Here me out:

God's command was "Do not eat from the tree".

Let's assume that Adam and Eve had gone to the tree, had taken an apple, had taken a bite, had chewed and then spitted it out. Would God still have been upset? They wouldn't have technically eaten from the tree?

I promise i'll reply when i'm sober.

They only ate from the tree because satan (the snake?) told them to, right?

I asked the question about the tree, and got some pretty smart answers form my friends...lol...and they're athiest.

something like...taking a bite from the fruit form the tree of knowledge gave us knowledge and thats how we can feel pain. On topic, i suppose it wouldnt matter because the big man told us not to eat...and you know...kinda screwed it up for all of us.

Every mythology has a story

of a god who gave forbidden

knowledge to humans, and then

was eternally punished for it.

The bible gets it's story from

one of those, just like the

noah's ark myth.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Every mythology has a story

of a god who gave forbidden

knowledge to humans, and then

was eternally punished for it.

The bible gets it's story from

one of those, just like the

noah's ark myth.

And that is relevant to my question, how?

I asked a pseudo-philosophical question. Can we loophole divine commandments? Like exploiting a bug in the system.... I'll just shut up now http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

They only ate from the tree because satan (the snake?) told them to, right?

Satan = one of Gods creations...completley under the control of God.

No. We couldn't have exploited some bug in the system, because there IS no system. We may have had freewill, but our fate was determined.

Besides, say Adam did spit it back out, and then said to God " I didn't eat it!"

If God were displeased (Which a perfect being can never be), he'd simply rewind time, and MAKE Adam take and swallow the apple.

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

They only ate from the tree because satan (the snake?) told them to, right?

God says: Dont not eat of the tree of knowledge or you will die.

Satan says: God lies to you about dying if you eat form the tree of knowledge. For he knows that on that day. You become as Gods yourself with the knowledge of good and evil.

So They eat and don't die. So what died? It was their innocence that was lost. But God made it seem as if their very being would be lost. THis is how satan found a loop pole in things and used it to his adavantage.

I don't believe this a true story, mind you I'm just recounting how was suppost to go.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

So They eat and don't die. So what died? It was their innocence that was lost. But God made it seem as if their very being would be lost. THis is how satan found a loop pole in things and used it to his adavantage.



I would argue and say that since God is perfect, his plans are perfect, and there could be no loop pole in his creation....

but I believe this is irrelevant to life itself.

quote:Can we loophole divine commandments?

No. It's God. You can't trick God.

And even if you weasel around some commandment, who is going to stop God from putting the smackdown on you anyway? God's mum? I don't think so.

quote:Originally posted by 256:

No. It's God. You can't trick God.

And even if you weasel around some commandment, who is going to stop God from putting the smackdown on you anyway? God's mum? I don't think so.

Since God is just, if you managed to find a loophole in his law (impossible, since He is perfect), he would be forced to concede the point.

quote:Originally posted by 256:

No. It's God. You can't trick God.

And even if you weasel around some commandment, who is going to stop God from putting the smackdown on you anyway? God's mum? I don't think so.

Since God is just, if you managed to find a loophole in his law (impossible, since He is perfect), he would be forced to concede the point.

But to the poster, for a more in-depth discussion of the Garden of Eden story, read Paradise Lost. Not only is it great prose, but you get a really good view of the story from the eyes of a (Catholic? What was Milton, anyway).

The idea is that by taking the fruit they gained something (knowledge of good and evil), but lost a whole lot - it's supposed to represent the nature of mankind, if I interpret it correctly - that we'll sacrifice almost anything for knowledge (also see: Oedipus Rex for a more colorful version of the story)

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

I would argue and say that since God is perfect, his plans are perfect, and there could be no loop pole in his creation....

but I believe this is irrelevant to life itself.

There are some that say if God is perfect and all powerful he would have forseen the devil doing this and put a stop to it.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

There are some that say if God is perfect and all powerful he would have forseen the devil doing this and put a stop to it.



