Tree of Knowledge = "Knowing Stuff is Bad." Do Xtians realize this?

[EGarrett]

Has it been pointed out to Christians yet that their religion blatantly tells them that knowledge is evil?

Between that concept and the idea that believing stuff without investigating it (faith) is a virtue...isn't that really, really strong evidence that Christianity is a thought virus? It seems obvious enough that even a Christian might have to consider it.

[CurtC]

To be fair, the tree was knowledge of good and evil, which in my armchair theology saddled humanity with knowing the difference and therefore being responsible for their own actions.

[Mark Felt]

Hang on a minute, if they weren't responsible for their own actions prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, why was it bad of them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since they weren't in control of their actions?

[Minarvia]

I guess because "the woman" had free will. After all, she chose to eat of the tree despite god's warning.
I....guess. The bible makes no sense to me anyway.

[drkitten]

Hang on a minute, if they weren't responsible for their own actions prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, why was it bad of them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since they weren't in control of their actions?

Just because you're not responsible for your actions doesn't make them not have consequences. And just because you don't understand the consequences of your actions doesn't make you not responsible for them.

Ask any parent. You have to teach your children not to do a lot of stuff, without necessarily explaining why. "No, you can't have a peanut butter cookie (because you're allergic to peanuts). No, I'm not going to explain histamine reactions to you. Shut up and have a banana instead." But it's still bad for my peanut-allergic niece to eat the wrong cookie.

[Beerina]

Hang on a minute, if they weren't responsible for their own actions prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, why was it bad of them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since they weren't in control of their actions?

It is a wonderful and beautiful allegory of the change of humanity from animal to something more, with the new ability to realize the consequences of their own actions, and not perform them in order to accomplish some more abstract goal.

The problem is when Bible literalism takes a (poop) all over it, completely missing it's real purpose*.

In other words, treated as such, it's fine. When you start to ask questions as to why God would do such a thing, knowing they would fail and be punished, and could hardly be held responsible for their actions, much less so severely, you run into problems.






* As an allegory of human development, not as a false parasetic meme by which some lazy people gain a living specializing in pretending to place a supervillain hero.

[Mark Felt]

Just because you're not responsible for your actions doesn't make them not have consequences. And just because you don't understand the consequences of your actions doesn't make you not responsible for them.

Ask any parent. You have to teach your children not to do a lot of stuff, without necessarily explaining why. "No, you can't have a peanut butter cookie (because you're allergic to peanuts). No, I'm not going to explain histamine reactions to you. Shut up and have a banana instead." But it's still bad for my peanut-allergic niece to eat the wrong cookie.

Right... except that A&E were being punished for their actions, which they weren't responsible for. You don't punish your niece for eating peanuts, you get her to a doctor.

[Mark Felt]

It is a wonderful and beautiful allegory of the change of humanity from animal to something more, with the new ability to realize the consequences of their own actions, and not perform them in order to accomplish some more abstract goal.

The problem is when Bible literalism takes a (poop) all over it, completely missing it's real purpose*.

In other words, treated as such, it's fine. When you start to ask questions as to why God would do such a thing, knowing they would fail and be punished, and could hardly be held responsible for their actions, much less so severely, you run into problems.






* As an allegory of human development, not as a false parasetic meme by which some lazy people gain a living specializing in pretending to place a supervillain hero.

If God didn't want me wondering what the hell was going on with the bible, he should have dictated it in a clearer manner or made me less inquisitive.

[drkitten]

Right... except that A&E were being punished for their actions, which they weren't responsible for.

Er, wrong. The Fall was not a punishment, merely a consequence.

Even if my niece feels she's being punished (because she now has to get histamine shots, which she hates).

[Mr Clingford]

If God didn't want me wondering what the hell was going on with the bible, he should have dictated it in a clearer manner or made me less inquisitive.
Conclusion: He wants you to wonder what the hell is going on!

[Ethnikos]

What is this tree in the midst of the Garden that God warned Adam against eating? Could Eden have been a special annex of Heaven, for the growing of fruit trees? Why would God plant such a thing, a tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Apparently it was not for the use of man. That leaves the angels but why would angels need to know about good and evil? Angels are the servants of God and know nothing except obedience. Man was created with free will and that left open the possibility of sin entering the world. If sin took hold on man, how would the angels deal with it, having no concept of evil? Conveniently, there is a tree of that knowledge, right in the middle of the garden where man lived. Lucifer could have been looking for something to give him the edge in his popularity competition with the Son of God. He may have allowed this word "Knowledge" to run in his mind until he finally gave that thought enough power to finally cause him to act on it.This knowledge is something better left alone, if possible. The knowledge in itself is not necessarily destructive to the recipient but if the purpose for obtaining that knowledge is different from its intended use, it easily could be destructive. Angels are not made like man and it would have taken a very long time to get to a really bad condition because it would have had to fight against a hard-wired mind dedicated to serving God. That same knowledge, only intended for angels dedicated to fighting evil, to the Human mind was devastating and immediately turned them to evil behavior. Only in man can evil have its full potential realized. Satan looks on in wonder at the depths of depravity that man is capable of and can only wish that he could be so evil. Satan was able to survive his dose of knowledge and does not die of natural causes, so he has had a lot of time to hone his skills in manipulating men to works of evil and time to hate men, more and more.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Er, wrong. The Fall was not a punishment, merely a consequence.

Even if my niece feels she's being punished (because she now has to get histamine shots, which she hates).

Sure, sure. The Creator of the Universe and Knower of Everything up against two innocents who do not even know the difference between Good and Evil. They were mislead by a talking snake and humanity was "consequently" punished for ever. At least the All Powerful One could have given them a hint, like, "Don't believe the snake".

How can anyone believe this crap? That's a rhetorical question; not a slam at any individual. :D

[CurtC]

It's like Chief Wiggum on The Simpsons: "You know you're not supposed to go in there. What is your fascination with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery? "

[shadron]

Christians (and other superstitions) have long believed that there is good and evil knowledge, the archetype being the Tree of Good and Evil. Science opposes that view and has been castigated for ages in it's pursuit of those things "man was never meant to know". You even see it in the latter day in non-religious contexts; see the thread here named "When Machines Rule" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118895)in which it is implied that we shouldn't press AI too far because it will lead to our species' demise.

A good question for the forum (related to the OP, of course) is whether there really is any category of knowledge (religious or otherwise) that man should not pursue, and why?

[roger]

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you." 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."



is not a punishment? Really?

[Tumblehome]

It's like Chief Wiggum on The Simpsons: "You know you're not supposed to go in there. What is your fascination with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery? "

:D

God should have given his tree a better name. There was a play put on here a few years ago about that. Adam and Eve, as two happy children, are playing innocently around the Tree of Knowledge. God's voice comes from offstage:

God: Hello, Adam and Eve. This is God speaking.

A&E: Oh, hi God.

God: I created you and everything here for your benefit and enjoyment. You can do whatever you want, anything your hearts desire--except eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

A&E: Oh, okay. (They go back to playing.)

God: (clears throat) Um, just a reminder--you can do anything you want--except eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

A&E: Sure, whatever you say. (They go back to playing again)

God: Okay, just so we're clear on this. See that tree? Yeah, the one with the fruit hanging from it. I specifically forbid you to eat from that tree!

[Mikeeeean]

"Just because you're not responsible for your actions doesn't make them not have consequences. And just because you don't understand the consequences of your actions doesn't make you not responsible for them.

Ask any parent. You have to teach your children not to do a lot of stuff, without necessarily explaining why. "No, you can't have a peanut butter cookie (because you're allergic to peanuts). No, I'm not going to explain histamine reactions to you. Shut up and have a banana instead." But it's still bad for my peanut-allergic niece to eat the wrong cookie."drkitten

Sure the consequences may still be the child's, but what kind of parent would you be if you put a peanut butter cookie in the playpen of your peanut allergic toddler. warning or no warning I think you as a parent would bear the resposibility.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you." 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."



is not a punishment? Really?

No. If you are an apologist, it is a consequence.

''A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'' Bill S.

[Steelmage]

I guess because "the woman" had free will. After all, she chose to eat of the tree despite god's warning.
I....guess. The bible makes no sense to me anyway.

While some people will say that this is a way of blaming women for all our troubles in the world. It could also show that women were smart enough to know not to listen to an imaginary character about what fruits not to eat.

[bokonon]

Ignorance is blessed.

[bokonon]

Er, wrong. The Fall was not a punishment, merely a consequence.

Even if my niece feels she's being punished (because she now has to get histamine shots, which she hates).
I don't think so. The "consequence" in your example is a direct result of the child's immune system and the proteins present in the peanut butter sandwich.

In the Adam & Eve story, the only direct consequence of eating the fruit is realizing they're naked, and deciding that's bad. Being evicted and sentenced to forced labor of one kind or another is not a direct consequence of acquiring knowledge, it's a punishment for disobedience. It's as though you, discovering that the peanut butter sandwich you'd planted in the playpen had been eaten with no ill effects (because your niece had outgrown her allergy) decided to administer histamine shots anyway.

[gumboot]

Just to nitpick... Adam and Eve were not banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They were banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent them eating from the Tree of Life.

If your kid wanders into the laundry and eats some soap you don't lock them out of the laundry as punishment, you do it to prevent them eating the ammonia that's also in there.

Of course this metaphor has a comeback... you shouldn't be leaving Trees of Life and Knowledge lying around for your children to eat. That's just bad God-ing.

[gumboot]

This sums it up nicely...

ETA... Some naughty words!

foPL1arjriA

"Look Eve, I'm God, I wouldn't lie to you, right. You will die if you eat from the tree. If a snake comes along, he's a lying little ****"

[Steelmage]

Angels are the servants of God and know nothing except obedience.
This right here, shows that there would be no way of Lucifier rebelling against God or be disobedient to God. So it shows the falsehood of fallen Angels.

[bokonon]

Just to nitpick... Adam and Eve were not banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They were banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent them eating from the Tree of Life.
One can accomplish the same thing by banishing the Tree of Life from the garden.

[Olowkow]

This sums it up nicely...

ETA... Some naughty words!

"Look Eve, I'm God, I wouldn't lie to you, right. You will die if you eat from the tree. If a snake comes along, he's a lying little ****"

Thanks. That Gervais video was really funny. I like his one on "gay animals" too.

By the way, to whom did god say "Let there be light"?

[drkitten]

I don't think so.

And, um, since when are you qualified to hold an opinion? You think A&E are being punished -- my niece thinks she's being punished. Neither of you are necessarily in possession of all the facts.

Dig deeper. In this case, there are something like 2000 years of theological writings on this particular subject.


In the Adam & Eve story, the only direct consequence of eating the fruit is realizing they're naked, and deciding that's bad. Being evicted and sentenced to forced labor of one kind or another is not a direct consequence of acquiring knowledge, it's a punishment for disobedience.

Since when are indirect consequences not consequences? By discovering the concept of bad stuff, unhappiness has entered the Garden of Eden, basically wrecking it. More importantly, disobedience has entered the garden of Eden, making it no longer safe for A&E to be there.

You don't have to accept the traditional narrative, but for Pete's sake at least learn the real version of it. There is a strong tendency on this forum for people to post the most ridiculously straw-man versions of quite sophisticated theological arguments and then laugh at them. If I were to post something about "if monkeys turned into people, why are there monkeys left," I'd rightly be ridiculed for my ignorance. People would tell me, correctly, that I don't know enough about the theory of evolution even to frame a legitimate question.

But this forum has a tendency to do exactly the same in the opposite direction. Gumboot has it at least partly right -- banishment from the Garden was not punitive, but preventative (it even says so in the Book). But it's hardly an original discovery on his part, precisely because it's been known to every sophisticated theologian since well before the birth of Christ.

[drkitten]

One can accomplish the same thing by banishing the Tree of Life from the garden.

Where do you put it, then?

Given that unhappiness had (demonstrably) already entered the Garden when A&E were banished, it would no longer have been "Edenic" even if they were permitted to stay.

[gumboot]

Thanks. That Gervais video was really funny. I like his one on "gay animals" too.

It's worth watching his entire Animals show. Heck, watch Politics and Fame while you're at it. They're all hysterical.


By the way, to whom did god say "Let there be light"?

You never talk to your self? ;)

[gumboot]

But it's hardly an original discovery on his part, precisely because it's been known to every sophisticated theologian since well before the birth of Christ.


Obviously it's not an original discovery... how on earth would I know it if it was? I detest the Christian faith, but that doesn't mean I need to make stuff up about it.

I tend to agree that people who are critical of the Bible can often misrepresent it for their agenda - for example the whole "two conflicting version of creation" thing. I've had to "defend the bible" numerous times on that point.

Taking a literal interpretation of the story (Beerina is quite right, it's an allegory, but many modern Christians don't understand that) it implies to me some nastier motives behind God's creation of man. Almost like a science experiment. Consider.

*He creates animals and plants, without souls, so no affinity to God
*He creates man with a soul, but gives man free will and no concept of right or wrong

Now, let's look at motive. Why? Why would God do this? Consider, without knowing right or wrong man cannot know if any of his actions are right or wrong - including doing what God says.

He has essentially created a perfect model of anarchy.

What possible reason could God have for creating an anarchy model?

[drkitten]

Obviously it's not an original discovery... how on earth would I know it if it was? I detest the Christian faith, but that doesn't mean I need to make stuff up about it.

A surprising number of people on this board seem to have that need, though. They often seem not even to be aware of it.

Taking a literal interpretation of the story (Beerina is quite right, it's an allegory, but many modern Christians don't understand that) it implies to me some nastier motives behind God's creation of man. Almost like a science experiment. Consider.

*He creates animals and plants, without souls, so no affinity to God
*He creates man with a soul, but gives man free will and no concept of right or wrong

Now, let's look at motive. Why? Why would God do this? Consider, without knowing right or wrong man cannot know if any of his actions are right or wrong - including doing what God says.

He has essentially created a perfect model of anarchy.

What possible reason could God have for creating an anarchy model?

The usual answer for this is that God (for whatever inscrutable reason He has) wants our "love," which can only be given freely. True love cannot be forced.

I don't think that knowledge of right and wrong is necessary in order to feel love, and I am quite sure that love will often trump knowledge of right/wrong (I've seen too many fools do the wrong damnfool thing in in the name of "love").

