation delivers its effects back to the agents of their causes, the first become last and the last first, etc. Another way to put it is that it's not God directly taking things away from sinners - it's them doing themselves in by failing to heed God's warning. E.g. in the garden of Eden, God warns them that if they eat the apple they'll surely die but they ignore the warning. How can you call that God taking away their lives? It would be like if you told someone that they can taste anything in your flavor-chemistry lab except the green stuff with the purple lumps in it because it's a poison with no antidote. Then if you found out they went ahead and drank it while you were in the bathroom, you would be angry at them and maybe banish them from your lab and tell them they are cursed to die - because you knew what would happen to them as a consequence of drinking the green and purple stuff and you even warned them about it to protect them.

 

Your analogy take the usual Christian position that Eden was our fall whereas I take the Hebrew and Jewish position that Eden was not our fall but our elevation. God confirms this view with his ---they have become as Gods, knowing good and evil.

 

How can becoming as Gods and learning a hugely valuable lesson be evil?

 

As to your lab analogy, it is good except it is not quite accurate.

 

You show a situation where there is no antidote whereas the Bible says that there was an antidote in the tree of live but that God restricted it as part of his sissy fit.

 

 

 

That is like you as the scientist in the lab booting the people out and just not giving them the antidote that is in your pocket.

 

A huge difference. They then are not just dying. You are murdering them by omission.

 

Further, WTF is God doing leaving such a destructive tree in there right beside his new young proto people and making sure the tempter is there to insyre that they eat?

 

Is God that insane?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

I was under the impression that "Indian Giving" was referring to the way the Native Americans were treated by the USA.

 

 

 

Yes. And Canada, Australia, the Spanish etc.

 

It is the white man that deserves the name.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

AFAICT it's similar in origin to "Indian summer" being the misleading bit of warm weather you often get in the fall. "Indian" was not a nice description of someone or something.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Indian_giver

http://wiki.answers....se_Indian_giver

 

Hmm. Cultural misunderstanding. What were the odds?

 

Pretty damned good when in the day, all non whites were to be slaves, chattel or nuisance.

 

Good grief!

I just realized. For many whites, nothing has changed.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

God does not give "gifts"; he entered into a covenant (contract) with the Israelites, and when they did not uphold their side of the contract, He was not obligated to uphold his. Whenever Israel suffered a major tragedy (the Babylonian exile, the destruction of the Temple, etc.), it was interpreted theologically as a sign that the Israelites had done something terribly wrong. The Old Testament is full of stories of the Israelites worshiping idols (violating the Commandments) and being punished, for example.

 

I don't see how this could be interpreted as a free unconditional gift being stolen back.

 

 

No?

 

Try to look at it from the POV of the innocent children and babies who had yet to worship any idols at all. They did not know of the concept and were killed regardless.

 

I think you need to see this to perhaps open your eyes and moral sense.

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No?

 

Try to look at it from the POV of the innocent children and babies who had yet to worship any idols at all. They did not know of the concept and were killed regardless.

They weren't given any gifts from God either, so God wasn't being an Indian giver by killing them.

 

If you want to change the subject to the morality of God killing lots of people, go ahead, but that's different from what you started this discussion with.

[lemur]

Natives had a different sense of possession and property from the Europeans they encountered, and this was bound to create conflicts. Ultimately the murder of Captain Cook by the Hawaiian natives may have arisen from such a confusion over whether handing something over to someone meant loaning or giving it, or whether something belonging to someone but temporarily abandoned was still legally the property of that person. The question is, what is the politically correct name for this cultural confusion today? First Nations-Giving?

I think it is logical that when you give someone something, they become part of your community and would have the ability to use the thing you gave to them as well. That's why I don't like giving, because I know it brings some level of social bond with it where I will be obligated to do something for that person at some point, most likely when I find what they're doing least valid.