Unless God wanted Adam and Eve to have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment and obedience to Him.

I want to fuck Eve, and that's all that matters.

Um... Id recomend actually reading the Zohar if your interested in all that.

I think the basic point is prior too that event the world was all Right, that is too say it was a world entirly composed of Good things. However in such a world, as all is good, there is in fact no free choice. When Eve ate the apple at the behest of the serpant we were moved too a world composed of both good (Right) and Evil (Left), allowing us free choice and all that Jazz.

By having free choice we are able too decide our place in the world, and therefore, assuming God does have a plan (Unlikly) can opt out.

It's just a myth.

Get over it.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I want to fuck Eve, and that's all that matters.



Kinky ape sex?

In one theory, the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor for the passage from a matriarchical society to patriarchical one. The woman gives power (the apple) to man, convinced by the serpent (man).

I love the topic of this thread

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I want to fuck Eve, and that's all that matters.

That would make you a necrophiliac, seeing how she's been dead now for thousands of years.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

Unless God wanted Adam and Eve to have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment and obedience to Him.

Then that would make him an accessory to the crime. Because he can supposedly see all future events and knew they would fail.



[This message has been edited by Nemisis (edited 03-03-2005).]

Three points:

1) If Adam and Eve had only a bite of the apple and spat it out, magically not swallowing even a granule of apple, then technically they would be off scot-free. This, though, would undoubtedly still piss off God and we all know what God does when he's pissy: floods. God, though it has been argued otherwise, has shown himself to be tempermental as a yak and, as such, can only really be seen as a metaphor for correct choices in life rather than a true, jsut, physical (spiritual? I think you know what I mean ehre) being.

2) If there was no free choice, seeing as how only Good decisions could be made and if eating from the tree is considered a bad choice by God, then either there are multiple paths to good, controverting the Biblical approach on the matter, as otherwise there could be no choice if one knows no evil, or God's creation was fundamentally flawed, either on purpose or not. If it was on purpose, then he is not jsut as he would ahve damned a creation to a life of pain and damnation before it had even existed and if it were not on purpose, then God is fallible.

3) Beyond all of this, the story still is representative of one fact: Placed in ideal conditions, a human will still find a way to ruin it. We are, by nature, greatly imperfect in action despite our thoughts and this, I would aruge, represents that, though we may do bad, we still are capable of doing good. Nothing removes ability from us. Moral atheism can be a hoot someimes, I swear.

http://imrepublican.topcities.com/Islam/islam.html

quote:Originally posted by Anarky:

Here me out:

God's command was "Do not eat from the tree".

Let's assume that Adam and Eve had gone to the tree, had taken an apple, had taken a bite, had chewed and then spitted it out. Would God still have been upset? They wouldn't have technically eaten from the tree?

I promise i'll reply when i'm sober.

Most certainly.

It wasn't the "fruit" that was forbidden...it was the rebellion.

They technically WOULD have eaten from the tree, but they wouldn't have technically SWALLOWED, which God never talked about.

Disobeying God makes Him angry, just as it does all parents...it's not a hard concept.

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

They only ate from the tree because satan (the snake?) told them to, right?



He didn't tell them to...he tempted them into doing it.

He told them that they wouldn't suffer the consequences that God said they would. He convinced them that they didn't have to respect God's wishes.

He also became the first car salesman, since he basically told them how much smarter and happier they would be (they would be like God in that they would understand both good and evil) if they ate of the fruit.

God could care less about what we understand...what makes him angry is our rebellion against His commandments, which are given for our own good.

If you tell your child not to play with fire, don't you get angry when they do ?

Why ?

Because they could get hurt.

Sin = separation from God.

Separation from God = pain.

Too bad men are so naive...

We'd be in paradise right now.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Anarky:

And that is relevant to my question, how?

I asked a pseudo-philosophical question. Can we loophole divine commandments? Like exploiting a bug in the system.... I'll just shut up now http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

The words "Jimmy" and "relevance" are not synonymous.