But the ultimate answer to your question, from the Christian tradition, is "what makes you think you understand God's motives"? Remember, my niece doesn't understand why she has to go to the doctor, and probably feels I'm being unfair and unjust....

[articulett]

Just to nitpick... Adam and Eve were not banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They were banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent them eating from the Tree of Life.

If your kid wanders into the laundry and eats some soap you don't lock them out of the laundry as punishment, you do it to prevent them eating the ammonia that's also in there.

Of course this metaphor has a comeback... you shouldn't be leaving Trees of Life and Knowledge lying around for your children to eat. That's just bad God-ing.

If I leave food out, and my dog gives into temptation and eats it-- I blame myself, not the dog.

Bad god-ing, indeed.

Who knows who wrote the original story or when or why-- but it's a lame story with a lame lesson about a lame god. In legal terms God would be liable for leaving around an "attractive nuisance". Thankfully, humans have evolved morality beyond the gods they created and the primitive allegories of yesteryear. Some of us have, anyhow.

I feel sorry for those who believe there is deep meaning or wisdom in the Genesis story, and I'm glad not to have to pretend it makes sense or is deep or meaningful. It gets even more twisted when this is supposed to be the reason god kills his kid (who is him)-- to atone for "original sin", right? So, did he kill Jesus for a "parable"--or is Jesus a parable too? A lot of wonton cruelty had been done unto others on the basis of that "allegory" it seems to me.

[gumboot]

The usual answer for this is that God (for whatever inscrutable reason He has) wants our "love," which can only be given freely. True love cannot be forced.

And yet he repeatedly does just that - look at the sacrifice of Isaac.



But the ultimate answer to your question, from the Christian tradition, is "what makes you think you understand God's motives"?


Well the obvious answer to that is "Because I've eaten from the Tree of Knowledge".

[SezMe]

What is this tree in the midst of ...<snip>
Welcome to the fora, Ethnikos. Can I introduce you to the concept of a paragraph?

[SezMe]

"Just because you're not ... <snip>
Welcome to the fora Mikeeeean. Can I introduce you to the Quote button?

[SezMe]

And, um, since when are you qualified to hold an opinion?
Welcome to the fora, drkitten. Can I introduce you to the concept of an utterly inane question?

[gumboot]

Who knows who wrote the original story or when or why-- but it's a lame story with a lame lesson about a lame god.


I suspect the original story was intended for a different reason that didn't mesh well with the new Christian faith regarding God. The Christian God is actually pretty abnormal for being of the "Loving" kind. Most Gods aren't - in fact historically talking most Gods were a menace to mankind - a horrific angry force that you had to placate.

I think originally the Tree of Knowledge was about answering the question "Why are we not like animals?" It would have been clear enough that there were both strong similarities between man and animal, and also strong differences. The solution was the Tree of Knowledge. And funnily enough in a very primitive way it's right.

The talking snake, the wrathful God, stealing a powerful benefit from the Gods and getting punished for it (Prometheus, anyone?) they're perfectly in keeping with early non-Christian beliefs.

[dann]

You have to teach your children not to do a lot of stuff, without necessarily explaining why. "No, you can't have a peanut butter cookie (because you're allergic to peanuts). No, I'm not going to explain histamine reactions to you. Shut up and have a banana instead."

You should never tell your children "not to do a lot of stuff, without necessarily explaining why", except in an emergency where you just don't have the time. And in this case you actually do explain: "you're allergic to peanuts".
Most grownups who are allergic to peanuts (and I'm one of them) don't understand histamine reactions and they don't have to.
And Adam and Eve were punished. The conseqence of eating the apple was the opening up of their eyes and the subsequent (but not very logical!) shame of being naked. What followed when their heavenly father noticed this was punishment. They were not only sinners, this was the original sin passed on to all of their descendants.

This is how the story goes:

God not only does not explain the consequences, he actually lies:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." 18”

The snake, however, tells them the truth about the consequences (but not about the consequences of the consequences: shame and punishment):

“But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. 8 ”

So death is not a consequence, it's a death sentence, part and parcel of God’s punishment:

”To the woman he said, "I (!!!) will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." 17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed (!!!) is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." 20“

- - - - - -

I can really empathize with these guys, the children of a psychopathic parent. When I was a child my mother taught me about traffic by telling me that if I was ever involved in an accident she would beat me up and send me to a children's home. So when I was hit by a car at the age of six, I did the only logical thing to do in a situation like that: Like Adam and Eve I fled the scene of the 'crime' and went into hiding.

Don't try to make sense of God. I hate that evil bastard.

[dann]

(With this kind of parent isn't it somehow logical that the one who reveals the truth to the children is described as evil and punished too?)

[osmosis]

And, um, since when are you qualified to hold an opinion?

Wow, that's the rudest thing I've seen in at least a week. In fact, I keep looking for the irony because it's hard to believe anyone would say such a thing in all seriousness.

Neither of you are necessarily in possession of all the facts.

Nor are you!

If I were to post something about "if monkeys turned into people, why are there monkeys left," I'd rightly be ridiculed for my ignorance. People would tell me, correctly, that I don't know enough about the theory of evolution even to frame a legitimate question.

Yes, but I doubt anyone would have the gall to imply that you had no right to hold an opinion.

[arthwollipot]

Now now, let's all take a step back, shall we? It's an interesting topic, and doesn't need to be derailed into personal attacks.

I think drkitten was trying to say that people who have no background or history in theology aren't qualified (note - not "have no right") to hold an informed opinion about theological subjects. And that is a true statement. It might possibly have been phrased a little better, but anyway.

We see the same thing whenever DOC tries to opine about abiogenesis, or when Jerome tries to critique the big bang theory. No-one is saying that they have no right to hold an opinion about the subject at hand, but they are correctly pointing out that an opinion formed without knowledge is invalid. I think drkitten was trying to say the same thing.

So let's just calm down, shall we, and get on with the subject.

[SezMe]

Let's see how drkitten feels about being lumped in with DOC and Jerome. Should be fun.

[articulett]

I find the Gervais piece much more brilliant than any sermon or apologetics.

There was an earlier thread that questioned the role of humor in breaking through the "mind lock" of religious thinking... I think people like Gervais are a powerful weapon. I could have use some Gervais humor in my youth when I was trying to make sense of the stuff people were telling me was "the truth".

[gumboot]

I find the Gervais piece much more brilliant than any sermon or apologetics.

There was an earlier thread that questioned the role of humor in breaking through the "mind lock" of religious thinking... I think people like Gervais are a powerful weapon. I could have use some Gervais humor in my youth when I was trying to make sense of the stuff people were telling me was "the truth".


He does a really good job of highlighting the absurdity of taking it literally...

Particularly with lines like "That means he made the heavens and the earth in the dark!".

And lines like "And perfect diction too, it's not a mumbling snake. And he speaks English" really bring home the fact that the Bible is just words written by men, regardless of what originally inspired or directed it.

[arthwollipot]

Let's see how drkitten feels about being lumped in with DOC and Jerome. Should be fun.I think you may have misunderstood. Drkitten is not doing the same thing that DOC and Jerome do - drkitten is doing the same thing we do when we confront DOC and Jerome.

[joobz]

You don't have to accept the traditional narrative, but for Pete's sake at least learn the real version of it. There is a strong tendency on this forum for people to post the most ridiculously straw-man versions of quite sophisticated theological arguments and then laugh at them. If I were to post something about "if monkeys turned into people, why are there monkeys left," I'd rightly be ridiculed for my ignorance. People would tell me, correctly, that I don't know enough about the theory of evolution even to frame a legitimate question.

But this forum has a tendency to do exactly the same in the opposite direction. Gumboot has it at least partly right -- banishment from the Garden was not punitive, but preventative (it even says so in the Book). But it's hardly an original discovery on his part, precisely because it's been known to every sophisticated theologian since well before the birth of Christ.
The shame isn't in asking a question which is naive. The shame comes in when one ignores well reasoned explanations as to why that question is naive.

But simply because there are old arguments explaining why the A&E story makes sense, doesn't mean those arguments are valid. People have used the bible to justify slavery for at least a century or two. Does that mean those arguments are valid? Or, as an alternate example, your "Why are there still monkeys" anti-evolution counter argument has been around for at least 100+ years. The fact that people still use it doesn't improve it's validity.

[Ethnikos]

This right here, shows that there would be no way of Lucifier rebelling against God or be disobedient to God. So it shows the falsehood of fallen Angels.

I was trying to put the tree of knowledge story in the most literal terms possible.
There are other ways to look at it.
If you want to see it in a metaphorical light, you can.
The fallen angels can represent the affects of sin reaching into all aspects of creation, even to the point of bringing down the most powerful beings in it.
When they are cast out of heaven, that could represent earth and heaven being restored to the condition that it enjoyed, before the entrance of evil.

[Ethnikos]

Welcome to the fora, Ethnikos. Can I introduce you to the concept of a paragraph?

I realize my post looks hard to read.
That was part of a longer post I wrote, a couple of days ago, for my blog.
I copied the part that seemed applicable to this topic.
It came out like that when I pasted it in here.
I decided to leave it because I did not want to hog up a bunch of space with something I doubted anyone would want to read anyway.
It comes out looking like I am making some sort of pronouncement from on high.
It was part of an answer to someone asking if Satan created evil.
How did Lucifer become evil if God created a perfect universe.
I was trying to say that a hypothetical knowledge of evil existed before Lucifer turned all the way to evil.
The serpent in the Garden was eating the forbidden fruit and telling Eve, "I am eating this fruit and I did not die. In fact, it has given me this ability to talk. If you eat it, you will become a god."
So, from this story, you have to conclude that Lucifer had consumed of this fruit before Man did.
So, he did not create evil, exactly, but appropriated it for his own uses.

[the PC apeman]

Welcome to the fora, Ethnikos. Can I introduce you to the concept of a paragraph?I realize my post looks hard to read.
That was part of a longer post I wrote, a couple of days ago, for my blog.
I copied the part that seemed applicable to this topic.
It came out like that when I pasted it in here.
I decided to leave it because I did not want to hog up a bunch of space with something I doubted anyone would want to read anyway.
It comes out looking like I am making some sort of pronouncement from on high.
It was part of an answer to someone asking if Satan created evil.
How did Lucifer become evil if God created a perfect universe.
I was trying to say that a hypothetical knowledge of evil existed before Lucifer turned all the way to evil.
The serpent in the Garden was eating the forbidden fruit and telling Eve, "I am eating this fruit and I did not die. In fact, it has given me this ability to talk. If you eat it, you will become a god."
So, from this story, you have to conclude that Lucifer had consumed of this fruit before Man did.
So, he did not create evil, exactly, but appropriated it for his own uses.A simple "no" would have been sufficient.

[Ethnikos]

I suspect the original story was intended for a different reason that didn't mesh well with the new Christian faith regarding God. The Christian God is actually pretty abnormal for being of the "Loving" kind. Most Gods aren't - in fact historically talking most Gods were a menace to mankind - a horrific angry force that you had to placate.

I think originally the Tree of Knowledge was about answering the question "Why are we not like animals?" It would have been clear enough that there were both strong similarities between man and animal, and also strong differences. The solution was the Tree of Knowledge. And funnily enough in a very primitive way it's right.

The talking snake, the wrathful God, stealing a powerful benefit from the Gods and getting punished for it (Prometheus, anyone?) they're perfectly in keeping with early non-Christian beliefs.
I tend to think this story was written in opposition to the Sumerian genesis story, where the roles are reversed and the serpent is the Creator.
The Hebrew version want to represent a creator god who is just like us and that the serpent is bad.
We were perfect before the descendants of these first humans were corrupted into fallowing the false religion that became prevalent before Abraham was instructed to leave that region and seek the advice of his ancient ancestor, the king of Salem.

[Ethnikos]

relply to PC apeman:
Alright. You are right. I suck at putting things into paragraphs. Sorry.

[drkitten]

The shame isn't in asking a question which is naive. The shame comes in when one ignores well reasoned explanations as to why that question is naive.

Which is exactly my point.


But simply because there are old arguments explaining why the A&E story makes sense, doesn't mean those arguments are valid.

Yes. And I will cheerfully accept -- in fact, I do accept -- that that I can see flaws in those arguments; that I do not find them compelling. I am usually happy to discuss those flaws, precisely because there may be subtleties of reason that I'm not seeing, subtleties that negate the percieved flaws.

However, the problems with the arguments for a sophisticated reading of Genesis doesn't render the naive arguments against Genesis any less naive or wrong.

Or, as an alternate example, your "Why are there still monkeys" anti-evolution counter argument has been around for at least 100+ years. The fact that people still use it doesn't improve it's validity.

That's a good example, actually. There are a lot of bad arguments against evolution, and they're still trotted out, as though disproving evolution will somehow magically prove creationism. And creationists are very good at seizing upon genuine disagreements between evolutionary theorists as though that somehow renders the entire theory of evolution invalid.

Unfortunately, that still won't rescue their flawed arguments.

We've seen exactly that on this thread, though.

"God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden as a punishment!"
"No, He banished them from the Garden to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life. It wasn't a punishment, it was a preventative. It says so IN THE BOOK."

No further theological argumentation about the nature of the preventative will somehow make it into a punishment, no matter how you misquote.

Similarly, Danm suggested that "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" is a lie.

Is it? Again, theologians have looked at this, and, no, it isn't. Dying is a secondary consequence of the Fall; prior to the expulsion from the Garden, Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life and were permitted it (Genesis 2 states that EVERY fruit was available except one) and as a result could live forever. Once they were expelled, they no longer had access to it, and as a result were going to die. Telling people about important long-term secondary effects is hardly lying to them.

Aha, you ask. But why did God have to expel them from the Garden in the first place? Well, it says in THE BOOK that he did so precisely to keep them from the Tree of Life. But is this necessarily a bad thing. Some theologians have speculated that this was precisely to provide them with another path to immortality and eternal bliss via living and dying; after they've brought unhappiness into this world, the only way to provide them with perfect happiness is in another one (giving them a chance to work off their sins via redemption). Allowing people to live forever in this (unhappy) world would be a cruel act indeed; instead, they are forced to move from this one to the next.

Of course, you don't have to buy that. And not all theologians do, although I find it a very pretty argument. A more central argument is simply that you're not God, and therefore are neither required nor expected to understand His motivations, any more than my niece is expected to understand histamines.