 

The karmic theory of God's punishments cannot relieve him of guilt for the injuries inflicted, since he ultimately determined the design of the universe, and when he was deciding how to make the real world, it was not necessary that misbehavior ultimately lead to injury. Many bad things we do have no negative consequences, or much milder negative consequences than they arguably deserve, so why didn't God just make a padded universe where no one can ever be bruised, but just perhaps mildly rebuked for doing the wrong thing? If you've ever seen children turning themselves inside out with wretching after chemotherapy in a hospital, you might wonder whether the karmic punishments for sin are not a tad over the top.

I think the answer to this lies in the perfect symmetries/balances of nature. If God had created life without death or goodness without the possibility of evil, it would have created imbalance and violated conservation laws, which seem to be universally pertinent. Karma doesn't result in punishment in the sense of a concerted response to an abstract judgement. Karma just means, imo, that actions people commit are also actions that they will be on the receiving end of. E.g. when you're a kid you behave badly toward your parents and when you're a parent, your kids behave badly toward you. Parenthood isn't God willfully punishing you for being an obnoxious kid. It just so happens that the cyclical patterns of behavioral-learning put you in the position of experiencing something quite similar to what your parents did when they were in your situation. For people who never have kids, I'm sure there are psychological mechanisms that cause them to experience things that reveal to them what it was like to be on the receiving end of their past actions. I think this is just an artifact of consciousness, no?

 

The real transcendental silliness of the whole God idea emerges when he flatly says, "Thou shalt not steal." You have to wonder, does he mean that anything which the entirely arbitrary and often profoundly unjust legal systems of all the various states of the world establish as 'legal ownership and its violation' is carefully noted by God with a massive ledger in Heaven so that he can keep pace with the evolving legal codes of each nation?

I don't think there are such technicalities in sin/karma as there can be in legal code and practice. I think stealing refers to an inherent sense of ownership people have regarding things that can be taken from them.

 

If for example some jurisdiction's legal system were suddenly to permit a defense of necessity where it had not done so before, so that destroying private property by breaking into an abandoned cabin to save yourself from dying from exposure was no longer defined as a criminal act, does God then have to erase that type of 'stealing' of property from his roster of punishable sins and revise it, depending on the decisions of the earthly legal commission or the changing rulings of the local supreme court?

I use karma to answer complex questions like these without having to analyze too much just by putting the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. I.e. you would later go to your cabin and find that someone had broken in and you would find a note explaining that the person was dying of exposure and they were sorry for using your firewood, etc. If you didn't leave a note, you wouldn't find a note. I.e. whatever you choose to do to someone else, that exact thing will happen to you and you will experience the exact effects of your actions for better and/or worse.

 

Does he have to let out of Hell everyone he imprisoned there earlier for committing that type of stealing which is now no longer defined as such? What about people from less modern legal jurisdictions which don't yet recognize the defense of necessity? Does God still feel obligated to keep their souls burning in Hades because the laws are slow to change in their home jurisdiction?

If God went by secular or religious judgments, Jesus would be in hell for blasphemy. Personally I think it's misleading to think of hell as a place you get sent or not with generalized punishment for all sins (fire). I think the karmic model works better, OR you can just look at hell as the suffering that follows from sin generally. Such as when Moses killed the Egyptian in the book of Exodus, it caused him some social conflict and defamation (which is why I think he arrived at the revelation to have a commandment not to kill).

 

 

[Ringer]

 

Because you do not understand my thinking.

 

I do not denigrate Indians.

 

It happens that all my in laws are FBI in Canada.

 

My use of the term Indian giver is used to shame white men, not Indians.

 

It opens a door for these and I thank you for the opportunity for me to educate and show who should be called white man giver.

 

http://uaddit.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=1152

 

http://www.modernher...on.com/261.html

 

Why don't you just say thief? I don't think pointing to a race has anything to do with your argument, unless you just want to try to get a rise.

 

You might have noted, in our zeal for political correctness, that we are taking the word Niger out of books that were written by people like, Marc Twain and changing the message that he wanted to give the white world.