So, don't hold your breath.

quote:Originally posted by TOL 3000:

I love the topic of this thread

Me to haha!

Anyway seeing how the bible is just so contradicting and how god can supposedly see the future and is basically perfect in everyway and is just all powerful and all knowing, then why the hell did he blaime us for eating the bloody apple when it was satan who tricked us shouldn't god have let us off the hook after all we didn't know any better at the time, then theres the fact that we have free will so we should have been aloud to eat the bloody apple,

Then theres satan who god apparently created, why would he create satan when if he truely his all powerful aloud him to manipulate us into eating the bloody apple, and isn't god to supposed to be all forgiving as well? so why did he cast us out if he forgives?

Basically what im saying is i dont think god is all powerfull like people think what if he was just some guy who clamied to be god? it actually makes sence if you think about it

Yes i realise im going to get my ass flamed for that but i dont care flame away

Edit: What if god was an alien?

[This message has been edited by Source (edited 03-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I want to fuck Eve, and that's all that matters.

Forget necrophilia... that would be incest, being the mother of everyone, as the "myth" goes...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



He didn't tell them to...he tempted them into doing it.

He told them that they wouldn't suffer the consequences that God said they would. He convinced them that they didn't have to respect God's wishes.

He also became the first car salesman, since he basically told them how much smarter and happier they would be (they would be like God in that they would understand both good and evil) if they ate of the fruit.

God could care less about what we understand...what makes him angry is our rebellion against His commandments, which are given for our own good.

If you tell your child not to play with fire, don't you get angry when they do ?

Why ?

Because they could get hurt.

Sin = separation from God.

Separation from God = pain.

Too bad men are so naive...

We'd be in paradise right now.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



If your child plays with fire and gets hurt, then the most logical thing to do is kick it out of the house?

And of course blind obeying with no understanding is the healthy way for a parent to teach a child.

The most terrible naivety I see here is taking literal moral advice on child-raising from thousands of years old symbolic (or not) stories.

QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

If your child plays with fire and gets hurt, then the most logical thing to do is kick it out of the house?

She was making a comparision of obiedience vs anger. Getting kicked out of Eden was to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, and living forever with the contamination of Sin.

And of course blind obeying with no understanding is the healthy way for a parent to teach a child.

Actually, to a point, it is.. while they are too young to understand things. When a parent tells a toddler not to stick its finger in the socket, the kid generally will anyway. If it is told again, the "why?" response escapes from the kid's mouth. Does a parent say, "because you could get electrocuted" when the child doesnt understand that answer? Maybe the parent will "dumb it down" and say, "because you will get hurt", which justs gets the "why?" response...whether verbally or by the action of heading for the nearest socket to prove to itself. But a swat on the butt, and a "because i said so" is very effective.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

If your child plays with fire and gets hurt, then the most logical thing to do is kick it out of the house?

She was making a comparision of obiedience vs anger. Getting kicked out of Eden was to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, and living forever with the contamination of Sin.

And of course blind obeying with no understanding is the healthy way for a parent to teach a child.

Actually, to a point, it is.. while they are too young to understand things. When a parent tells a toddler not to stick its finger in the socket, the kid generally will anyway. If it is told again, the "why?" response escapes from the kid's mouth. Does a parent say, "because you could get electrocuted" when the child doesnt understand that answer? Maybe the parent will "dumb it down" and say, "because you will get hurt", which justs gets the "why?" response...whether verbally or by the action of heading for the nearest socket to prove to itself. But a swat on the butt, and a "because i said so" is very effective.

When a child is too young to understand, the parents either don't lose it of their sight or make sure danger isn't available to it (baby-proofing). If you think that a child that can ask "why?" cannot understand "because you will get hurt" and that threats, authority and beatings are more effective, that's underestimating it, dumbing it down by refusing to pass knowledge to it, and plain bad parenting. If the child disobeys anyway, the hurt it will receive will be punishment enough and a valuable lesson in trusting its parent in the future. Forbidding without knowledge is the worst way to gain a child's trust.