I don't ask that you believe these stories. I simply ask that you understand them. If you're trying to convert the believers, it really, really helps if you don't present them with caricatures of their own beliefs. (Yes, this is a personal issue of mine. My sister is very deeply into a lunatic Jesus cult, along with the rest of my family, and she's dragging my mother down as well. I can't tell her why her beliefs are wrong unless I actually know what her beliefs are. This should be simple common sense, but it's astonishing how common sense actually isn't.)

[drkitten]

I think you may have misunderstood. Drkitten is not doing the same thing that DOC and Jerome do - drkitten is doing the same thing we do when we confront DOC and Jerome.

Thank you.

[Civilized Worm]

Similarly, Danm suggested that "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" is a lie.

Is it? Again, theologians have looked at this, and, no, it isn't. Dying is a secondary consequence of the Fall; prior to the expulsion from the Garden, Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life and were permitted it (Genesis 2 states that EVERY fruit was available except one) and as a result could live forever. Once they were expelled, they no longer had access to it, and as a result were going to die. Telling people about important long-term secondary effects is hardly lying to them.


But Danm's quote says that they will die in the day that they ate it, which they didn't.

[drkitten]

But Danm's quote says that they will die in the day that they ate it, which they didn't.

Death is a slow process. Perfect health is just the slowest possible way of dying.

It's called a metaphor, dude. Learn it, love it, live it --- or at least accept it.

[Civilized Worm]

"You will die the day that you eat it" is a metaphor for "you will die a long time after you eat it"?

[drkitten]

"You will die the day that you eat it" is a metaphor for "you will die a long time after you eat it"?

It's a metaphor for "on the day that you eat it, you will set in motion a chain of events that will inevitably cause your death that could otherwise have been prevented."

God is a better writer than that. Hell, even I am a better writer than that. My lawyer is a better writer than that.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't ask that you believe these stories. I simply ask that you understand them. If you're trying to convert the believers, it really, really helps if you don't present them with caricatures of their own beliefs.
The only problem is that the sophisticated theological arguments very often amount to caricatures of the beliefs of many real-world in-the-pew Christians. Most Christians aren't theologians, and quite a few of them are not at all familiar with these arguments. A quick googling of the terms Adam, Eve, and punish will turn up many hits to Christian websites that seem to have no problem with the idea that what happened to Adam and Eve was punishment (and, admittedly, hits to sites which echo the theological arguments, and hits to all kinds of other things).

I agree that people should be aware of the sophisticated arguments, but it should not be forgotten that the simplistic view is so prominent because it actually is a widespread view among Christians themselves.

[dann]

Similarly, Danm suggested that "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" is a lie.

Is it? Again, theologians have looked at this, and, no, it isn't. Dying is a secondary consequence of the Fall; prior to the expulsion from the Garden, Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life and were permitted it (Genesis 2 states that EVERY fruit was available except one) and as a result could live forever. Once they were expelled, they no longer had access to it, and as a result were going to die. Telling people about important long-term secondary effects is hardly lying to them.


Come on, drkitten! Theologians are obviously full of it ...

But let's reprase it, then, to mean:
'If you eat of the tree of knowledge, you'll get much too clever for me, and I cannot have that. You have to die, so I’ll bereave you of the only means of living forever by expelling you from the garden of Eden':

“"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”
http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp, p. 3

Referring to this as “important long-term secondary effects” is more than a little euphemistic, isn’t it?

The other examples were here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3944358#post3944358

[drkitten]

The only problem is that the sophisticated theological arguments very often amount to caricatures of the beliefs of many real-world in-the-pew Christians. Most Christians aren't theologians, and quite a few of them are not at all familiar with these arguments.

But they don't need to be.

I don't need to understand quantum physics to be able to use a laser pointer (although several people have won Nobel prizes in the process of understanding and developing them). If my Aunt Margaret is happy thinking of God as a Great Beard in the Sky --- but as a result, obeys His strictures and acts according to His will, then God is happy with her and will reward her appropriately. That's the Christian story ---- but it's also the human story as well. Can you repair your own car? Can you fix your cell phone if it breaks? Do you know how chemotherapy works?
Do you need to?

The problem with the straw men that people like to erect is that they end up actually reducing the credibility of the atheist movement. Let's say that you go to Aunt Margaret and point out to her all the lame pseudocontradictions that adorn the Bible, and let's say further that she takes you seriously enough that she actually starts to think and question. Well, the first person that Aunt Margaret will be asking questions of is probably her local priest or minister, who is familiar with these arguments and has the pat answers honed by centuries of apologetics. He takes her gently by the hand into his library, shows her how these questions have all come up within the Christian tradition a long time ago, and how it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God, Christ, religion, what have you.

In other words, you've now given the priest an (ahem) "heaven-sent" opportunity to demonstrate, not only the fundamental truth of Christianity, but also to show that atheists and rationalists really don't know what they're talking about, and that rationalism is a position taken only from ignorance. Thanks a lot. It was bad enough talking to Aunt Meg before, when she actually thought that people could be smart and atheist. Now she knows -- 'cause you proved it to her -- that only idiots are atheists, and she has no reason to take further arguments from them seriously.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The problem with the straw men that people like to erect is that they end up actually reducing the credibility of the atheist movement. Let's say that you go to Aunt Margaret and point out to her all the lame pseudocontradictions that adorn the Bible, and let's say further that she takes you seriously enough that she actually starts to think and question. Well, the first person that Aunt Margaret will be asking questions of is probably her local priest or minister, who is familiar with these arguments and has the pat answers honed by centuries of apologetics. He takes her gently by the hand into his library, shows her how these questions have all come up within the Christian tradition a long time ago, and how it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God, Christ, religion, what have you.

In other words, you've now given the priest an (ahem) "heaven-sent" opportunity to demonstrate, not only the fundamental truth of Christianity, but also to show that atheists and rationalists really don't know what they're talking about, and that rationalism is a position taken only from ignorance. Thanks a lot. It was bad enough talking to Aunt Meg before, when she actually thought that people could be smart and atheist. Now she knows -- 'cause you proved it to her -- that only idiots are atheists, and she has no reason to take further arguments from them seriously.
I don't disagree, though I do think the bolded portion betrays way too much faith in the learnedness of the modern clergy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You think the Supreme Creator of the Universe could be just a little bit clearer in what he said?

I mean, after the goat herders had finished with their tales told round the camp fires at night and they had been written down to support the great lifestyles their priests ascribed to, it's taken 100s of years for the Great Theological Brains of the Apologists to figure out what he actually meant. And at that they cannot agree.

[drkitten]

I don't disagree, though I do think the bolded portion betrays way too much faith in the learnedness of the modern clergy.

Fair enough. Or too much concern for brevity, in this case. I had written a paragraph or so about "case b, where her priest doesn't know the answer, so she starts shopping around for one who does -- and he pwns you instead," but decided to omit it.

This case is marginally better in that she's likely to drift out of one of the flat-headed snake-handling biblical literalist fundamentalist nutcase churches and into something more mainstream and less dangerous, where the clergy tend to be better educated. But still better would be simply not to hand the (learned) clergy ammunition to use against you in the first place.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Fair enough. Or too much concern for brevity, in this case. I had written a paragraph or so about "case b, where her priest doesn't know the answer, so she starts shopping around for one who does -- and he pwns you instead," but decided to omit it.

This case is marginally better in that she's likely to drift out of one of the flat-headed snake-handling biblical literalist fundamentalist nutcase churches and into something more mainstream and less dangerous, where the clergy tend to be better educated. But still better would be simply not to hand the (learned) clergy ammunition to use against you in the first place.
Brevity on my part plays a role, as well. Ideally, Aunt Margaret would never have to go anywhere else for her more sophisticated arguments, for I would present them to her myself. I think a good strategy (though I don't typically run around trying to convert believers) is to attack the weaker "strawman" type positions that likely do reflect Auntie's actual beliefs to get her into a questioning frame of mind initially. Then, introduce the sophisticated rebuttals to those arguments (which is why I said earlier one should be familiar with them), and work from there.

In other words, get her to acknowledge that some of this stuff at least seems like nonsense, then show her how theologians have defended the nonsense, and finally show her why the theologians are wrong.

[drkitten]

You think the Supreme Creator of the Universe could be just a little bit clearer in what he said?

Possibly. Or perhaps He doesn't care that much as long as the overall message gets through.


37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

As long as my Aunt Margaret and the rest of her congregation do these, the rest can be sorted out. Let the theologians argue; at least it keeps them off the streets.

[drkitten]

Brevity on my part plays a role, as well. Ideally, Aunt Margaret would never have to go anywhere else for her more sophisticated arguments, for I would present them to her myself. I think a good strategy (though I don't typically run around trying to convert believers) is to attack the weaker "strawman" type positions that likely do reflect Auntie's actual beliefs to get her into a questioning frame of mind initially. Then, introduce the sophisticated rebuttals to those arguments (which is why I said earlier one should be familiar with them), and work from there.

I find a better approach is the nonoverlapping magisteria argument. Point out some of the obvious nonsense (if necessary) to persuade her that biblical literalism is naive and false and that other sources of evidence are necessary to come to an understanding of the world. Then gradually shrink the magisterium of the Bible and the minister and increase the magisterium of rationalism until you get to the point where she's comfortable with a rational analysis of ethics.

I see no reason to push her religion all the way out of metaphysics and ontology, because, frankly, they have no impact (although by the same token, she might decide to go all the way to full-fledged agnosticism or atheism) and because, as a strong agnostic, I have ethical problems myself with persuading people that there is no such thing as a God.

The worst downside that I can see is driving her into the arms of the Quakers or UU's --- a risk I'm, frankly, willing to take.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Possibly. Or perhaps He doesn't care that much as long as the overall message gets through.


Originally Posted by Matthew 22
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

As long as my Aunt Margaret and the rest of her congregation do these, the rest can be sorted out. Let the theologians argue; at least it keeps them off the streets.

But therein lies the rub, does it not?

Unless my child says, "Amen" he will go to Hell. I love him so much I don't want that to happen so I'll beat him until he says it.

The second can be responded to with the old joke about the masochist and the sadist.

[dann]

Possibly. Or perhaps He doesn't care that much as long as the overall message gets through.

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

As long as my Aunt Margaret and the rest of her congregation do these, the rest can be sorted out. Let the theologians argue; at least it keeps them off the streets.


This is what makes the New Testament intolerable! In the old one you were supposed to fear God, which made some kind of sense if you consider the kind of vindictive, paranoid psychopath you were dealing with. But now you even have to love him??!
Come on, drkitten! You cannot be serious!

[drkitten]

But therein lies the rub, does it not?


Not really.

There is no message that is so simple that it can't be misunderstood; for proof, I refer you to any number of threads on this board. Especially since in many cases, the misunderstanding is deliberate and people are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to twist the message to support what they had already decided they were going to do, say, or believe.

And to head you off, no, an Almighty God could not forcibly prevent free-willed humans from twisting His word. That's what "free will" means, among other things.

[drkitten]

This is what makes the New Testament intolerable! In the old one you were supposed to fear God, which made some kind of sense if you consider the kind of vindictive, paranoid psychopath you were dealing with. But now you even have to love him??!
Come on, drkitten! You cannot be serious!

Aren't you running out of straw by now?

[Mark Felt]

Not really.

There is no message that is so simple that it can't be misunderstood; for proof, I refer you to any number of threads on this board. Especially since in many cases, the misunderstanding is deliberate and people are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to twist the message to support what they had already decided they were going to do, say, or believe.

And to head you off, no, an Almighty God could not forcibly prevent free-willed humans from twisting His word. That's what "free will" means, among other things.

Well, he could, among other things, descend from the heavens and tell people to "knock that **** off", so to speak, and I don't believe that this would deny people their free will.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not really.

There is no message that is so simple that it can't be misunderstood; for proof, I refer you to any number of threads on this board. Especially since in many cases, the misunderstanding is deliberate and people are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to twist the message to support what they had already decided they were going to do, say, or believe.

And to head you off, no, an Almighty God could not forcibly prevent free-willed humans from twisting His word. That's what "free will" means, among other things.

Ah. But you see, I interpret the Bible. You pervert the true words of the Holy God.

How far does one go to save a loved one who does not want to be saved? What happens when you want your hair cut but the other party does not?

These are not complicated (mis)understandings. They are differences that have set Christian against Christian and religion against religion down through the ages. It is not a question of "free will" it is a question of actions by humans on humans.

I attended a fumeral of a dear friend once and in the service the Minister quoted his 18-year old daughter as asking the (rhetorical) question, "What would the World be like if God never existed?" That set me thinking and, as far as I can tell, it would be (is) no different. Can you possibly tell me how it would be?

[articulett]

Death is a slow process. Perfect health is just the slowest possible way of dying.

It's called a metaphor, dude. Learn it, love it, live it --- or at least accept it.


Apologetics. You have no way of knowing what the original authors of some myth intended to convey... and it's a story... all interpretations are equally "valid"-- no matter how naive. This is not the same with evolution. Who cares who finds what deep meaning in Greek myths-- there is no "correct" interpretations. Jeez.

But even still, this apologetics fails. They didn't die-- really-- they got immortal souls that live forever and ever-- immortal souls that could be tortured forever... the opposite of actual death-- and a chance to get out of the hell dilemma.

No matter how you slice it, the god in the bible is a liar and a bastard... no matter how fancy you dress it up and claim literary license.

As multiple people have pointed out, your analogies and claims of "naive interpretation" are just spin. You can do that with any myth... it just sounds like your tap dancing around the obvious problems with the story as theists have learned to do to make it seem more "deep" and "wise" and "true".

[Marquis de Carabas]

As multiple people have pointed out, your analogies and claims of "naive interpretation" are just spin. You can do that with any myth... it just sounds like your tap dancing around the obvious problems with the story as theists have learned to do to make it seem more "deep" and "wise" and "true".
Read drkitten's first reply to me for the problem with this approach. I agree with you that it's all just spin, but if you don't have arguments which combat the extremes of this spin (the sophisticated theolgian's defenses), then what does it matter? If you knock down an easy target with an easy argument, and, like drkitten warns, your opponent goes off and finds that your argument has been dealt with already (however badly) by some dead saint from 500 years back, what have you gained?

If you don't attack the strongest position, people may well assume it is because you can't.

[joobz]

If you don't attack the strongest position, people well may assume it is because you can't.
Quoting for truth.

I actually think the last page or so has been quite educational.
Well done MdC and dk!

[articulett]

So what's the strongest argument in a myth-- other than to show it can be nothing more than a myth?

