Leather vs Cotton?

[François Lesueur]

Can someone here help me please? I have been challenged to explain to an ID person why her God would waste time on such trivial matters if they were not for a purpose. The Passage in question is Genesis 3:21
I told here fairy tails are meant to be mysterious. However, I would like a more scientific answer to her question.
If this is the wrong forum for this topic, then I apologize.
I know you arrogant Sob’s will tell me.:p However, If one of you can help me lead her to the truth I would be thankful.:D

[H3LL]

Genesis 3:21:
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

You want a scientific explanation of the actions of a god?!?

You might be waiting a while.

I'll go with just plain Absurd (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html).

Welcome to the forums BTW.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. --Gen 3:21 (AV)

This is one of those things that only can be explained (or needs to be explained) if you accept the literal truth of the story.

Tell her that your god would not be so petty. Since you don't accept that the incident happened, you don't need to explain why it happened.

Challenge her to prove that the story is true.

[Meadmaker]

I don't get it. What is the argument?

Brief recap of story: Adam and Eve eat the fruit, realize they are naked, and throw on some fig leaves. God catches up to them, explains that they are in real trouble, and gives them some clothes made of skins.

Is her argument, or yours, that animal based clothing is better than plant based clothing, because God gave them skins?

The way I read the story, the issue is that the hastily thrown together fig leaves really just weren't doing the job and would fall apart, so He gave them some real clothes.

Analogous situation: You arrive home unexpectedly in the middle of the afternoon and, from the basement you hear sounds of hurrying and hushed voices. You go downstairs to see your teenage daughter and her boyfriend wrapped in towels. You probably are a bit upset, and probably say a few things, one of which is "And put some real clothes on!"

The issue is not that you really hate Terry Cloth as a fabric.

[triadboy]

The second creation story comes from 800-1000 BC. It is a monster 'just so' story.

We see the 'just so' story explaining why snakes don't have legs and flick their tongue out and in so much - they are eating dust! :)

This is the point also that separates gods and men: If we had eaten from the other tree we would be gods too.

This story explains why men have to work and women have pain during childbirth.

It also says that God made us clothes to hide out nakedness.

This is a mythic creation story - redacted through the years.

This god is different then the NT god - and different then the god of the Babylonian Exile (560 BC)

The references to "us' (gods) - reveals this story comes from a polytheistic time and was never changed by the "P" author during the Exile - probably due to the familiarity of the story.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
Can someone here help me please? I have been challenged to explain to an ID person why her God would waste time on such trivial matters if they were not for a purpose. The Passage in question is Genesis 3:21 I don't really see the point of the question. You could point at some detail in a Greek or a Norse myth, and ask why Zeus or Thor would do such-and-such a thing if it wan't for a purpose. As questions go, it seems to be a complete non sequitur. What's the relevance to Intelligent Design, as such?

[François Lesueur]

And to you H3LL, Thank you for the welcome, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar.
Now, I must apologize to the enlightened fraternity of higher educated here, in the matter that I have left out some facts. Some of these I will disclose of and some I will not, At least not as of yet. Although, those with a slightly higher testosterone level would surly be ahead of the curve.hehehehe!
OK. Here goes.. My ID nemesis explained to me that The Bible (Christian) was the proof that there was a living God because of the fact that in Genesis, God had pre-planned the death of Jesus Christ by laying down the gauntlet that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of rebellion against the laws that God had established. Therefore, the animal skins represented innocent blood that paid the price for the guilty sin against God and his command to not sin (Eat of the tree). This is why God killed the innocent to pay for the transgressions of those before. Thus, laid the framework for Jesus Christ to die and shed his blood for the world’s transgressions.


“I hope this makes sense? I wrote the notes on my PDA when i got back to my cubical at work after our discussion.(lunch)
So please don't CRUCIFY me if I got something lost in translation! Thanks folks.

This person is very educated so the just plain old fairy tale stuff for rebutal does'nt work.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
proof that there was a living God because of the fact that in Genesis, God had pre-planned the death of Jesus Christ by laying down the gauntlet that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of rebellion against the laws that God had established.