All that is of course irrelevant to the Genesis story. I don't know how can anyone model their parenting after God. In the Old Testament, it's a God who orders the murder of infants many times. In the New Testament, it's a Father who sacrifices His Son. No matter what attributes you perceive a God to have, he's definitely not a model for mortal parents.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

When a child is too young to understand, the parents either don't lose it of their sight or make sure danger isn't available to it (baby-proofing). If you think that a child that can ask "why?" cannot understand "because you will get hurt" and that threats, authority and beatings are more effective, that's underestimating it, dumbing it down by refusing to pass knowledge to it, and plain bad parenting. If the child disobeys anyway, the hurt it will receive will be punishment enough and a valuable lesson in trusting its parent in the future. Forbidding without knowledge is the worst way to gain a child's trust.

All that is of course irrelevant to the Genesis story. I don't know how can anyone model their parenting after God. In the Old Testament, it's a God who orders the murder of infants many times. In the New Testament, it's a Father who sacrifices His Son. No matter what attributes you perceive a God to have, he's definitely not a model for mortal parents.



You sound like a modern text book for parenting. Have you raised any children?

Also, with all the "molly-coddeling", "politically-correct", "touchy-feeling" crap that passes for parenting these days, there sure are alot of spoiled brats that think the world owes them something. Maybe part of what is wrong in the world today, is that we have strayed from modeling parenting after God.

Gotta go meet my wife to get something to eat.

Oh, and BTW, God sacrificing His Son has nothing to do with parenting. Firstly, He raised His Son from the dead (because of His love for us, where we could not lead a sinless life, where the second Person of the Trinity could). Secondly, Jesus went willingly to the cross, but since He is God, there was no need for the Father to explain to the Son... it has nothing to do with parenting.

And God ordering anyone killed is also a moot point because being the All Just Creator of all things (including life), He knows His WHOLE reason for their death and also to Him, human life and death is part of His plan.

Gotta go eat...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



You sound like a modern text book for parenting. Have you raised any children?

== I do not realize that. No, I have not. But I have been raised and that's enough to know what I'm talking about. If you need more than that, especially books, I think there's something wrong. ==

Also, with all the "molly-coddeling", "politically-correct", "touchy-feeling" crap that passes for parenting these days, there sure are alot of spoiled brats that think the world owes them something. Maybe part of what is wrong in the world today, is that we have strayed from modeling parenting after God.

== Quite a lot of speculation. You have not actually said anything about why you think I'm wrong. There's nothing in what I said that implies spoiling. Maybe I need to clear out that if direct hurt is not involved in the disobeying itself, then the parent is justified to other measures to making his point. ==

Gotta go meet my wife to get something to eat.

== Why do you mention that? Is that supposed to impress anybody? ==

Oh, and BTW, God sacrificing His Son has nothing to do with parenting. Firstly, He raised His Son from the dead (because of His love for us, where we could not lead a sinless life, where the second Person of the Trinity could). Secondly, Jesus went willingly to the cross, but since He is God, there was no need for the Father to explain to the Son... it has nothing to do with parenting.

== Of course it has nothing to do with parenting! That's my whole point. That the actions of a supernatural, immortal being with unknown ends cannot be a model for any mortal parent! ==

And God ordering anyone killed is also a moot point because being the All Just Creator of all things (including life), He knows His WHOLE reason for their death and also to Him, human life and death is part of His plan.

== Ah! That's the convenience with supernatural beings. They solve morality contradictions just like that! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ==

Gotta go eat...

== Bon appetite. ==





EDIT: My answers are in between "==". Sorry, I'm not familiar with a better way to do this.