How do you address a "courtiers' reply" except to show it's a "courtier's reply".
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

It's just weird when someone goes on about what the bible "really meant"-- what is and isn't an "allegory" for what--because it assumes there can be some authority on the "imaginary". No one CAN be an expert on what the bible "truly means" or what god wants just as no-one can be an expert on the imaginary fabrics of the emperor's new clothes.

You don't need to be well studied in myths to understand that there can be no actual authority on what they "truly" mean. It's like claiming that someone who studied astrology for years actualyl knows something about the way the planetary alignment influences humans! I don't have to be an expert in planet alignment to understand that no one else is an expert on astrological influences either.

All creation stories can be retrofitted as parables to correspond with reality after the fact. We can always say, "yeah, but the true meaning is...." or "Nostradamus' statement of xyz, was clearly a prophesy of Q".

You may as well claim to be an expert on the really true true meaning of Aesop's fables.

[Steelmage]

I was trying to put the tree of knowledge story in the most literal terms possible.
There are other ways to look at it.
If you want to see it in a metaphorical light, you can.
The fallen angels can represent the affects of sin reaching into all aspects of creation, even to the point of bringing down the most powerful beings in it.
When they are cast out of heaven, that could represent earth and heaven being restored to the condition that it enjoyed, before the entrance of evil.

That is my point, it shows that christians believe their myths, they do not think them through, for if a being was create to be completely obedient to their god, why would it suddenly rebel. If their god is all power and all knowing, and Lucifer is suppose to be the smartest of all angels, then why rebel against a being that you know you cannot fight against much less win against. In any myth, there is grand holes of reason that the apologists of the religion cannot answer.

[Marquis de Carabas]

You don't need to be well studied in myths to understand that there can be no actual authority on what they "truly" mean. It's like claiming that someone who studied astrology for years actual knows something about the way the planetary alignment influences humans! I don't have to be an expert in planet alignment to understand that no one else is an expert on panetary alignment astrological influences either.
Whether anyone can be an authority on what the Bible really means is completely beside the point. What matters is whether anyone believes another to be such an authority. If Aunt Margaret believes Father O'Murphy to be an expert at Biblical interpretation, then it does not matter that you can batter Marge's defenses. You better hope your arguments are up to snuff for Murph, because Marge certainly thinks his arguments are good.

[articulett]

Yeah... my brother wanted me to talk to his priest regarding some Catholic teaching-- I said, "Great, and then I can talk to the Mormon prophet to find out if what his religion's "truth" is... and then I'll learn all about "suppressive people" and "thetans" from Tom Cruise".

I think it's funny that people go to experts on things they can't really have "expertise" in to tell them what to "believe" and why and what it all means.

Sure, I can learn all about what the lines on my palm mean from studying books on palmistry--but that doesn't mean the lines on my palm actually have any meaning or "predictive value".

I ridicule the argument to show that the argument is the equivalent of the courtier's reply-- it claims expertise on a subject that no one can have expertise in... there are no experts on the "supernatural". The arguments fail because they are built on a faulty premise anyhow... people run around looking for truth value in such statements don't make the statements more "true" or lend support to the underlying premise (whether it's writings inspired by gods or lines on one's hand revealing deep truths about someone.)

Dr. Kittens explanations are on par with the verbiage of imagined experts in palmistry, are they not? You can know what all the lines are supposed to mean-- but it doesn't mean that they MEAN anything at all.

[gumboot]

The implication from reading the Bible is that eating once from the Tree of Life ensures eternal life. The implication in the Bible is also that Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from it. We must, therefore, assume that they were mortal, in which case eating from the Tree of Knowledge did not result in suddenly being mortal, and thus God's statement that they would die if they ate from it is at best totally dishonest, and at worst an outright lie.

[bokonon]

And, um, since when are you qualified to hold an opinion?
Since I was born with a working brain, and acquired the ability to read and to reason. You?

You think A&E are being punished -- my niece thinks she's being punished. Neither of you are necessarily in possession of all the facts.
A&E are clearly being punished. They are denied eternal life, and forced to labor instead of idle in idyllic paradise.

Dig deeper. In this case, there are something like 2000 years of theological writings on this particular subject.2000 years of spin doctoring doesn't necessarily convert nonsense into sense. If you have encountered a compelling argument in your studies of theological writings, feel free to prop it up here.

Since when are indirect consequences not consequences?They ARE consequences, but they're consequences of an act of will rather than a force of nature. In this case, god's act of will is to punish A&E for their disobedience.

By discovering the concept of bad stuff, unhappiness has entered the Garden of Eden, basically wrecking it. More importantly, disobedience has entered the garden of Eden, making it no longer safe for A&E to be there.Nothing has changed about the garden. The only change has been in the minds of A&E: they have become ashamed to be naked. They have donned clothes. Problem solved.

Rather than reward their initiative, god chooses to punish them.

You don't have to accept the traditional narrative, but for Pete's sake at least learn the real version of it. There is a strong tendency on this forum for people to post the most ridiculously straw-man versions of quite sophisticated theological arguments and then laugh at them. The "real version" I'm referencing is in the bible. If there is some problem in the translation, I apologize for not reading Greek. There is no sophisticated theological arguments in my edition, but again, if you have something you regard as convincing, bring it on.

Gumboot has it at least partly right -- banishment from the Garden was not punitive, but preventative (it even says so in the Book).
Yeah, and when I ground my kids, that's preventative -- it prevents them from going to the movies. It's still a punishment. In the case of Genesis, what is being prevented is eternal life, and effortless pleasure. Where I come from, we'd consider that a punishment, but maybe we're not as "sophisticated" as you doctor types.

One can accomplish the same thing by banishing the Tree of Life from the garden.

Where do you put it, then?
Well, if you put it on the moon, you wouldn't have had to worry about men getting their hands on it until the 1960s, at the earliest. If you put it on Pluto, it would probably be safe for awhile longer. Stick it in "a galaxy far, far away" and it would likely be safe forever. Would that be too unsophisticated?

And while we're on the subject of "where," tell me: where can I go on Google Earth to get a peek at that flaming sword that turns this way and that to prevent us from sneaking back in?

Given that unhappiness had (demonstrably) already entered the Garden when A&E were banished, it would no longer have been "Edenic" even if they were permitted to stay.Sorry to voice another opinion, but I disagree that unhappiness had demonstrably already entered the garden. A&E weren't unhappy, they were just ashamed to be seen naked (and they'd already solved that problem). I'm not unhappy when I wear clothes, and I see no reason to assume that they were. Unless there is some other indication of unhappiness that my lack of sophistication has overlooked, I think your case is a little weak on evidence.

[gumboot]

There wasn't any "unhappiness" in the Garden of Eden until God turned up and started giving out punishment. If anyone's responsible for ruining Eden it's him.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think it's funny that people go to experts on things they can't really have "expertise" in to tell them what to "believe" and why and what it all means.
It may be funny, and if your only desire is amusement*, then that is fine. But since people do go to those experts, and they do find their explanations compelling, it is those explanations you should be concerned with debating, not the simpler explanations of Aunt Marge, because Margie may well go find out about the others.

Look, all I am saying is don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If you throw, say, the Epicurean Paradox in somebody's face, you better know your Leibniz.

*Not an unworthy goal.

[articulett]

Well, go figure. I don't debate woo anyhow. It's not my thing. It just allows the woo more opportunities to make up reasons to believe even more in their made up story, I think... It would be like trying to convince the serial killer groupies that the guy they have a crush on is not really a "nice guy" deep inside.

I think the "tree of knowledge" concept has problems all around no matter how it is explained away. But all woo can be retrofitted to makes some sort of sense with reality as we've seen many times on this forum. All woo has their apologetics to every reasoned argument. And it all rests eventually on faith... which is not a way to know anything anyhow.

I'm not sure anything would convince Aunt Marge... but why should I care what Aunt Marge believes or how she has justified the belief to herself? When I was a kid I wondered if there was any good reason for ME to believe this stuff. And as far as I can tell, everyone uses the Aunt Marge approach (courtier's reply) to justify the woo they've come to "believe in"... that isn't a reason for me to believe.

Given that, I find amusement a very achievable goal--whereas, changing the minds of the faithful using reason is too lofty a goal for this skeptic. I would want evidence that there is a good method, before I'd employ it. I think humor... and randi's method of fooling people to show they can be fooled may be the best-- but I'd have to see the statistics first. I don't think studying their theology is useful, but it might be.

[Robin]

Er, wrong. The Fall was not a punishment, merely a consequence
...
Dig deeper. In this case, there are something like 2000 years of theological writings on this particular subject.
2,000 years of theogical writings? I admire the surgical precision of your citing.

OK, here are a couple of biggies:

Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2:2:136 "On the contrary, Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more grievously punished than the man, as appears from Genesis 3. Therefore she sinned more grievously than the man. "

Augustine, "City of God" XV:1 "Of the bliss of Paradise, of Paradise itself, and of the life of our first parents there, and of their sin and punishment, many have thought much, spoken much, written much. "

Augustine, "City of God" XIV:15 "Of the Justice of the Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their Disobedience"

Augustine, "City of God" XIV:17 "But when they were stripped of this grace, that their disobedience might be punished by fit retribution, there began in the movement of their bodily members a shameless novelty which made nakedness indecent: it at once made them observant and made them ashamed."

Please feel free to quote the theological writings that you claim support your own view.

[dann]

This is what makes the New Testament intolerable! In the old one you were supposed to fear God, which made some kind of sense if you consider the kind of vindictive, paranoid psychopath you were dealing with. But now you even have to love him??!
Come on, drkitten! You cannot be serious!Aren't you running out of straw by now?


What is supposed to be straw? That the God of the Old Testament is the god of fear??? No straw there, drkitten. That you don’t want to read what the Bible actually says is your problem!

”1 After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." 2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" 8 Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. 9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." 12 He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." “
http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp , p. 22

So he's the god of lies, of threats, of punishment, of fear, and of mean and stupid tests of the loyalty of his subjects.

[Robin]

Look, all I am saying is don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
A canon maybe.

[Marquis de Carabas]

A canon maybe.
If you tell me that pun was intentional, you're nominated, because that's just beautiful.

[Robin]

If you tell me that pun was intentional, you're nominated, because that's just beautiful.
It was intentional. My only regret is that it took me several hours to come up with a snappy response.

[Aitch]

Quick question...

If the only tree they were forbidden to eat from was the Tree of Knowledge, does this mean that they had already eaten from the Tree of Life? Or had they just not got around to it? Or was it very well hidden? Or, even, invisible if you hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?

[dann]

It's hard to tell:

“"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”"

It did not seem to be a problem before they ate of the tree of knowledge, but it's hard to say why. If logic can be applied here, the questions seems connected with God having sentenced them to death: For this reason they are expelled from the garden of Eden, and the cherubim is ordered to prevent them from climbing the fence and going scrumping. So it probably wasn't very well hidden.
My guess is that their heavenly father did not prevent them from eating of the tree of life until they "had become like one of us, knowing good and evil". Until then they were supposed to live forever. It is fairly typical that a control freak like this feels threatened when his children grow up to become his equals. That is intolerable, that is something that he cannot possibly live with!

[drkitten]

There wasn't any "unhappiness" in the Garden of Eden until God turned up and started giving out punishment. If anyone's responsible for ruining Eden it's him.

You're either wrong or playing semantic games; Adam and Eve were "ashamed" as soon as they ate the apple, looked at each other, and realized they were naked. If you think shame makes someone happy, you have a strange view of happiness.

[Aitch]

It did not seem to be a problem before they ate of the tree of knowledge, but it's hard to say why. If logic can be applied here, the questions seems connected with God having sentenced them to death: For this reason they are expelled from the garden of Eden, and the cherubim is ordered to prevent them from climbing the fence and going scrumping. So it probably wasn't very well hidden.
My guess is that their heavenly father did not prevent them from eating of the tree of life until they "had become like one of us, knowing good and evil". Until then they were supposed to live forever. It is fairly typical that a control freak like this feels threatened when his children grow up to become his equals. That is intolerable, that is something that he cannot possibly live with!

Interesting. Also prompts the thought that the search for the Philosopher's Stone, which could also be used IIRC to prolong life indefinitely, may have been inspired by this part of the Bible? No doubt someone with a bit more historical knowledge can confirm/refute this?

[gumboot]

Quick question...

If the only tree they were forbidden to eat from was the Tree of Knowledge, does this mean that they had already eaten from the Tree of Life? Or had they just not got around to it? Or was it very well hidden? Or, even, invisible if you hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?


I'm wondering if it's the last one...

The Bible states that both the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge are at the centre of the garden, yet when Eve is talking to the serpent she says they cannot eat from the tree in the middle of the garden.

This implies to me that Eve is only aware of one tree in the centre of the garden. Also God clearly doesn't want them eating from the Tree of Life and becoming immortal, so sends them away, and seems to imply that it's the knowledge gained from the Tree of Knowledge that makes this a possibility.

So I'm inclined to think that only those who can perceive right and wrong can see the Tree of Life.

*shrugs*

[gumboot]

You're either wrong or playing semantic games; Adam and Eve were "ashamed" as soon as they ate the apple, looked at each other, and realized they were naked. If you think shame makes someone happy, you have a strange view of happiness.


"not happy" and "unhappy" are not necessarily the same thing any more than "less than 5" and "negative 3" are necessarily the same thing.

[drkitten]

"not happy" and "unhappy" are not necessarily the same thing any more than "less than 5" and "negative 3" are necessarily the same thing.

Yes. And "shame" is a feeling that goes all the way to "unhappy."

[Ethnikos]

That is my point, it shows that christians believe their myths, they do not think them through, for if a being was create to be completely obedient to their god, why would it suddenly rebel. If their god is all power and all knowing, and Lucifer is suppose to be the smartest of all angels, then why rebel against a being that you know you cannot fight against much less win against. In any myth, there is grand holes of reason that the apologists of the religion cannot answer.

I can tell you the myth that I was taught. There were two covering cherubs of the throne of God, in heaven. One was Jesus and one was Lucifer. When God created the world, God proclaimed that all the beings of the universe should acknowledge Jesus as higher than all creation because he was not a created being. Jesus was the actual son of God. Lucifer did not see how Jesus was any better than him and decided he should be a god, himself, if Jesus was.