 

When did Mark Twain write geography books? So what do we call the country of Niger now? I highly doubt taking out the work nigger, although I do think it's stupid, will change the meaning of a book.

 

 

Your analogy take the usual Christian position that Eden was our fall whereas I take the Hebrew and Jewish position that Eden was not our fall but our elevation. God confirms this view with his ---they have become as Gods, knowing good and evil.

 

How can becoming as Gods and learning a hugely valuable lesson be evil?

 

In theology it was not that we learned that was evil, it was that we gave into temptation and disobeyed god that was wrong. That is why the banishment from Eden is believed to be our fall, not because we simply knew good from evil.

 

As to your lab analogy, it is good except it is not quite accurate.

 

You show a situation where there is no antidote whereas the Bible says that there was an antidote in the tree of live but that God restricted it as part of his sissy fit.

 

 

 

That is like you as the scientist in the lab booting the people out and just not giving them the antidote that is in your pocket.

 

A huge difference. They then are not just dying. You are murdering them by omission.

 

Further, WTF is God doing leaving such a destructive tree in there right beside his new young proto people and making sure the tempter is there to insyre that they eat?

 

Is God that insane?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

Your analogy is simply wrong. If they had not eaten from the tree they would not have died or known sadness. So it would be a scientists giving someone the secret of immortality and putting vial of something that would allow you to die in a room. They get tricked into drinking the vial and the scientist told them they had their chance and not giving them immortality again.

 

Temptation is a large part of most theologies, just a religion thing.

[Greatest I am]

They weren't given any gifts from God either, so God wasn't being an Indian giver by killing them.

 

If you want to change the subject to the morality of God killing lots of people, go ahead, but that's different from what you started this discussion with.

 

 

Read again for the first time.

 

“God himself in scriptures seems to do this regularly as he kills those he supposedly loves and takes away the free will gift he supposedly gave them. Their free will was obviously to live.”

 

If this is not an issue of the morality of God killing people then what is the thread about?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Why don't you just say thief? I don't think pointing to a race has anything to do with your argument, unless you just want to try to get a rise.

 

Of course I want to get a rise from people. Do you think I am here to just fill in time?

 

 

If you do not like the words I use then start your own OP.

 

When did Mark Twain write geography books? So what do we call the country of Niger now? I highly doubt taking out the work nigger, although I do think it's stupid, will change the meaning of a book.

 

Then you know little of words and how they impact thinking.

 

In theology it was not that we learned that was evil, it was that we gave into temptation and disobeyed god that was wrong.

 

Any that follow stupid command is stupid and will remain so.

 

Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to deny their children valuable information and basically try to keep them as bright as cows? Only your God.

 

If A & E were to be autonomous agents and not slaves to God, how could they know they were autonomous without ever doing something they were ordered not to do?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyLZyBjyvY

 

 

 

That is why the banishment from Eden is believed to be our fall, not because we simply knew good from evil.

 

Yes. Believed by the foolish who cannot think for themselves and would rather think that man was meant to live without the moral sense that comes from knowing good and evil.

 

 

Your analogy is simply wrong. If they had not eaten from the tree they would not have died or known sadness.

 

And conversely thanks to duality, they could not know joy either.

 

Is that how you would like man to be?

 

So it would be a scientists giving someone the secret of immortality and putting vial of something that would allow you to die in a room. They get tricked into drinking the vial and the scientist told them they had their chance and not giving them immortality again.

 

Temptation is a large part of most theologies, just a religion thing.

 

 

If God did not want A & E to eat of the tree, why put Satan/talking snake there to tempt them?

 

Would you leave your children in a room with a loaded gun with someone there to urge them to play with it?

Remember that your all knowing God would have known they would eat under those conditions.

He could have changed the conditions if he did not want that outcome.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Read again for the first time.

 

"God himself in scriptures seems to do this regularly as he kills those he supposedly loves and takes away the free will gift he supposedly gave them. Their free will was obviously to live."