[This message has been edited by elfstone (edited 03-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:



EDIT: My answers are in between "==". Sorry, I'm not familiar with a better way to do this.



when you hit the reply button, notice that "quote" and "b" have brackets around them.. you can do this anywhere in the text just like you put equal signs... "b" stands for "bold" and "i" stands for itallics.

to end your bold, itallic, or quote tags, do the same at the end but with a slash "/"

Am going to church now, will cover the rest of you response when i get back.

The Garden of Eden story is interesting because since God is omnipotent, he already knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the apple when he was telling them not to. It's a bit of a slippery thing to do.



quote:Originally posted by Source:

Edit: What if god was an alien?



He is, isn't he? He certainly wasn't born on Earth.

Speaking of aliens, here's my favorite commentary on the story, coutesy Douglas Adams:

"I always thought about that Garden of Eden story," said Ford.

"Eh?"

"Garden of Eden. Tree. Apple. That bit, remember?"

"Yes, of course I do."

"Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush and shouting 'Gotcha.'It wouldn't have made any difference is they hadn't eaten it."

"Why not?"

"Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes to leave hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end."

"What are you talking about?"

"Never mind, eat the fruit."



EDIT: I just checked my Bible, and it says that God told Adam and Eve that they couldn't even touch the tree or they'd die.

[This message has been edited by Shadout Mapes (edited 03-07-2005).]

You have no idea what part of you that governs the laws of the universe, everything is obscured by the infestation.

Here's the thing, who is the

talking snake? Where did he come from?

How can this be the "satan",

since he didn't fall yet?

That was later when the angels

were lusting after the women.

And another- why put the tree

there in the first place?

Or another that makes you immortal?

"Behold, the man is become as one of

us, to know 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"

That's why he set up the spinning

fire sword to keep them out!

To be honest i seriously think that this whole thing is just bollocks, i mean if you think about it like this,

Its like playing chineese whispers through history, you can fill a room with 50 people and start off saying something but i bet by the time it gets to the last person its not the same as what you said to the first person,

So you can imagine what its like for 2000 years of history, god and religion, we are more than likely wrong about every thing we know or think we know.

Edit: I still think god was an alien, the whole jesus being raised from the dead and turnin water into whine and healing people sounds like the work of advanced technology to me, also i've seen some paintings and stuff that were painted back in the day that have things in them that look like satellites like the russian satellite sputnik for example, it as god and jesus above this thing that looks like sputnik, then us humans underneith that, i dunno it could be coincidence i guess but its still worth thinking about.

[This message has been edited by Source (edited 03-07-2005).]

Sorry elfstone. I didnt reply when i said i would. I do this often. Sometimes it is simply from procrastination. Other times it is from thinking so long on how to address the 'arguement' that i shove it aside and never get back to it. And still other times, well, i have a family and a life outside of TOTSE and they come first.



I hope you will see why i'm not letting this one slip to the unread section of the post list.



QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

But I have been raised and that's enough to know what I'm talking about. If you need more than that, especially books, I think there's something wrong.[b]



Unfortunately, it isnt always enough. If it were enough, anyone who was raised would, in turn, become model parents. Also, somethings come up in raising a child, that didnt happen to us when we were raised.

To top that off, as most parents of more than one child can tell you, not all "techniques" work with each child... different kids need different approaches.



[b]Quite a lot of speculation. You have not actually said anything about why you think I'm wrong. There's nothing in what I said that implies spoiling. Maybe I need to clear out that if direct hurt is not involved in the disobeying itself, then the parent is justified to other measures to making his point.



Yes, i have pointed out why i think you are wrong... you sound like a modern day parenting book, but you dont have first hand knowledge of raising a child.

But you are right, there was nothing in what you said, that implies spoiling. That is an observation of the different attitudes of kids (and adults) i've seen in my life. It is also an observation of the different "styles" of rearing i've seen over the years, and the general attitude toward belief in Christian teaching as it has changed.



Why do you mention that? Is that supposed to impress anybody?