Therefore, the animal skins represented innocent blood that paid the price for the guilty sin against God and his command to not sin (Eat of the tree). This is why God killed the innocent to pay for the transgressions of those before. Thus, laid the framework for Jesus Christ to die and shed his blood for the world’s transgressions.

So an imaginary creature planned the death of a made-up person for a random cruel purpose according to arbitrary rules allegedly made by the previously mentioned imaginary creature and a chance object is somehow connected to all this for no reason at all and people must die. Therefore, the imaginary creature must exist and ergo the stories of the made-up person must also be true.

Yup! I'm convinced. This is the finest proof I've ever seen. :D

Your "well educated" person doesn't seem to be able to construct anything other than ever decreasing circles.

So, "god exists because god says so".

Weak....very weak...but a common xian approach.

[Meadmaker]

She cites this as "proof"? Whatever.

She obviously is thinking of the Bible as a completely consistent document, whose sections reinforce each other. Try and get her to questions some of her assumptions about the Bible.

I might try something along these lines:

The Genesis story is often portrayed as nothing more than the consequence of disobedience to God. God says don't eat from the tree. They eat from the tree. Therefore, they are cursed.

Personally, I think that misses the point.

Which tree did they eat from? Isn't that significant? It wasn't just any old tree. They ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before they ate from that tree, they didn't know what was good, and what was evil.

So, their disobedience to God wasn't a "sin" in the usual sense. A sin is a deliberate act that is done, knowing that it is wrong. These people didn't know that it was wrong to disobey God. They couldn't. They had no knowledge of good and evil. It wasn't until after they ate from the Tree that they realized it was wrong.

So the shedding of innocent blood shouldn't have been necessary, because there wasn't any actual sin.

This needs some more thought, and some study of the Bible, which I don't have handy at the moment, but you might try to focus on proving that the two situations cannot be analogous, because the nature of the sin was completely different. Those sins committed by Adam and Eve after the apple, and by their descendants (us) were willful sins, committed by people who understood the nature of sin. The "original sin" was entirely different. Without the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they couldn't truly "sin".

[triadboy]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
God had pre-planned the death of Jesus Christ by laying down the gauntlet that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of rebellion against the laws that God had established.

Wouldn't it suck if there was a god and he was like this?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by triadboy
Wouldn't it suck if there was a god and he was like this? I couldn't have said it better. Whenever I contemplate the notions about god I can't help but wonder if this is true couldn't a supreme being come up with a better idea?

[neutrino_cannon]

I dunno, but look at all the goofy rules concerning different types of cloth and what to do with them when they get mildewed in Leviticus. Maybe leather v cotton holds some sort of symbolic importance in the Old Testament.

I dunno.

[François Lesueur]

Originally posted by triadboy
Wouldn't it suck if there was a god and he was like this?
Exactly my point as well, and were my thoughts through my teenage years. However, she claims that the reason we all exsist in the first place is to prove to all of creation, in every dimension that God the creator is a loving God he wants a relationship with someone that is independent in thier thinking.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
However, she claims that the reason we all exsist in the first place is to prove to all of creation, in every dimension that God the creator is a loving God he wants a relationship with someone that is independent in thier thinking.

God wants friends? Well, he has yet another thing in common with Casper the Friendly Ghost.

I wonder if God, too, resembles Richie Rich coated in mayonnaise?*



*Please note that I said "mayonnaise", and nothing else.

[c4ts]

Hmmmm... the way I see it, God wants us to skin animals so we may wear leather and fur. Therefore cotton is a sin.

[The Blind Painter]

Maybe leather v cotton holds some sort of symbolic importance in the Old Testament.

Well, remember that Abel's sacrifice of freshly burnt critters was more pleasing to God than Cain's fruits 'n' veggies....

But that brings up the point about what sin means in this context. The OT idea of sin seems to be disobedience of God. Meadmaker, your assessment of the concept of Original Sin is thorough and well-spoken, but it depends on a modern view of sin's definition. The stories of the OT, for the most part, are about people who did or didn't do God's will and what happened to them as a result of their obedience/disobedience.