[bokonon]

Yes. And "shame" is a feeling that goes all the way to "unhappy."
They'd already covered themselves, solving the "shame" problem, so even if it goes all the way to suicidal, it's a non-issue.

[gumboot]

Yes. And "shame" is a feeling that goes all the way to "unhappy."

I disagree, and as pointed out the shame was promptly dealt with anyway.

[Ethnikos]

The implication from reading the Bible is that eating once from the Tree of Life ensures eternal life. The implication in the Bible is also that Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from it. We must, therefore, assume that they were mortal, in which case eating from the Tree of Knowledge did not result in suddenly being mortal, and thus God's statement that they would die if they ate from it is at best totally dishonest, and at worst an outright lie.
They end up dying, one way or another. I do not see it so much as a deception, but an omission of how it was going to be enforced. You are right in your assumption that without access to the tree of life, they would eventually die, showing they were not immortal.

Whether or not they had already eaten of it, seems irrelevant to me. My opinion is that consuming of the tree of life would be something that they would have had to do periodically. They may have not have, yet, as you assert because they had descendants who lived longer than them. I would think that if they had already consumed, they would have been longer lived than they were.

[drkitten]

I disagree,

Your disagreement is noted, and ignored.

and as pointed out the shame was promptly dealt with anyway.

Covering up a problem is not dealing with it. The problem is that after eating the fruit, it is now possible for A&E to feel unhappy --- the Garden is no longer Edenic, because they are no longer guaranteed blissful happiness in it. Even if A&E are now wearing clothes, they now get the joys of worry (which is another thing that makes people "unhappy") about whether or not their clothes will fall off or open and reveal to much, and so forth.

[billydkid]

To be fair, the tree was knowledge of good and evil, which in my armchair theology saddled humanity with knowing the difference and therefore being responsible for their own actions.
Yes, it is fundamental that it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - mean something entirely distinct from mere "knowledge".

[dann]

They end up dying, one way or another. I do not see it so much as a deception, but an omission of how it was going to be enforced.

Come on!

- You'll die if you eat those red berries!
- No, I won't! It's a redcurrant bush! See? I just ate a handful, and they did not harm me!
- OK, do you see this gun?!!

[Ethnikos]

Come on!

- You'll die if you eat those red berries!
- No, I won't! It's a redcurrant bush! See? I just ate a handful, and they did not harm me!
- OK, do you see this gun?!!

Sorry but that made me seriously laugh!

The whole Eden story is very disturbing. It has to come out making God look like a bad guy. What I like to say is that we exist because we are descended from those two poor people. So, lets be happy that they lived long enough to have children.

[dann]

Interesting. Also prompts the thought that the search for the Philosopher's Stone, which could also be used IIRC to prolong life indefinitely, may have been inspired by this part of the Bible? No doubt someone with a bit more historical knowledge can confirm/refute this?

I think that the mere knowledge of the apparent inevitability of death and the subsequent longing for being the master of your own life and death makes you come up with all kinds of fairytales of things, procedures etc. to prolong life, if possible indefinitely, with or without the mortal coil ...

For this reason I think that the theme is probably eternal:

Philip José Farmer: Riverworld and World of Tiers
Larry Niven: Several books about boosterspice or similar stuff, for instance Ringworld and A World out of Time
Arthur C. Clarke: e.g. 2001 or Childhood’s End
Greg Bear: Blood Music
William Gibson: Neuromancer
Hollywood: Cocoon, Highlander etc.

Woo! Transhumanism!

For ever young, I want to be for ever young ...

[dann]

It has to come out making God look like a bad guy.

I think that it's worse than that, actually! This god actually is a very bad guy, and we are supposed to obey him because he's omnipotent.
Jesus is a kind of rebel against this attitude - within the framework of religion. He changes the psychopathic god of original sin into a god of forgiveness and love-thy-neighbour, which is quite an accomplishment!
If you are a fan of the originial vindictive psycho, you interpret the story of Jesus as just another addition to the original sin: Now we're not only sinners, we've also killed the son of God!
If you are a fan of the Jesus god, however, you tend to feel embarrassed about his origins and reinterpret (or try to forget about) the stories of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac etc: Jesus died for our sins, so we are no longer sinners and the god is so good that he actually sacrificed his own son to save us. In a weird psychological sense that is actually a giant step forward!

[bokonon]

Covering up a problem is not dealing with it.
They aren't covering up the problem, they're solving it. Naughty bits exposed = shame; naughty bits covered = problem solved.

The problem is that after eating the fruit, it is now possible for A&E to feel unhappy --- the Garden is no longer Edenic, because they are no longer guaranteed blissful happiness in it.
Obviously, it was possible for A&E to feel unhappy before -- they were constantly exposed to something desirable which was forbidden to them. They wanted something they couldn't have. If they had been happy with this condition, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fact that both of them ate the fruit proves that it was already possible for them to be unhappy with their state. Once again, we are forced to recognize that the only thing that changed as a direct result of eating the fruit is that they experienced a temporary feeling of shame, which they quickly eliminated. Then Mr. High and Mighty showed up, and turned "unhappy" up to eleven to punish them.

[drkitten]

They aren't covering up the problem, they're solving it.

No. The problem is not that they feel shame. The problem is that they now have the capacity to feel shame, a capacity which is not removed by covering up.


Obviously, it was possible for A&E to feel unhappy before -- they were constantly exposed to something desirable which was forbidden to them.

Not only is that not "obvious," it's not even necessarily true. And in traditional theology, it's definitively UNTRUE.

Here we even have psychology on our side; the "forbidden fruit" effect (where a forbidden object becomes more desirable) is well-documented to develop relatively late in childhood. For very young children, a forbidden object becomes ipso facto less desirable. (Which evolutionarily is probably a good thing, since it serves to counteract natural curiosity.)


If they had been happy with this condition, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fact that both of them ate the fruit proves that it was already possible for them to be unhappy with their state.

Er, no. It was the serpent's blandishments ("temptation") that led them to eat the fruit. You don't have to be unhappy to succumb to temptations.

Again, it's all in The Book.

[westprog]

I think that the mere knowledge of the apparent inevitability of death and the subsequent longing for being the master of your own life and death makes you come up with all kinds of fairytales of things, procedures etc. to prolong life, if possible indefinitely, with or without the mortal coil ...

For this reason I think that the theme is probably eternal:

Philip José Farmer: Riverworld and World of Tiers
Larry Niven: Several books about boosterspice or similar stuff, for instance Ringworld and A World out of Time
Arthur C. Clarke: e.g. 2001 or Childhood’s End
Greg Bear: Blood Music
William Gibson: Neuromancer
Hollywood: Cocoon, Highlander etc.

Woo! Transhumanism!

For ever young, I want to be for ever young ...

James Blish: Cities In Flight.

[dann]

It just occurred to me:

A couple of times I've read a text with my students, Nyambe Leaves the Earth. I only have a copy of the text, I don't know the author or the book it was taken from, so I cannot credit anybody for it.

It is an African version of Genesis, but different:

Nyambe also creates the world, including a son and his wife, but they are much more annoying than Adam and Eve! They disobey him several times, kill his other creatures, lie about it, make a racket and piss off Nyambe so much that he finally .... leaves (along with Mrs. Nyambe!).

What do you do when you don't like your children's behaviour?

Well, in this book there are no threats, no punishment. The god gets rid of the problem by removing himself from the source! If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen!

If I have to choose, I sure as hell prefer the African Jehova to Adam's dad!

[Ethnikos]

I think that it's worse than that, actually! This god actually is a very bad guy, and we are supposed to obey him because he's omnipotent.
Jesus is a kind of rebel against this attitude - within the framework of religion. He changes the psychopathic god of original sin into a god of forgiveness and love-thy-neighbor, which is quite an accomplishment!
If you are a fan of the original vindictive psycho, you interpret the story of Jesus as just another addition to the original sin: Now we're not only sinners, we've also killed the son of God!
If you are a fan of the Jesus god, however, you tend to feel embarrassed about his origins and reinterpret (or try to forget about) the stories of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac etc: Jesus died for our sins, so we are no longer sinners and the god is so good that he actually sacrificed his own son to save us. In a weird psychological sense that is actually a giant step forward!
I guess this is one way to look at it. The problem is that despite Jesus giving us a better face of God, we still have that vindictive God lurking about. You pass over the part of Jesus dying, rather quickly. Jesus did not die an ordinary death but had the weight of the sins of the world placed on him. He stood in the presence of the Divine Judge when the curtain of the Temple was parted. He was cast into Hell at that moment, as his spirit passed out of him.

Hebrews 10: 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

So, you still end up with the psycho God.

[Toke]

By the way, to whom did god say "Let there be light"?
To the electricians of cource, we are the worlds oldest trade.:D

Luther is pretty clear on reason and knowlede, you ARE suposed to be ignorant.

[bokonon]

It was the serpent's blandishments ("temptation") that led them to eat the fruit. You don't have to be unhappy to succumb to temptations.

Again, it's all in The Book.
If it's something that's clearly harmful (jump off this cliff), "temptation" isn't going to do it. In order to succumb to temptation, their unhappiness over being denied the fruit must overcome the happiness they derive by their obedience to god. Whether this was a fleeting feeling, or a gnawing ache, it's clear that they'd already experienced dissatisfaction (unhappiness) before fruit passed lips.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If it's something that's clearly harmful (jump off this cliff), "temptation" isn't going to do it.
Eating a piece of fruit is "clearly harmful"?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

They aren't covering up the problem, they're solving it. Naughty bits exposed = shame; naughty bits covered = problem solved.


Obviously, it was possible for A&E to feel unhappy before -- they were constantly exposed to something desirable which was forbidden to them. They wanted something they couldn't have. If they had been happy with this condition, they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fact that both of them ate the fruit proves that it was already possible for them to be unhappy with their state. Once again, we are forced to recognize that the only thing that changed as a direct result of eating the fruit is that they experienced a temporary feeling of shame, which they quickly eliminated. Then Mr. High and Mighty showed up, and turned "unhappy" up to eleven to punish them.

I like this response. Though I see DrK has managed to come up with a convoluted response as to why it is not true. :boggled:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No. The problem is not that they feel shame. The problem is that they now have the capacity to feel shame, a capacity which is not removed by covering up.



Not only is that not "obvious," it's not even necessarily true. And in traditional theology, it's definitively UNTRUE.

Here we even have psychology on our side; the "forbidden fruit" effect (where a forbidden object becomes more desirable) is well-documented to develop relatively late in childhood. For very young children, a forbidden object becomes ipso facto less desirable. (Which evolutionarily is probably a good thing, since it serves to counteract natural curiosity.)




Er, no. It was the serpent's blandishments ("temptation") that led them to eat the fruit. You don't have to be unhappy to succumb to temptations.

Again, it's all in The Book.

My bolding. Fair enough, but surely you have to have knowledge that it is Evil to do so and for that you have to have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

:confused:

[Elizabeth I]

A lot of wonton cruelty had been done unto others on the basis of that "allegory" it seems to me.

Not to mention the appalling abuse of the eggroll. And don't get me started on what was done to the bite-sized pizzas.

[bokonon]

Eating a piece of fruit is "clearly harmful"?
No, and that's part of the point. It's booby trapped. It's telling your kids not to eat the candy, lacing it with cyanide, and leaving it on a table next to the comfy chair in front of the TV. Then, you leave a babysitter in charge, who (in loco parentis) says "Go ahead, we won't tell your folks."

It's a simple test of obedience, and A&E have been primed for failure. The tree was provided by God, the woman was provided by God (interestingly, she wasn't even created until AFTER God told Adam not to eat the fruit, so she may have only been disobeying Adam's hearsay account), the serpent was provided by God. It's absurd to read this as anything but allegory, but if we're going to treat it as history, let's look at what's written.

[Phase Inverter]

If there is some problem in the translation, I apologize for not reading Greek.


Hebrew?

where can I go on Google Earth to get a peek at that flaming sword that turns this way and that to prevent us from sneaking back in?


Destroyed in the flood? :con2:

.

[gumboot]

Covering up a problem is not dealing with it. The problem is that after eating the fruit, it is now possible for A&E to feel unhappy --- the Garden is no longer Edenic, because they are no longer guaranteed blissful happiness in it. Even if A&E are now wearing clothes, they now get the joys of worry (which is another thing that makes people "unhappy") about whether or not their clothes will fall off or open and reveal to much, and so forth.


This is entirely nonsensical. "Feeling unhappy" and "knowing right and wrong" are not the same thing.

Eating the fruit did not give them the ability to feel unhappy, it gave them the ability to distinguish right from wrong. If they had the ability to feel unhappy, it existed before they ate the fruit, therefore it was already in the garden.

AS for unhappiness...

After God made Adam he foresaw approaching unhappiness - it wasn't good for Adam to be alone and he needed a helper. So instead of declare unhappiness was unacceptable and banish Adam, he brought all of the animals to Adam to choose a helper. And Adam couldn't find an acceptable helper (you tell me if looking through every single animal on the planet for a helper to keep you company would make you "unhappy"?)

So in this dire situation of unhappiness was Adam banished? No. God fixed the problem and provided a helper for him - Eve.

The story of the Fall of Eden clearly illustrates that God is:
A) A Liar
B) A Bastard
C) A hypocrite
D) Incompetent

[bokonon]

Hebrew?
Really? Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe the new testament is Greek...
Doesn't matter, really, I don't read Hebrew either.

Destroyed in the flood? :con2:

.
LOL, you're probably right about that too. I wonder if the cherubim drowned...

[gumboot]

No, and that's part of the point. It's booby trapped. It's telling your kids not to eat the candy, lacing it with cyanide, and leaving it on a table next to the comfy chair in front of the TV. Then, you leave a babysitter in charge, who (in loco parentis) says "Go ahead, we won't tell your folks."


More correctly it's leaving a whole bunch of candy on the table, telling them the toffees in the middle are laced with cyanide (even though they aren't), and then leaving a babysitter in charge who says "You should eat that toffee, it's not really laced with cyanide".

Except of course your children understand right and wrong, and Adam and Eve didn't.

Any way you slice it God was stupid, stupid, stupid to allow the set up that occurred in the Garden of Eden. To blame Adam and Eve for his mistakes is totally unfair, but perfectly in keeping with the metaphor of the bad parent. I have a theory that the banishment from Eden is made up by God to make him sound all tough and bad ass - in reality Child Welfare took Adam and Eve off him and put them in a foster home after the Serpent made an anonymous phone call.