 

If this is not an issue of the morality of God killing people then what is the thread about?

And my point is that it was never a "gift." The Bible certainly never makes that claim, as far as I'm aware.

[Ringer]

If God did not want A & E to eat of the tree, why put Satan/talking snake there to tempt them?

 

Would you leave your children in a room with a loaded gun with someone there to urge them to play with it?

Remember that your all knowing God would have known they would eat under those conditions.

He could have changed the conditions if he did not want that outcome.

 

Regards

DL

 

First it is not necessarily Satan as the serpent. It is just an assumption made by most people. Old ideologies believed that Adam and Eve could communicate with the animals within the garden. The serpent would them be able to talk to them without intervention of a spiritual body. A side note, the serpent had legs at the time so wouldn't have been a snake in it's purest form. It wasn't until the temptation that it was cursed to 'walk on its belly'. So the serpent species was cursed alongside the humans in it's disobedience towards god.

 

Second any form of an omnipotent/powerful being is going to be filled with contradictions, so asking why is pretty useless. Why would a god make an angel who is bound to rebel. It's just part of the theology.

[JohnB]

Yes. And Canada, Australia, the Spanish etc.

 

It is the white man that deserves the name.

 

Before you go any further in what I consider to be clearly racist remarks, I suggest you look into history a bit more. There were a people here in Australia before the Aboriginals, maybe you should find out what happened to them before continuing to denigrate any particular subset of humanity.

[Greatest I am]

And my point is that it was never a "gift." The Bible certainly never makes that claim, as far as I'm aware.

 

 

Were we not given dominion here?

The Eden myth says yes.

Does dominion not mean do your thing freely?.

 

Then again, God gave Satan this world as well but since he is coming around as often as God, I think we can ignore him.

 

Regards

DL

 

First it is not necessarily Satan as the serpent.

Revelation hints that Satan is the old serpent and if the snake was not under Satan’s supernatural control, he was in God‘s. Animals cannot speak human.

 

I think the serpent represents society and the whole Eden myth is just an old coming of age story. To think this, people would have to discard the fantasy, miracles and magic mind set and think adult.

 

It is just an assumption made by most people.

 

As is all of scripture.

 

Old ideologies believed that Adam and Eve could communicate with the animals within the garden.

 

Thus was born Dr Dolittle.

 

The serpent would them be able to talk to them without intervention of a spiritual body. A side note, the serpent had legs at the time so wouldn't have been a snake in it's purest form.

 

Then God should not have called it a serpent. Hybrid would have been a better name.

 

 

It wasn't until the temptation that it was cursed to 'walk on its belly'.

 

True. But it was unjustly punish for nothing. It did not lie but God did a lie of omission by not giving A & E all the facts in terms of the consequences of eating of the tree. Their eyes being open came from the snake when it should have come from God.

 

So the serpent species was cursed alongside the humans in it's disobedience towards god.

 

 

Yes. Going completely against scripture.

 

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Second any form of an omnipotent/powerful being is going to be filled with contradictions, so asking why is pretty useless.

 

How can you know this?

Can you fathom the unfathomable and know it’s mysterious ways?

 

Why would a god make an angel who is bound to rebel. It's just part of the theology.

 

Logic says he would not unless he wanted a rebellious angel around to tempt his proto humans.

 

He then proceeded to reward Satan by giving him the world that he later tries to tempt Jesus with.

 

A strange theology.

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Were we not given dominion here?

The Eden myth says yes.

Does dominion not mean do your thing freely?.

Nope. You'll notice that God put a condition on their residence in Eden -- not eating the apple from the tree -- and when they broke the rules, they were booted out. They did not have free reign. Similarly, God's covenant with Abraham has several conditions, and in Leviticus and Deuteronomy God lays out the rules the Israelites must follow. When they break the rules, they pay.

 

Then again, God gave Satan this world as well but since he is coming around as often as God, I think we can ignore him.

I think you'll find that this conception of Satan is a modern invention rather than a Biblical one.