In response to François Lesueur's friend's claim that the animal hides represented the blood of the innocents, those skins given to A & E were just clothes, obtained by utilizing a resource. A living, breathing resource, but a resource nonetheless. Animals were not seen as possessing souls, and were only the property of man (some reference about man being "steward of the earth" would be nice here, but I can't remember the verse...). Therefore the blood of the animals killed to make those leather duds wouldn't have to be redeemed by that of Christ. (I'm a former Fundie, for full disclosure.)

[TragicMonkey]

I was just going to subscribe to the theory that God has a leather fetish.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
[snip]
OK. Here goes.. My ID nemesis explained to me that The Bible (Christian) was the proof that there was a living God because of the fact that in Genesis, God had pre-planned the death of Jesus Christ by laying down the gauntlet that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of rebellion against the laws that God had established.
[snip]

I know other people have already touched in their replies (especially Meadmaker), but I strongly suggest this article (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) for a bit deeper delving into the absurdity of the Genesis and Jesus dying for our sins stories. I personally couldn't have expressed it better than this.

[Manny]

Originally posted by The Blind Painter
Well, remember that Abel's sacrifice of freshly burnt critters was more pleasing to God than Cain's fruits 'n' veggies....

But that brings up the point about what sin means in this context. The OT idea of sin seems to be disobedience of God. Meadmaker, your assessment of the concept of Original Sin is thorough and well-spoken, but it depends on a modern view of sin's definition. The stories of the OT, for the most part, are about people who did or didn't do God's will and what happened to them as a result of their obedience/disobedience.
An alternate interpretation:

François Lesueur, you say you're leaving out some facts. I'm going to take a WAG here and say that one of those facts is that you're aiming to bed your ID ladyfriend. If that's the case, consider the following.

A) According to her, "The animal skins represented innocent blood that paid the price for the guilty sin against God and his command to not sin (Eat of the tree). This is why God killed the innocent to pay for the transgressions of those before. Thus, laid the framework for Jesus Christ to die and shed his blood for the world’s transgressions."

B) According to the plain text of Genesis, God found the sacrifice of innocent animals more pleasing than offerings of the fruit of the earth.

C) Combining A and B, God must find sin pleasing to Him.

D) Sex outside the sanctity of marriage is a sin.

E) Indeed, the whole panoply of pleasureseeking for its own sake is a sin.

F) Combining D&E, really freaky, kinky extramarital sex is a really big sin.

G) She should dress in leather and the two of you should have kinky sex. QED.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
OK. Here goes.. My ID nemesis explained to me that The Bible (Christian) was the proof that there was a living God because of the fact that in Genesis, God had pre-planned the death of Jesus Christ by laying down the gauntlet that innocent blood had to be shed to cover the sins of rebellion against the laws that God had established. Therefore, the animal skins represented innocent blood that paid the price for the guilty sin against God and his command to not sin (Eat of the tree). This is why God killed the innocent to pay for the transgressions of those before. Thus, laid the framework for Jesus Christ to die and shed his blood for the world’s transgressions.

I hope this makes sense? No, not really. Sticking the words "thus" and "therefore" between unrelated sentences doesn't make them related.

Also, if your friend is allowed to interpret the Bible according to an arbitrary symbolic interpretation which she makes up, then the Bible could mean anything she chooses. It could be all about car maintainance --- described in symbolic terms.

Also, something can be confirmatory of a hypothesis only if the opposite observation would tend to refute it. Now if this passage was not in the Bible, it would not occur to your theist friend, or anyone else, to go about saying that this disproved the existence of God.