To me, the conversation on TOTSE are real conversations with real people... not just debates and arguements in computer world. I mentioned that i was going to go do something other than continue to respond to you for a couple of reasons. First, to an extent, i consider TOTSE community to be friends.. face it, we spend an awful lot of time "together". Second, i knew that what i had written was incomplete.

So since you are a real person and this was incomplete, i was trying to give you some idea why it ended.



Ah! That's the convenience with supernatural beings. They solve morality contradictions just like that!



Ok, this is where i'm going to tell my story of yesterday. And hopefully show how God supplies the answers..



We have 4 dogs: Great Dane (Sassy 7 1/2 yo), Husky-Lab mix (Sonya 4yo), Chihuahua (Bongo 2yo ), and Doberman Pincher(Chopper puppy)



We also had a couple of visitors over: Blaize (nephew 12 years old), Briannhah (almost 3 yo)



Sassy has alway been great with kids, even to the point of protecting them. Sonya and Bongo tend to be alittle snippy toward kids. And kids tend to want to prove they can pet the snippy ones to the point that the dogs growl and snap at them... great entertainment for the kids, but a pain in the butt for us, as we are constantly telling the kids to leave the dogs alone (and explaining why) if they dont want to be petted and constantly scolding the dogs for snapping.

This weekend was no different. Both kids were told repeatedly to leave the dogs alone (and why) and the dogs scolded, slapped on the snout and put outside (not fair for the dogs but thats the way it goes).

Things were dying down. Blaize had gone home, but Briannhah (sp? why cant parents use normal, easy to spell names?) who is my step-grandkid (sorta- long story) climbed on the couch that Sassy was laying on (and on Sassy, which has never been a problem before). Sassy usualy gives a warning growl if she doesnt like something but it never goes beyond that. This time was different. She bit Brianhah in the face.. turned out to be not too bad.. couple of stiches in her lip.. could have been much worse.

Anyway, earlier in the day, Sonya had snapped at one of the kids and grabbed her by the scruff of the neck, yelled at her and dragged her outside. My youngest (step-daughter, Amanda 12) was bawling, claiming how mean i was to the dog. I explained that i did it that way because you ahave to address the problem immediatly to let the dog know that it can't do that, and that hopefully the kid would realize that that kid had "gotten the dog in trouble". I was still the evil step-dad.

After the incident with Brianhah, i pointed out to Amanda that, that was what i was trying to prevent earlier. Well, now she understands. (But just as well, it could have been too late. Could have lost an eye, face or even a life.. a two year old head could have fit easily in a great dane mouth, not to mention a temple or throat) Hopefully, Brianhah wont be afraid of dogs the rest of her life, but also, hopefully she will both respect them and the adult that tells her to "leave the doggy alone because you might get hurt".

Now that Amanda understands, i had to explain to her (and tell my wife) that from now on, i have to be an asshole to any kids that are over, reguarding the dogs.

Which brings me to a different problem. Sassy is a member of the family, but since she is getting older and appearantly crabbier, I'm going to have to have her put to sleep. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) I love animals so much, i'd have a hard time drowning a goldfish. We cant do it for ten days.. the dog has to be checked a few times by the vet, to be certain that it does not have rabies.. the shots are up to date, but that is what the law states. And if we would put her down before the ten days, Brianhah would have to go through all the painful rabies shots.

I got to wondering this morning (about having to put a member of my family down), could this be a slight example of how God felt when He sacrificed His Son, for our sake?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by elfstone:

If your child plays with fire and gets hurt, then the most logical thing to do is kick it out of the house?

She was making a comparision of obiedience vs anger. Getting kicked out of Eden was to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, and living forever with the contamination of Sin.

And of course blind obeying with no understanding is the healthy way for a parent to teach a child.