[gumboot]

Really? Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe the new testament is Greek...
Doesn't matter, really, I don't read Hebrew either.


LOL, you're probably right about that too. I wonder if the cherubim drowned...


His sword's probably not flaming any more... ;)

[articulett]

Not to mention the appalling abuse of the eggroll. And don't get me started on what was done to the bite-sized pizzas.


Yes indeed. (Damn spellcheck--wanton thing)

[articulett]

More correctly it's leaving a whole bunch of candy on the table, telling them the toffees in the middle are laced with cyanide (even though they aren't), and then leaving a babysitter in charge who says "You should eat that toffee, it's not really laced with cyanide".

Except of course your children understand right and wrong, and Adam and Eve didn't.

Any way you slice it God was stupid, stupid, stupid to allow the set up that occurred in the Garden of Eden. To blame Adam and Eve for his mistakes is totally unfair, but perfectly in keeping with the metaphor of the bad parent. I have a theory that the banishment from Eden is made up by God to make him sound all tough and bad ass - in reality Child Welfare took Adam and Eve off him and put them in a foster home after the Serpent made an anonymous phone call.

Genesis is a creepy story, because if you raise questions about the story you are "biting from that tree of knowledge"--the very thing that f*ed up everything for Eve-- (!) So it's the creepy story that keeps on scaring people for all eternity. "Don't question gods orders, dammit-- just believe him-- look what happened to the last uppity woman who got too curious-- she ruined it for EVERYONE!"

What a heartwarming cautionary tale. I think even if theists don't consciously understand this message... they understand the implications of questioning the story... and so they don't. Instead, they don't think about it-- and they dash about trying to silence those who bring up the inconsistencies so as not to anger this weirdly inconsistent god.

[Morrigan]

drKitten is grasping at straws. Even if we accept the argument that unhappiness had been introduced into the Garden and forced God to evict Adam and Eve (which honestly doesn't hold up to scrutiny), why does it follow that they have to become mortal and toil hard all their lives? Why can't the all-powerful god create another Garden and stick them in there, or simply erase their memories of so-called unhappiness/possibility of shame and be done with it?

As was said, the Fall may have been a "consequence" but it was one born from God's will, not an uncontrollable force of nature. God didn't have to force them to pain and labour, he chose to.

And, um, since when are you qualified to hold an opinion?
How inanely rude. Who the hell do you think you are?


Dig deeper. In this case, there are something like 2000 years of theological writings on this particular subject.

Which are still as uncompelling and unconvincing as ever.

[dann]

So, you still end up with the psycho God.

Yes, you do end up with the psycho god, but you have to look at the intentions (and the achievements) of the authors of the Jesus myths: They obviously did not like Psycho Dad, but probably were unable to simply reject him! (Look at the way (some) believers treat atheists today!)
So what do you do? You reinterpret him, you change him into the Jesus God of mercy, forgiveness and love thy neighbour. You have to admit that even though this is still religion, it is nevertheless a radical change! It may not be the change that we would prefer, but if I were able to choose and presented only with the two alternatives, I would definitely prefer my neighbours to be Jesus-God Xians rather than Psycho-God Xians.

The showdown is incomplete, of course, Psycho God is not dead, but he's been given a more humble position. The new god is a saviour rather than a punisher, no longer the god of fear.
He is still used by rulers (secular as well as religious) to discipline their subjects, but now at least it's more carrot than stick.
And the struggle between the different interpretations of God is still going on among believers who don't have the courage to reject the whole absurd thing once and for all.

It is sooooo much easier to be an atheist!

[AWPrime]

That is my point, it shows that christians believe their myths, they do not think them through, for if a being was create to be completely obedient to their god, why would it suddenly rebel. If their god is all power and all knowing, and Lucifer is suppose to be the smartest of all angels, then why rebel against a being that you know you cannot fight against much less win against. In any myth, there is grand holes of reason that the apologists of the religion cannot answer.

I think that this problem stems from the fact that the books of the Abrahamic faiths seem to suffer from bad copy-pasting from earlier religions.

[AWPrime]

Covering up a problem is not dealing with it. The problem is that after eating the fruit, it is now possible for A&E to feel unhappy --- the Garden is no longer Edenic, because they are no longer guaranteed blissful happiness in it.
But were they really happy before they are the fruit? Happiness is relative.


But wasn't imperfection already in Eden even before the snake talked to Eve?

[Ethnikos]

...I would definitely prefer my neighbours to be Jesus-God Xians rather than Psycho-God Xians...
...The showdown is incomplete, of course,...
It is sooooo much easier to be an atheist!

I could give examples, from the Bible, of where Jesus is just as bad
but I guess I would be missing your point.
If you mean christianity, as in what people currently believe,
opposed to what was written about him, long ago,
there is progress towards a more loving and forgiving God.
Politically, I am Libertarian so if what you are doing does not harm others,
Why should we restrict other's lives.
The less people think it is their duty to judge me, the better.

[arthwollipot]

It is sooooo much easier to be an atheist!Word.

[dann]

By the way of 'Psycho God':
http://www.titanic-magazin.de/home.html

[Radrook]

Has it been pointed out to Christians yet that their religion blatantly tells them that knowledge is evil?

You haven't read the bible have you?

Proverbs 1:4
To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:2
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 2:3
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

Proverbs 2:6
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.


Proverbs 8:10
Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Proverbs 10:14
Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.

Proverbs 11:9
An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

Proverbs 12:1
Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

Proverbs 14:6
A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 14:18
The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

Proverbs 15:7
The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.

Proverbs 15:14
The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

Proverbs 17:27
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

Proverbs 18:15
The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.

Proverbs 19:2
Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.

Proverbs 19:25
Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.

Proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.

Proverbs 21:11
When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise: and when the wise is instructed, he receiveth knowledge.

Obviously the Bible classifies ignorance as a thought virus!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AWPrime]

Radrook, its often with cults so that words get another meaning. We call this Fundie Redefinition. Words like; peace, wisdom and such get pretty twisted.

[Radrook]

Radrook, its often with cults so that words get another meaning. We call this Fundie Redefinition. Words like; peace, wisdom and such get pretty twisted.



The first mindless knee jerk response in an effort to prevent a nose bleed if thinking is attempted. This fellow makes no point at all. Why? Because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. So he resorts to mindlessly seeking a rise. Which he will of course-via being included in my total ignore list in order to prevent any more verbal incontinence from splattering my screen.

In any case, I haven't gone to a bui;lding refered to as a church in 20 years. Haven't mentioned in my posts anything which the mainliners might consider cultish. In fact, haven't even stated anything vaguely resembling the term Fundie in my reply. All I did was quote scripture. Which of course is anathema to the godless which in turn inspires them to come up with anything that pops into the vacancy they call mind. Which explains why I don't engage these individuals iun any type of extended conversation. They don't deserve it.

[Toke]

Cool, biblical proverbs endorsing knowlegde.

How come science is rejected when it does not confirm biblical stories??
Like flood, shape of the earth, age of the earth, and astronomy.

[articulett]

How sad that Radrook is a slave to his indoctrination-- ever trying to prove to himself that his Jehovah Witness worldview is good and true and makes sense so that he can believe he will live happily ever after for "believing" and sharing the "good news". So much energy spent trying to convince himself of a rather twisted lie.

And that is why I think religion is child abuse.

[Toke]

Radrook, its often with cults so that words get another meaning. We call this Fundie Redefinition. Words like; peace, wisdom and such get pretty twisted.

Sounds like "freedom is where christ is" and then fast forward to theocracy.

[Radrook]

I think the problem consists in the use of all-encompassing generalizations which leave the generalizer susceptible to easy refution via counterexamples. After all, it's well-known that a universal generalization is easily toppled by one counterexample. When these examples are suddenly presented, of course, panicking doesn't help. It merely demonstrates the indefensibility of the proposition. Instead, the use of premise qualifiers such as most, the majority, the minority, some, a few, would remedy the situation. However, that's where dramatic effect is lost and from the godless viewpoint, drama is far more important than accuracy or logic. So it's futile to expect a modification in premise positing I guess. Sigh!

[Toke]

How come science is rejected by SOME christians when it does not confirm biblical stories??
Like flood, shape of the earth, age of the earth, and astronomy.

[articulett]

Will someone let me know if Radrook ever says something that makes sense to someone other than him? I can understand most people and some pretty detailed scientific literature-- but I can't understand woo. I think you can tell more by the questions the woo avoids than anything they actually say.

[Toke]

I think you can tell more by the questions the woo avoids than anything they actually say.

Well put, it does look like the pattern.

[arthwollipot]

Will someone let me know if Radrook ever says something that makes sense to someone other than him? I can understand most people and some pretty detailed scientific literature-- but I can't understand woo. I think you can tell more by the questions the woo avoids than anything they actually say.Well, he did just post something about sweeping generalisations that can be easily refuted by specific counterexamples, and I think he's pretty much right about that. Especially since the premise of the thread has long since been acknowledged to be more or less innacurate.

[bokonon]

I think the problem consists in the use of all-encompassing generalizations which leave the generalizer susceptible to easy refution via counterexamples.
You mean all-encompassing generalizations like "the godless viewpoint"?

Instead, the use of premise qualifiers such as most, the majority, the minority, some, a few, would remedy the situation. However, that's where dramatic effect is lost and from the godless viewpoint, drama is far more important than accuracy or logic.
Guess not...

[hamelekim]

What is this tree in the midst of the Garden that God warned Adam against eating? Could Eden have been a special annex of Heaven, for the growing of fruit trees? Why would God plant such a thing, a tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

It doesn't really matter what it was for, just that God told Adam not to eat from the tree, and Adam told Eve not to eat from the tree. They didn't do God's will so they were punished.

Apparently it was not for the use of man. That leaves the angels but why would angels need to know about good and evil? Angels are the servants of God and know nothing except obedience.

Man was created with free will and that left open the possibility of sin entering the world. If sin took hold on man, how would the angels deal with it, having no concept of evil? Conveniently, there is a tree of that knowledge, right in the middle of the garden where man lived.


Um, Angels have free will too, how else do 1/3 of them fall away from God along with Lucifer? They all had free will, and some of them chose to disobey God. There were several angels who were locked up in the bottomless pit because they disobeyed God and went down to earth and mated with human women.

Go read the book of Enoch, it is filled with exploits of these fallen angels and their offspring the Nephilim.


Lucifer could have been looking for something to give him the edge in his popularity competition with the Son of God. He may have allowed this word "Knowledge" to run in his mind until he finally gave that thought enough power to finally cause him to act on it.This knowledge is something better left alone, if possible. The knowledge in itself is not necessarily destructive to the recipient but if the purpose for obtaining that knowledge is different from its intended use, it easily could be destructive. Angels are not made like man and it would have taken a very long time to get to a really bad condition because it would have had to fight against a hard-wired mind dedicated to serving God.

Angels are not hard wired to serve God any more than we are. They have free will, they choose to obey and serve.

That same knowledge, only intended for angels dedicated to fighting evil, to the Human mind was devastating and immediately turned them to evil behavior. Only in man can evil have its full potential realized. Satan looks on in wonder at the depths of depravity that man is capable of and can only wish that he could be so evil. Satan was able to survive his dose of knowledge and does not die of natural causes, so he has had a lot of time to hone his skills in manipulating men to works of evil and time to hate men, more and more.

Only in man can evil be fully realized? Since when? What do you base this argument off of? Considering that Satan/Lucifer is the most evil being in existence I find that very hard to believe. When you have nothing left to lose, like the fallen angels, then you don't feel the need to hold back on your evil thoughts any longer.

The idea that the Bible says knowledge is a bad thing is just ridiculous. The only thing we know of good and evil is that doing God's will is good, and not doing it is bad. Since God is the most intelligent, wise, and loving being in existence, anything he does cannot be questioned. Think of God as the ultimate philosopher king. Many people would gladly follow a human being on earth, but they won't consider following God. I don't understand that really.

People constantly argue that God is a bad guy, because he allows suffering. I would argue that maybe you are just too stupid to understand what is going on, and since you don't have all the relevant information you cannot make a valid argument that God is bad. He's only bad from your limited perspective, which will one day change when you die.

At least God won't put you in jail for the rest of your life for downloading some mp3's. Our ideas of what are right and wrong are corrupt, they have been corrupted over time, until we see God's law as evil and man's law as good.

[hamelekim]

I think that it's worse than that, actually! This god actually is a very bad guy, and we are supposed to obey him because he's omnipotent.
Jesus is a kind of rebel against this attitude - within the framework of religion. He changes the psychopathic god of original sin into a god of forgiveness and love-thy-neighbour, which is quite an accomplishment!
If you are a fan of the originial vindictive psycho, you interpret the story of Jesus as just another addition to the original sin: Now we're not only sinners, we've also killed the son of God!
If you are a fan of the Jesus god, however, you tend to feel embarrassed about his origins and reinterpret (or try to forget about) the stories of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac etc: Jesus died for our sins, so we are no longer sinners and the god is so good that he actually sacrificed his own son to save us. In a weird psychological sense that is actually a giant step forward!

Have you ever thought that your idea of what God is, is wrong? You're trying to define what is good and bad from a human perspective.

Humans make much of our lives on this planet, tthat they have some importants, the stuff we buy, the job we have, etc... In God's mind these things are meaningless. Showing your obedience to God is what matter on this planet.

So all the death and destruction that occurs really isn't as important as we think it is. We place way too much importance on it.

Much of the mass murder in the Bible can be directly linked to the seed of Lucifer. If you know you Bible you know that Angels came down in Genesis 6 and mated with human women.

They created a race of hybrids called Nephilim. The flood was God's way of wiping out these abominations that were created, who did nothing but evil. Noah and his family were the only people on the planet who did not have mixed blood. In that case it was completely justified for God to do what he did.

He also locked those Angels up in the bottomless pit, so they no longer were around to do such a thing. They had originally done this to try and stop the coming of the messiah, because this was all planned out a long time ago. They knew what was to come and they tried to stop it. They failed and paid the price.

People who talk about God being an evil being have zero understanding of God, or existence. They have a warped sense of what is good, because they have been corrupted by evil.

God is the most intelligent, wise, and loving being in existence, yet you claim to know more than he does? Your thinking is too limited to even begin to mount and argument against God. Good luck arguing with him on Judgement day, I'm sure that will go well for you.

[articulett]

And you know all this how? There were people created by god who were totally totally evil? Even as little kids? This sounds like a specific "brand" of theology.