And finally, assuming the truth of Genesis is also to assume the thing that she wishes to prove, namely the existence of God. But that is the question under debate. Before she can claim that Genesis has evidential value, she must indeed show that it's more than a fairy tale, and the whopping great factual inaccuracies in it make it very plain that it is just that.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by The Blind Painter
The OT idea of sin seems to be disobedience of God. Meadmaker, your assessment of the concept of Original Sin is thorough and well-spoken, but it depends on a modern view of sin's definition. The stories of the OT, for the most part, are about people who did or didn't do God's will and what happened to them as a result of their obedience/disobedience.


I agree. (Also full disclosure: Former devout Catholic). That's basically what we were taught as well. It is generally presented as a very simple story. God says don't eat. They ate. God is angry.

But, after a few non-Christian years, I picked up the Bible again, and read Genesis, and I found a somewhat different story than what I had remembered. It's a very interesting story, really.

Here are Adam and Eve, living perfectly happy lives, running around naked, first among the animals, but not all that different from the animals. Along comes The Serpent (not identified until much, much, later as Satan) and the Serpent promises them that they will be like gods if they eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Before they had knowledge of good and evil, they were happy, naked, and living in paradise. No problems. No worries. Suddenly, though, they know good and evil, and they realize they are naked. "Who told you you were naked?"

So I found a story that really talks about man, and what separates him from the animals, with a lot of metaphorical interest, which will have to wait for another day, or thread, or time.

[Meadmaker]

So how does this waxing poetic about metaphors in the Book of Genesis relate to Francois' problem?

One mistake that non-believers make when discussing issues with believers is forgetting that the believers really are believers. They really believe this stuff. As such, you can't argue with them successfully from outside the system. They will come up with some reason that their ideas really are right, and no matter how tortured the rationalization may seem to an outsider, from inside the box everything seems ok. (Look up cud chewing rabbits on google sometime.)

So, in discussing the issues, you have to somehow get inside their space and rattle the ideas around in such a way that things somehow get rearranged. In this case, you could try to provide a rational argument about why God wouldn't need to send a son to atone for sins, but that wouldn't work. Instead, I've suggested one possible way to come at the discussion from inside the framework of a Bible Believer.

Use the words of the Bible to question the premise. The premise is that the sin of Adam and Eve is analogous to the sins of all men. The atonement for the sins is therefore the shedding of innocent blood, and the animals who made the skins are therefore analogous to Christ. So, I've suggested one way to suggest that the sin of Adam and Eve can't be considered equivalent to your garden variety sin. (No pun intended with "garden variety") They can't be equivalent because the Bible says they didn't know anything about sin.

Will this work? I doubt it, but you never know. It's just a different way of going about addressing the problem. If you use the words of the Bible to try and get someone thinking about the Bible, they might start questioning what they think they know.

Or they might just say, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"

[François Lesueur]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
So how does this waxing poetic about metaphors in the Book of Genesis relate to Francois' problem?

One mistake that non-believers make when discussing issues with believers is forgetting that the believers really are believers. They really believe this stuff. As such, you can't argue with them successfully from outside the system. They will come up with some reason that their ideas really are right, and no matter how tortured the rationalization may seem to an outsider, from inside the box everything seems ok. (Look up cud chewing rabbits on google sometime.)

So, in discussing the issues, you have to somehow get inside their space and rattle the ideas around in such a way that things somehow get rearranged. In this case, you could try to provide a rational argument about why God wouldn't need to send a son to atone for sins, but that wouldn't work. Instead, I've suggested one possible way to come at the discussion from inside the framework of a Bible Believer.

Use the words of the Bible to question the premise. The premise is that the sin of Adam and Eve is analogous to the sins of all men. The atonement for the sins is therefore the shedding of innocent blood, and the animals who made the skins are therefore analogous to Christ. So, I've suggested one way to suggest that the sin of Adam and Eve can't be considered equivalent to your garden variety sin. (No pun intended with "garden variety") They can't be equivalent because the Bible says they didn't know anything about sin.

Will this work? I doubt it, but you never know. It's just a different way of going about addressing the problem. If you use the words of the Bible to try and get someone thinking about the Bible, they might start questioning what they think they know.

