That should be “sons of God”

One of these days I’ll start using preview.

Example of tortured logic

Now, this was the first hit on my search using the keywords: “the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men”

I don’t know what the credentials of this author are, but he obviously as devoted much research to this subject, hypothesizing who the “sons of men” were.

Well, it would be pretty clear who the sons of god were if he had read his 1 Enoch Chapter 6, that they were angels.

Now I grant you that if you gather up all the materials on this matter that you can find, you will probably not see my theory (regarding the Greek Mythology roots of the bible) in any of them. I didn’t when I looked, and frankly that astounded me.

I don’t subscribe that you need to have many people on your side to be right in an argument. If you notice, in our debate here, that I’m not calling forth anyone’s opinion but my own.

Well, I’m sure that we have a different idea of what logic is, and from my background, I’m not all unfamiliar with the “logic” of faith. I have read much of it, and still do on a daily basis. It is very very tortured.

As far as the battle of your tautology and my tautology the way you presented Christian tautology is not correct. Yes, faith is part of Christianity and their have been volumes of logical work explaining the basis of that faith that is far more sophisticated the your version of “I can’t explain why.” A human admitting that he is not the equal of God and can’t understand God’s glory completely is a sign of wisdom amd humility, but it does not limit his explanation of his faith to “i dunno.” You may not agree, but Christian Scholars have explained “Why I believe, Why I have faith” for centuries so your dumbed down version of faith is more your take on it, which is your right to have, and not theirs.

regarding:

4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Achilles would be the Greek’s mighty men of old. He was the son of the sea goddess Thetis and the mortal man Peleus. Achilles was the prototype of the might men of renown.

Genesis Chapter 6:
1 And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. The stories in the Illiad of gods and goddesses mating with humans are too numerous. I’m assuming you realize this. This passage is a modification, where only gods get to have sex with mortals, but goddesses do not (in fact there are no goddesses). 3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.Ditto the previous comment

From the Psuedepigrapha. 1 Enoch, Chapter 6:

In those days, when the children of man multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daugters of man and beget us children.” And Semyaz, being their leader, said unto them, “I fear that perhaps you will not consent that this deed should be done, and I alone will become responsible for this great sin. But they responded to him. “Let us swear an oath and bind everyone…..

It goes on but I’m tired of typing. I’m sure you can see the simiarity to the greek cosmology of gods and mortals mating. The Enoch here is the great grandfather of Noah.

The Old Testament was written long before the Greeks were an influence.

In fact, I’m so mad, I wrote about it on my blog.

First off, before we can get on to Christians or Muslims, you would first have to convince me how it was right to amend God’s law, as told to Moses.

You just can’t amend God’s law. That is just so rediculous.

Now, I can think from within Christianity. I am a Roman Catholic, went to an elementary Catholic school, have all my sacraments.

In fact, I could argue that every living Christian who is not a Catholic is a descendant of heritics.

That would be a purely abstract argument, and I would make it by going back to the Law of Moses. Yes, I’m glad the law was amended, but if you are going to believe in its validity, then it should not have been amended. To disregard the law while professing belief in its originator is simply illogical.

As far as our nature goes, I do believe that nature did us no favors in ginning up two genders.

Also, at a root level, it is nearly impossible to get away from tautological beliefs.

Faith is tautological. A person believes because he has faith, and he has faith so he believes. It’s sort of like “I believe but can’t explain why, and if you don’t understand I can’t explain”

This sort of foundation is wholly unsatisfactory.

I have a tautological belief also. I mentioned it one of the other comments, and it involves Plato’s views on virtue: a thing is virtuous when it functions in accordance with its form (in accordance with what it is).

The tautology is: virtue is that by which a thing is virtuous, and the virtuous are those things that possess virtue.

So, from that viewpoint, a person’s purpose should be to discover what it is best at, or its potential, so to speak, that gives pleasure, and then to do that.

I am my own living experiment, testing out that hypothesis, and the beautiful aspect of this tautology is that a person becomes his own agent of function, because nowhere in this tautology is that demanded an allegiane to an external influence.