You seem to believe very strongly in your version of the myth and you seem to have explained it well to yourself... now why don't you see if you can get Radrook to agree. If this life doesn't matter, then why live it? Why not kill your kids while they are young so they can go straight to heaven while they are sin free? What kind of god makes such a creepy test where he makes people who are ALL BAD? That is the creepiest god story I"ve heard. Is that the Mormon Version? You ought to duke it out with Radrook--he has the Jehovah Witness version... and when all biblical literalists actually agree on the story, then you are all on the same page as to what it was your invisible friend was trying to convey, then maybe we can take it a little more seriously than say, a book report on the "true meaning" of Dianetics and what L. Ron was truly trying to convey.

I'll take human morality... particularly that of current civilization over your invisible savior any day. You may have rationalized it in your head, but it comes off as sounding as crazy as any woo version of a woo story to me.

[Michelle Lyon]

I don't believe there was ever, literally, an Adam or an Eve, or that, literally, there were any garden with forbidden trees, or talking serpents and punishments. I believe these are metaphors dealing with the transformation (evolution) of mankind into higher thinkers, and the realization of the responsibilities associated with that.

Try telling any Christian that Genesis is a metaphor for evolution. ;)

PS. There's a good fiction novel called Ishmael which presents a very interesting metaphor of Cain and Abel.

[articulett]

Yeah, but a real Jesus can't have been killed for a metaphor.

-which isn't a problem for me since I don't believe in "divine people"-- incarnate or not. The whole story is as mythological to me as any other myth or L. Ron's Xenu story. I don't really care what people think it means. I can read the words myself and decide for myself what it means-- and the god of a the bible is not someone I'd worship or pattern myself after-- nor would I admire anyone who worships such an unsavory sort. He is a crappy "parent" with an astounding ego. I would not create a single child if I believe there was a remote chance that he could suffer forever. It's just wrong--evil. And putting temptation in front of people (or animals) that cannot resist is called "entrapment".

If I leave out food and my dog eats it... I am to blame-- not my dog.

[bokonon]

Have you ever thought that your idea of what God is, is wrong? You're trying to define what is good and bad from a human perspective.The nerve of some people.

Humans make much of our lives on this planet, tthat they have some importants, the stuff we buy, the job we have, etc... In God's mind these things are meaningless. Showing your obedience to God is what matter on this planet.Is that what god told you?

So all the death and destruction that occurs really isn't as important as we think it is. We place way too much importance on it.
Yeah, making sure people have enough to eat is just delaying the inevitable. If we kill them or cure them, it makes no difference.

Much of the mass murder in the Bible can be directly linked to the seed of Lucifer.And much more can be linked to the actions or requests of god.

If you know you Bible you know that Angels came down in Genesis 6 and mated with human women.

They created a race of hybrids called Nephilim. The flood was God's way of wiping out these abominations that were created, who did nothing but evil. Noah and his family were the only people on the planet who did not have mixed blood. In that case it was completely justified for God to do what he did.Because mixed blood is just wrong. Lovely.

He also locked those Angels up in the bottomless pit, so they no longer were around to do such a thing.
Better late than never, I guess. Oops, there I go again, judging by human standards.

They had originally done this to try and stop the coming of the messiah, because this was all planned out a long time ago. They knew what was to come and they tried to stop it. They failed and paid the price.Hey, you know what wouldn't have been shortsighted? God could have made Eve, then make her pregnant, and let Adam be the messiah. I mean, if it was all planned so long ago, just cut off those womanizing angels at the pass.

People who talk about God being an evil being have zero understanding of God, or existence. They have a warped sense of what is good, because they have been corrupted by evil.Probably mixed blood, don't you reckon?

God is the most intelligent, wise, and loving being in existence, yet you claim to know more than he does?
I know how this mess could have been avoided. Don't make those angels!

Your thinking is too limited to even begin to mount and argument against God. Good luck arguing with him on Judgement day, I'm sure that will go well for you.Now I'm sweating.

[Amazer]

Have you ever thought that your idea of what God is, is wrong? You're trying to define what is good and bad from a human perspective.
I've considered that idea. And came to the conclusion that defining good and bad from a human perspective is the only thing i could. Trying to understand good and bad from the perspective of a being who is beyond our understanding (as claimed by a lot of christians) is beyond me.

Humans make much of our lives on this planet, tthat they have some importants, the stuff we buy, the job we have, etc... In God's mind these things are meaningless. Showing your obedience to God is what matter on this planet.
I like how you pretend to know what is, and what is not, important to God. Care to elaborate how you are so certain that showing obedience to God is the only thing that is important to him?

So all the death and destruction that occurs really isn't as important as we think it is. We place way too much importance on it.
I realy think you should start preaching this to your fellow christians. Might make this world a safer and more peaceful place. In the mean time, as an atheist, I value my (only) life and by extension the life of others. I'd rather not see those lives wasted.

Much of the mass murder in the Bible can be directly linked to the seed of Lucifer. If you know you Bible you know that Angels came down in Genesis 6 and mated with human women.
Ok

They created a race of hybrids called Nephilim. The flood was God's way of wiping out these abominations that were created, who did nothing but evil. Noah and his family were the only people on the planet who did not have mixed blood. In that case it was completely justified for God to do what he did.
Evidence please... that this hybrid race actually existed. We can discuss if God was justified with his actions once it has been established that this race did indeed excist AND that this race only did evil. Till such evidence has been presented I have no other recourse but to believe that these Nephilim did not exist and that the people that were killed in this flood were in fact human. (Assuming that the flood as described in the bible is even possible)

He also locked those Angels up in the bottomless pit, so they no longer were around to do such a thing. They had originally done this to try and stop the coming of the messiah, because this was all planned out a long time ago. They knew what was to come and they tried to stop it. They failed and paid the price.
Ok...

People who talk about God being an evil being have zero understanding of God, or existence. They have a warped sense of what is good, because they have been corrupted by evil.
Please explain... Because I'm realy curious why you would think that my sense of good and evil is warped. And in particular how you have reached the conclusion that I have been corrupted by evil.

God is the most intelligent, wise, and loving being in existence, yet you claim to know more than he does? Your thinking is too limited to even begin to mount and argument against God. Good luck arguing with him on Judgement day, I'm sure that will go well for you.
I do not make any such claim (knowing more then God). But if Judgement day does come he will have some explaining to do.

[AWPrime]

The first mindless knee jerk response in an effort to prevent a nose bleed if thinking is attempted. This fellow makes no point at all. It seems that need to explain this point to you. I had hoped that you had enough intelligence to understand it without further help.

Lets take this example:Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.This clearly points to the believe that knowledge and wisdom is only found in the context of that god. This only helps to disregard knowledge or wisdom from other sources.

Similar are the catchphrases of Christians (who claim a religion of love) and Muslims (who claim a religion of peace). Both terms find their special context inside their religions. You could phrase it as such: those who submit themselves to Allah will find peace. Or: Those who let Jesus into their hearts will feels his love.
This perverts the meaning of both words into an exclusive mockery.

[JohnG]

They created a race of hybrids called Nephilim. The flood was God's way of wiping out these abominations that were created, who did nothing but evil. Noah and his family were the only people on the planet who did not have mixed blood. In that case it was completely justified for God to do what he did.

He also locked those Angels up in the bottomless pit, so they no longer were around to do such a thing. They had originally done this to try and stop the coming of the messiah, because this was all planned out a long time ago. They knew what was to come and they tried to stop it. They failed and paid the price.


This all sounds much less offensive if you imagine it being said by Napoleon Dynamite.

Seriously though, back to the original point of this thread; is anyone investigating this serious increase in peanut allergies?

[Stitch]

.

By the way, to whom did god say "Let there be light"?

To one of his other two personas!

[joobz]

I think the problem consists in the use of all-encompassing generalizations which leave the generalizer susceptible to easy refution via counterexamples. After all, it's well-known that a universal generalization is easily toppled by one counterexample. When these examples are suddenly presented, of course, panicking doesn't help. It merely demonstrates the indefensibility of the proposition. Instead, the use of premise qualifiers such as most, the majority, the minority, some, a few, would remedy the situation. However, that's where dramatic effect is lost and from the godless viewpoint, drama is far more important than accuracy or logic. So it's futile to expect a modification in premise positing I guess. Sigh!
Oh Dear. It seems that an irony nexus has been created on the internet. Everyone back up your important data before the EMP generated by the projection pulse damages your hard drives.

[hamelekim]

I've considered that idea. And came to the conclusion that defining good and bad from a human perspective is the only thing i could. Trying to understand good and bad from the perspective of a being who is beyond our understanding (as claimed by a lot of christians) is beyond me.


We don't have the whole picture, hence the "see through a glass darkly" statement in the NT. We are to take things on faith.


I like how you pretend to know what is, and what is not, important to God. Care to elaborate how you are so certain that showing obedience to God is the only thing that is important to him?

We only have what is written in the Bible, so we cannot know what else God wants besides that. Being obedient is only part of what God wants. He has plans for those people who are obedient, plans that we cannot even imagine.

However, it seems that while we are on this plane of existence, we are too obey the word of God.


I realy think you should start preaching this to your fellow christians. Might make this world a safer and more peaceful place. In the mean time, as an atheist, I value my (only) life and by extension the life of others. I'd rather not see those lives wasted.


Most war is caused not by Religion but pure human greed. The world would be a much better place if we all lived as Jesus directed us to do. That will never happen of course, not in this lifetime.


Evidence please... that this hybrid race actually existed. We can discuss if God was justified with his actions once it has been established that this race did indeed excist AND that this race only did evil. Till such evidence has been presented I have no other recourse but to believe that these Nephilim did not exist and that the people that were killed in this flood were in fact human. (Assuming that the flood as described in the bible is even possible)


The Bible says so? Obviously not good enough for you. Consider how much information has been lost in the sands of time. We have such a tiny amount of information about the past, of what happened, who existed, the wars that were fought, the people who lived.

We didn't even think that Romans could make complex machines with gears, yet we found one at the bottom of the ocean. One of how many that might have existed.

What else existed that has been lost to time, so we assume that they were more primitive than they were.

I would also argue that the flood of the Bible was more than possible, and that it did happen. Just because your scientific method does not detect it does not mean that it did not happen, or that your methedology is missing something.


Please explain... Because I'm realy curious why you would think that my sense of good and evil is warped. And in particular how you have reached the conclusion that I have been corrupted by evil.


We have all been corrupted according to the Bible, and our view of good and evil has been warped. Hence we look at the Bible and say, no sex before marriage? No thanks!

Just because you think it's ok doesn't mean it is in the eyes of God. He created man and woman to cling together, one man and one woman. The reason it is wrong has to do with not obeying God's word.

It all comes down to obedience.



I do not make any such claim (knowing more then God). But if Judgement day does come he will have some explaining to do.

When Judgement day comes he won't be defending himself to anyone, especially not atheists who's world view is extremely narrow, and tainted by anger towards being told how they should live their lives.

One day you will understand, we will all understand, but only some of us will get to see the reward that comes after.

Just remember when the Anti-Christ rises up and starts performing miracles, and those who are not saved worship him, turn to your Bible and get right with God.

If you think that's all a joke, go read up on the Gog Magog war in Ezekiel 38 and 39. We are seeing the creation of that situation right now in the middle east with Russia, Iran, and Israel.

[JohnG]

I'm skeptical.

[Amazer]

We don't have the whole picture, hence the "see through a glass darkly" statement in the NT. We are to take things on faith.
I don't need the whole picture to determine what is good and what is evil.

We only have what is written in the Bible, so we cannot know what else God wants besides that. Being obedient is only part of what God wants. He has plans for those people who are obedient, plans that we cannot even imagine.

However, it seems that while we are on this plane of existence, we are too obey the word of God.
Get back to me when all christians (and I mean all of them) have finally agreed to what this word of God is exactly that we are supposed to obey. Too many different interpretations still exist of this supposed Word; how do I decide which interpretation is the right one?

Most war is caused not by Religion but pure human greed. The world would be a much better place if we all lived as Jesus directed us to do. That will never happen of course, not in this lifetime.
Ok, but it seems to me that a lot of christians are still too bothered by the death and destruction that occurs in this world.

The Bible says so? Obviously not good enough for you. Consider how much information has been lost in the sands of time. We have such a tiny amount of information about the past, of what happened, who existed, the wars that were fought, the people who lived.

We didn't even think that Romans could make complex machines with gears, yet we found one at the bottom of the ocean. One of how many that might have existed.

What else existed that has been lost to time, so we assume that they were more primitive than they were.
I'm pretty sure that if there was a complete race of these Nephilim that we would have found some evidence (a set of bones or something) by now. The possibility exists of course that we will find such evidence in the future. And I promise that I will evaluate my position once that happens. But till then I will remain doubtfull if these 'hybrids' actually existed.

I would also argue that the flood of the Bible was more than possible, and that it did happen. Just because your scientific method does not detect it does not mean that it did not happen, or that your methedology is missing something.
Same as above. Present some compelling evidence of this biblical flood and I will reconsider my position. Till such a time I will remain doubtful that said flood actually happened.

We have all been corrupted according to the Bible, and our view of good and evil has been warped. Hence we look at the Bible and say, no sex before marriage? No thanks!

Just because you think it's ok doesn't mean it is in the eyes of God. He created man and woman to cling together, one man and one woman. The reason it is wrong has to do with not obeying God's word.

It all comes down to obedience.
I guess your God should have been smart enough to realize that some people like myself aren't very obedient when it comes to following the guidelines laid down by an invisible being. Not without proof that said invisible being actually exists. I'm sure that with his infite wisdom and power he could have done something that would have set me straight.

When Judgement day comes he won't be defending himself to anyone, especially not atheists who's world view is extremely narrow, and tainted by anger towards being told how they should live their lives.
You don't even know me (except from this one post). From that it follows that you have no idea how wide or narrow my world view is. You also have no idea if I am angry about being told how to live, or if I'm just indifferent.

And honestly, if your God can do no better then 'Because I say so' in response to my question; He should have been smart enough to give me a somewhat less developed brain.

One day you will understand, we will all understand, but only some of us will get to see the reward that comes after.
Perhaps, I hope you choose well.