Or they might just say, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"


You got it goin on bro'! However, as you stated "Will this work? I doubt it, but you never know." does hold true. The reason she states is because FREE WILL leads to a decision that was nonconducive to Gods will. This therefore laid the groundwork for individuality and freedom of thinking and choice. If we were created as robots then we would have not sinned. By sinning against our creator we have proven to all of creation that God the creator is true to his creation by giving freewill.??????????

Does this make sense???

This somehow plays into the Lucifer rebellion in a different dimention?
I dunno?:v:
I just wanna:rub: this girls wild thang and she keeps playing games.

Thanks folks for all your worldly input.

[Meadmaker]

Well, it does seem that my argument won't work, because Adam and Eve had free will, even if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil. So, in their carefree state, they used their free will to bite the apple, and only then realized they had done wrong. And God killed some goats for them to atone, at least temporarily until Jesus got there, for their inadvertent sin.

On the other hand, my argument might work extremely well, or you might be able to come up with one that does work equally well because, after all, what is your real goal here? Is it Biblical knowledge, or is it knowledge in the Biblical sense?

You might just impress her so much with your knowledge of the Bible, despite your lack of true understanding, that she might just enter your life to save you from Hell. It has been known to happen. Religious girls love a chance to save a soul now and then.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
You might just impress her so much with your knowledge of the Bible, despite your lack of true understanding, that she might just enter your life to save you from Hell. It has been known to happen. Religious girls love a chance to save a soul now and then.

I hope nobody's vulgar enough to say something about how religious girls spend a lot of time on their knees.

Crap, I just did. Okay, I'm vulgar. I'm a monkey, what did you expect?

[Beerina]

Originally posted by triadboy
This is the point also that separates gods and men: If we had eaten from the other tree we would be gods too.


Note the difference between gods and men are:

1. Knowledge of good and evil
2. Eternal life

That's it. Our reasoning power is that of a god -- it's the domain of items in which we think that is the limiting factor. And expanding it to good and evil completes a human's god-ization, mentally. All that is left is the end of death.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
The reason she states is because FREE WILL leads to a decision that was nonconducive to Gods will. This therefore laid the groundwork for individuality and freedom of thinking and choice. If we were created as robots then we would have not sinned. By sinning against our creator we have proven to all of creation that God the creator is true to his creation by giving freewill.??????????

Does this make sense???

This somehow plays into the Lucifer rebellion in a different dimention?
I dunno?:v:
I just wanna:rub: this girls wild thang and she keeps playing games.

Thanks folks for all your worldly input. [/B]

Hello, if thats what shes saying, shes doing pretty good.

:)

When it gets into symbolism and what things mean one needs a score card to keep track. This is something that is often forgotten about the bible, there is alot of meaning of very small details that fit nicely with others. Even though written over a long period of time.


As for your intentions, its your choice ;) always is.

[Meadmaker]

I was thinking about this and realized the appeal that arguments like this one about goat skins hold to the believers.

Suppose God had given us no free will. Then it would be easy for us. We could have just stayed in Paradise, totally unconcerned about why we shouldn't eat from that tree over there. But God gave us free will, and things got complicated.

Suppose God had just written down, in plain legal language, what was expected of us, and what our fate would be. Then it would be easy for us. Instead, he gave us a Bible with some deep, hidden, meanings, and some apparent contradications.

Of course, the only ones who will be able to find those hidden meanings and resolve those apparent contradictions are those who sincerely strive toward God, and are willing to devote a great deal of time toward the study of His Word. Thus, once again, God's glory is revealed in that he allows only the believer to grasp the truth of His message.

If a goat skin is just a goat skin, then it wouldn't be very interesting, but the true believer can see that it is a symbol of the salvation to come.

I wonder where else goat skins might be mentioned in the Bible, and whether you could score some points by noting that in other places, goat skins seem to have a different meaning altogether, which obviously means further Bible study is necessary.

[Kitty Chan]

Meadmaker

One of the things you say wont work, because God did tell Adam

Dont eat of the tree

pretty plain

the girl knows this . . .