Just remember when the Anti-Christ rises up and starts performing miracles, and those who are not saved worship him, turn to your Bible and get right with God.
I'll take a pass on this one (untill shown proof that God actually exists)

If you think that's all a joke, go read up on the Gog Magog war in Ezekiel 38 and 39. We are seeing the creation of that situation right now in the middle east with Russia, Iran, and Israel.
And these end of day predictions have been coming for how long now? It seems to me that in any given period some christians are seeing signs that the end is near and yet here we are.

[bokonon]

And these end of day predictions have been coming for how long now? It seems to me that in any given period some christians are seeing signs that the end is near and yet here we are.
Great Googly Magoogly, this means WAR!

This type of theist seems a lot like a celebrity stalker to me. They've become convinced that they're really, really special -- "Yes, JESUS loves me!" -- and they receive "secret messages" that other people miss (like Charlie Manson getting secret messages through the White Album). They are special people, living in a special time, just waiting for the inevitable opportunity to take their place by the side of their favorite celebrity. If you were Jesus it would probably be kind of scary/creepy, but since Jesus is long gone it's mostly just pathetic.

[EGarrett]

I think the problem consists in the use of all-encompassing generalizations which leave the generalizer susceptible to easy refution via counterexamples. After all, it's well-known that a universal generalization is easily toppled by one counterexample. When these examples are suddenly presented, of course, panicking doesn't help. It merely demonstrates the indefensibility of the proposition. Instead, the use of premise qualifiers such as most, the majority, the minority, some, a few, would remedy the situation. However, that's where dramatic effect is lost and from the godless viewpoint, drama is far more important than accuracy or logic. So it's futile to expect a modification in premise positing I guess. Sigh!I'll translate.

The problem is that when you say "everything is such-and-such," you can be proven wrong when someone shows you one thing that isn't. And when someone does that, if you get angry, it only makes you look more wrong. If you use words like "most," this won't happen to you. But people don't want to do that because it sounds weaker. I also think that atheists care more about sounding strong than being right. So I don't think they'll change.

Intelligence is in WHAT you say, not how you say it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Er, wrong. The Fall was not a punishment, merely a consequence.
Genesis 3:14ff disagrees with you. God cursed Adam and Eve (i.e. humans) and the snake, repeatedly using the first person singular, "I will put enmity between you and the woman. . .", "I will greatly increase your labor pains. . ." etc.

To believe that it is just a "consequence" and not part of God's plan is to reject the idea that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

[Michelle Lyon]

Yeah, but a real Jesus can't have been killed for a metaphor.


I think Jesus really did exist, and he was executed for being the perceived rebel against the king. The metaphors about why he died, the rising from the dead, all of that, came later when the new testament was written.

[hamelekim]

I don't need the whole picture to determine what is good and what is evil.

I think you do. If you don't have the whole picture then your view of good and evil is different.

I mean, some people think it's immoral to download information from the internet. That's a little warped, don't you think?


Get back to me when all christians (and I mean all of them) have finally agreed to what this word of God is exactly that we are supposed to obey. Too many different interpretations still exist of this supposed Word; how do I decide which interpretation is the right one?

The basic agreement is there. Anything that differs from there is due to their human nature not liking what they read. So they end up changing the meaning in order for it to fit into their world paradigm.

Jesus died on the cross, and rose on the third day. You can only be saved by believing in him, but faith without works is dead. I think that's pretty straight forward. Those people who argue that it's works or just faith are not following what the Bible says.

There is such a thing as a wrong interpretation, and it's usually quit obvious.


Ok, but it seems to me that a lot of christians are still too bothered by the death and destruction that occurs in this world.


You have to judge christians based on their works. You shall know them by their works. If someone professes to be a christian, yet they are doing non christian things, you can safely say they are not christians.

Jesus will reject them in the end.


I'm pretty sure that if there was a complete race of these Nephilim that we would have found some evidence (a set of bones or something) by now. The possibility exists of course that we will find such evidence in the future. And I promise that I will evaluate my position once that happens. But till then I will remain doubtfull if these 'hybrids' actually existed.



Well, according to some historians. There were bones outside the old Temple before it was destroyed. They were there as a reminder of what happened in the past.

I can easily see such things being hidden away if found today. Either because collectors want them for their personal collection, or some group doesn't want that sort of world view to come out in the open.

Not everyone is scientific and looking to have the truth out in the open.

There are many stories of people finding giant bones in North America, even stories of giants from Native American tribes. There are stories of giants all around the world actually. They are always waring and evil too.

Think of how many graves have we found of people who lived 4 thousand years ago. There were hundreds of millions of people alive, yet how many skeletons do we have? How many devices have we found of ancient times?

The sands of time are great at wiping out all information that a people even existed. So to argue that because there is no credible scientific evidence they existed, and ignoring any stories as hearsay, is foolish imo.

If there is a general story that carries around the world I think that we need to take a serious look at why it is in so many cultures.



Same as above. Present some compelling evidence of this biblical flood and I will reconsider my position. Till such a time I will remain doubtful that said flood actually happened.


What is compeling evidence?



I guess your God should have been smart enough to realize that some people like myself aren't very obedient when it comes to following the guidelines laid down by an invisible being. Not without proof that said invisible being actually exists. I'm sure that with his infite wisdom and power he could have done something that would have set me straight.


He isn't invisible though, and it's all a matter of your perspective as to seeing the evidence. If you take the scientific perspective then sure, there's no direct evidence, beyond prophecies that you can explain away however you want.

I think that is the point though. God is looking for seekers of truth, and the evidence is there if you are willing to search for it.

You cannot argue that the things that Jesus taught wouldn't make the world a better place though.

In any case, at some point in the near future, there will be events that will occure that no one will be able to ignore.



You don't even know me (except from this one post). From that it follows that you have no idea how wide or narrow my world view is. You also have no idea if I am angry about being told how to live, or if I'm just indifferent.


I know very few Atheists who are indifferent. They usually have strong views on religion and it's evils. I find that militant atheists like this had a bad religious experience in the past and hold a grudge ever since.

That's just my opinion though.


And honestly, if your God can do no better then 'Because I say so' in response to my question; He should have been smart enough to give me a somewhat less developed brain.

The point is to trust God enough to follow what he says, because you know he is perfect. You don't need to question what he does, you can, but you are foolish to do so.

Consider the fact that God is infinite in intelligence and wisdom. If God is that much more intelligent and wise than all of us, then everything that is going on is going to create the outcome that God wants.

God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do when he created them. He knew what Satan would do when he created him. This is all part of his plan, and even though we don't understand it now, we know based on God's nature that it is the best way to create the outcome that God wants.

So what if you think it's stupid. You're so far below God in intelligence and wisdom that you cannot comprehend let alone justify criticizing what God is doing.

For us to question someone who is so much better than us is foolish. It's like an ant trying to comprehend quantum physics times infinity.



Perhaps, I hope you choose well.


I hope you choose well too.



I'll take a pass on this one (untill shown proof that God actually exists)


All you need to do is read the Book of Revelations and watch what is occuring in the world. Soon enough events will occur that are specifically mentioned in the Bible. Other than the already mentioned creation of Israel.



And these end of day predictions have been coming for how long now? It seems to me that in any given period some christians are seeing signs that the end is near and yet here we are.

Those predictions were based on a lack of information. Setting dates is foolish, the Bible says so. It says to look for signs, and we haven't seen these signs until now.

They used to think that the creation of Israel was some metaphorical thing, because Israel didn't exist as a nation for almost 2000 years. Or that the US was Israel of the last days. The Bible specifically mentions that Israel would reform as a nation in the last days, and that her people would be brought back from the nations of the earth to her, which happened in 1948. It says that the generation that sees this will not pass before Jesus returns. I would argue that you cannot misinterpret that based on current events.

It said that Israel would be reformed and that her people would come back. It happened in 1948... What is your explaination for that? Wait I have it. They read the prophecy and wanted to make it come true. That means that it was a self fulfilling prophecy, so it wasn't really supernatural. I guess that means when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and did all those other things to fulfill prophecy of his coming, he wasn't really fulfilling it because he knew what he was doing?

Prophecy is prophecy, and predicting that Israel would come back as a nation when it hasn't been for almost 2000 years is pretty darn miraculous don't you think?

Just because some people have misinterpreted the Bible an prophecy does not mean that all people have. I would also argue that after the fact is the only way to truly know what was meant, such as the Israel becoming a nation again. Metaphoric arguments fall to the wayside when you see the creation of the State of Israel.

Given that such a prophecy came true, don't you think that it's important to take a look at the Bibles other prophecies?

How about Daniel who said that in the last days knowledge will increase? We have seen an explosion of knowledge in the last 100 years. We went from horse an carriage to landing a man on the moon in essentially half a century.

Or when Jesus said that natural disasters will increase. Natural disasters have gone up 400% in the last 20 years btw.

http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html


The number of natural disasters around the world has increased by more than four times in the last 20 years, according to a report released by the British charity Oxfam. Oxfam analyzed data from the Red Cross, United Nations and researchers at Louvain University in Belgium. It found that the earth is currently experiencing approximately 500 natural disasters per year, compared with 120 per year in the early 1980s. The number of weather-related disasters in 2006 was 240, compared with 60 in 1980.

At the same time, the number of geologically related natural disasters has held steady. Oxfam has attributed the increasing disaster rate to global warming


That isn't to say that it is a definite sign that the end is near. After all, he also said that they would be like birth pangs. We know that they come in cycles, and they get closer together and stronger as the time of birth nears.

So we can expect, disease, famine, natural disasters all to increase over time. It doesn't say how they increase, be it because of too many people, etc... but that doesn't matter. What matters is that they are increasing.

[Amazer]

I think you do. If you don't have the whole picture then your view of good and evil is different.
The problem with your approach is that it is completely impossible to determine what is good or what is evil because you will never have the whole picture.

Let me ask you this; Osama Bin Laden planning and executing 9/11... was that good or evil? I know the answer

I mean, some people think it's immoral to download information from the internet. That's a little warped, don't you think?
Depends realy on the type of information being downloaded, doesn't it?

The basic agreement is there. Anything that differs from there is due to their human nature not liking what they read. So they end up changing the meaning in order for it to fit into their world paradigm./QUOTE]
Cute, but not true... for example Mormons consider themselves christians but there are plenty of other christians who disagree with that statement.

[QUOTE]Jesus died on the cross, and rose on the third day. You can only be saved by believing in him, but faith without works is dead. I think that's pretty straight forward. Those people who argue that it's works or just faith are not following what the Bible says.

There is such a thing as a wrong interpretation, and it's usually quit obvious./QUOTE]
It's obvious if you disagree with the interpretation, but since there are plenty of others who still subscribe to the 'wrong' interpretation it should be glaringly clear that it is not quit so obvious as you make it out to be.

[QUOTE]You have to judge christians based on their works. You shall know them by their works. If someone professes to be a christian, yet they are doing non christian things, you can safely say they are not christians.

Jesus will reject them in the end.


Well, according to some historians. There were bones outside the old Temple before it was destroyed. They were there as a reminder of what happened in the past.

I can easily see such things being hidden away if found today. Either because collectors want them for their personal collection, or some group doesn't want that sort of world view to come out in the open.

Not everyone is scientific and looking to have the truth out in the open.
And forego their fifteen minutes of fame? Me thinks you are being a little to paranoid.

There are many stories of people finding giant bones in North America, even stories of giants from Native American tribes. There are stories of giants all around the world actually. They are always waring and evil too.
There are plenty of stories of people seeing big foot... sometimes stories are just that, stories.

Think of how many graves have we found of people who lived 4 thousand years ago. There were hundreds of millions of people alive, yet how many skeletons do we have? How many devices have we found of ancient times?
I agree that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. But if you want to realy convince me that Nephilim existed and were evil, you'll need to come up with something more substantial than stories.

The sands of time are great at wiping out all information that a people even existed. So to argue that because there is no credible scientific evidence they existed, and ignoring any stories as hearsay, is foolish imo.
I'm not ignoring those stories, i'm also not giving those stories any more credibility then I do any other stories without supporting evidence.

If there is a general story that carries around the world I think that we need to take a serious look at why it is in so many cultures.
Be my guest to have this serious look and get back to me when you have done so.


What is compeling evidence?
You know, evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical world wide flood happened.

He isn't invisible though, and it's all a matter of your perspective as to seeing the evidence. If you take the scientific perspective then sure, there's no direct evidence, beyond prophecies that you can explain away however you want.
So which perspective do I need to see God?

I think that is the point though. God is looking for seekers of truth, and the evidence is there if you are willing to search for it.
I have searched, am still searching, and so far no evidence....

You cannot argue that the things that Jesus taught wouldn't make the world a better place though.
I'm not even remotely interested in having such an argument.

In any case, at some point in the near future, there will be events that will occure that no one will be able to ignore.
Get back to me once these events actually happen... i won't be holding my breath though.

I know very few Atheists who are indifferent. They usually have strong views on religion and it's evils. I find that militant atheists like this had a bad religious experience in the past and hold a grudge ever since./QUOTE]
Well, that is just me then... I don't particulary care if christians tell me how I should live. Their opinion usually doesn't mean enough to me to actually bring about change.

[QUOTE]That's just my opinion though.
Noted

The point is to trust God enough to follow what he says, because you know he is perfect. You don't need to question what he does, you can, but you are foolish to do so.
Yes sure, that is how the most atrocious actions are allowed to come about.

Consider the fact that God is infinite in intelligence and wisdom. If God is that much more intelligent and wise than all of us, then everything that is going on is going to create the outcome that God wants.
Then he shouldn't complain if I have a few questions for him...

God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do when he created them. He knew what Satan would do when he created him. This is all part of his plan, and even though we don't understand it now, we know based on God's nature that it is the best way to create the outcome that God wants.
Do you have any idea how contradictory that sounds? He knows what each of us is going to do before we even do it. From that it follows that he should be aware of the outcome. So it realy doesn't matter what I do, the outcome is already what God wants. Or is He a poor planner?

So what if you think it's stupid. You're so far below God in intelligence and wisdom that you cannot comprehend let alone justify criticizing what God is doing.
You make it sound so cool to be part of your gang....

For us to question someone who is so much better than us is foolish. It's like an ant trying to comprehend quantum physics times infinity.
Difference being that the ant is not going to be condemn the ant to hell for asking silly questions.

I hope you choose well too.
I'm fairly certain I have

All you need to do is read the Book of Revelations and watch what is occuring in the world. Soon enough events will occur that are specifically mentioned in the Bible. Other than the already mentioned creation of Israel.
I'm not holding my breath