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Meadmaker

One of the things you say wont work, because God did tell Adam

Dont eat of the tree

pretty plain

the girl knows this . . .

Certainly Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but did they sin?

I was taught, by Catholics, that sin was a willful act. You know right from wrong, and you choose wrong.

Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until after they chomped on the apple.

[François Lesueur]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Certainly Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but did they sin?

I was taught, by Catholics, that sin was a willful act. You know right from wrong, and you choose wrong.

Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until after they chomped on the apple.

Ooh Dave... Be serious would you..
Meadmaker remember this line from American werewolf in London? Only thought of it because of your siggy.

Any how, I have vehemently used the "Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until after they chomped on the apple",
and her reply is always that this is the crux of the reason why there is ID behind all of creation. She states that God did not tell them it was a sin or anything else. He simply said to them NOT to eat or they will DIE! This is the creation of sin which is to go against what God has said is good for us. The punishment for not abiding by Gods will is death. She states that God has laid down an order to the universe and that anything that crosses this order must bare the brunt of the outcome. Example would be that you tell your child not to touch the hot stove or they will get burned. The Fire on the stove has already been created to release its energy to burn you, you have been created to choose to touch or not to touch. If you touch you will be burned. God knowing all, knows you will touch so in his infinite wisdom prepares a way out for your injury (sin) which is (Jesus).
IE Innocent salve to cover the mistake.

I feel like I am a junior college law student going up against a supreme court professor. Also I honestly have found a more intelectual attraction towards this person than sexual as time has gone on. Am I weird? Thank you kind folks for all the great wisdom you share and that I lack.
Peace :)

Also in my research I found a quit humorous cartoon.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/cartoons/20000313.gif

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
Any how, I have vehemently used the "Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until after they chomped on the apple",
and her reply is always that this is the crux of the reason why there is ID behind all of creation. She states that God did not tell them it was a sin or anything else. He simply said to them NOT to eat or they will DIE! This is the creation of sin which is to go against what God has said is good for us. The punishment for not abiding by Gods will is death. She states that God has laid down an order to the universe and that anything that crosses this order must bare the brunt of the outcome. Example would be that you tell your child not to touch the hot stove or they will get burned. The Fire on the stove has already been created to release its energy to burn you, you have been created to choose to touch or not to touch. If you touch you will be burned. God knowing all, knows you will touch so in his infinite wisdom prepares a way out for your injury (sin) which is (Jesus)

But considering they have never experienced death (as far as I remember, nothing started to die in the garden of Eden until they messed it up), they cannot possibly be expected to know the consequences of dying. Again, they hardly know anything at all. They don't even know about "good" or "evil", which in itself are two abstract concepts. They are at the mental level of uneducated children.

And of course, against these two uneducated children, God puts of the tree of Knowledge, right in front of them. Especifically right in front of them, instead of placing it on a remote mountain top, or better yet, not create it at all. Why on earth put it there, except as to tempt Adam and Eve. It placed it there specifially to tempt them, and he also knew damn well they would be tempted (since amongst other things, with the help of the snake. To call this a sin is absurd in itself. And to condemn the entire mankind for it...

...And then he puts up Jesus several millenia afterwards to "save us" for being sinners. Which would have been nicer if it wasn't for the fact that God was the main responsible to make us sinners in the first place. And if Jesus had actually done a proper sacrifice, instead of withstanding an amount of pain that isn't the worst amount of pain a human can withstand by far (and since he's apparently the "son of god", it's pretty certain he can withstand far more than that should he wish.) And then he "dies", except not really, because he's got all these nice superpowers that allows him to stop being dead whenever he wants. Oh yeah, dying becomes a reaaaal sacrifice when you can do that.[/sarcasm]

Again, referring you to this link (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) for a trip through the absurdity of it all. Of course, it is all a rather moot point as it more likely never happened at all.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by François Lesueur
. Also I honestly have found a more intelectual attraction towards this person than sexual as time has gone on. Am I weird?

So it's working! You are actually getting to know her as a person, instead of just a potential sexual partner. The Good Lord works in strange and mysterious ways.