Actually, to a point, it is.. while they are too young to understand things. When a parent tells a toddler not to stick its finger in the socket, the kid generally will anyway. If it is told again, the "why?" response escapes from the kid's mouth. Does a parent say, "because you could get electrocuted" when the child doesnt understand that answer? Maybe the parent will "dumb it down" and say, "because you will get hurt", which justs gets the "why?" response...whether verbally or by the action of heading for the nearest socket to prove to itself. But a swat on the butt, and a "because i said so" is very effective.

This method of teaching leaves the kid with no understanding of the situation though. To think it healthy that ANY animal be taught by a reward and punishment system is insane...if at any point, the rewards OR the punishment are removed, rebellion occurs. Teaching through a thorough explanation allows the child to formulate their own sense of morality and behavior, which they are not likely to rebel against under any circumstances. Words are a better teacher than a spanking could ever be.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

This method of teaching leaves the kid with no understanding of the situation though. To think it healthy that ANY animal be taught by a reward and punishment system is insane...if at any point, the rewards OR the punishment are removed, rebellion occurs. Teaching through a thorough explanation allows the child to formulate their own sense of morality and behavior, which they are not likely to rebel against under any circumstances. Words are a better teacher than a spanking could ever be.



If you notice, i did say, "to a point". The spank is an attention getter. And when used as this, it is a way of trading a small amount of discomfort for the possibility of major damage to the child. And i wish i had used this when dealing with the kids vs. the dogs... it could have saved her from a few stitches (hindsight) fortunately, there is no funeral to attend with a very small casket.

Also, To think it healthy that ANY animal be taught by a reward and punishment system is insane...if at any point, the rewards OR the punishment are removed, rebellion occurs..

This is not entirely true.

example:

Training one of our dogs (the chihuahua) to go potty outside. First let me explain that it is my oldest step-daughter's dog, and she was allowed to get it on a few conditions, on being that SHE train it. She has seen me train our other dogs, so she had a model. She tried to train it her way, which was different from how she was taught.. i took over (because i was sick of stepping in little tootsie rolls and wet spots in the carpet-- which also seemed to get passed on to the other dogs.. to put it into human terms, "if bongo can pee in front of the stereo, so can i") and had to resort to a treat system to undo a year of patience, waiting for a potty trained pooch.

Anyway, after 2 weeks of the treat system, the only "land mines" were accidents. after about two more weeks, no more treats, and no accidents (but he still gets praise- and the occasional treat) and no rebelion. Oh, and BTW, at the begining of me taking over, he got scolded and there was rebellion at that time.

Now i just have to teach him it is ok when i kiss my wife. "grandma" is his. lol

That was an interesting story xtreem, but I don't see how it is related to the discussion at hand. Are you saying that God felt bad for commanding murder but it was essential for His Divine Plan? I won't focus on the Bible's morality contradictions, it's off topic. I still don't see why God, however benevolent, can be a parent model. Your example is a little far fetched and too specific to make a real point. Yeah, OK, a parent comes to a point that has to make sacrifices to benefit his children, true. But an immortal being has properties that forbid any analogy for us. Jesus was God's Son, but so we are His children. Can any mortal parent choose to sacrifice one child for the sake of the other? Remember that God sacrificed JESUS for US. It's like you sacrificing the CHILD for the sake of the DOG. Jesus is also set as a model for christians. Bad mistake for us mortal people. Celibacy could be Jesus's choice but He was on a divine mission that probably required it and He never encouraged it for anyone else. But christians continue to sacrifice aspects of their God-given life properties, something that was never asked of them. In my opinion, if you deny your human nature (that was given by God), by trying to be like God is nothing short of blasphemy. We are already made in His image. Remaining true to that is all that matters. Trying to act like God or Jesus would act (obviously I mean an act with divine significance) is beyond our nature and can't lead to anything good.

I'd like to point something out to you folks. I'll be assuming that Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree. This is at least what the story implies.

Okay, how would they know that it was wrong to eat from the tree? They couldn't. God didn't want Adam or Eve to eat from the tree. So God could only tell them that they'd die if they ate from the tree (or touched it, according to Eve). So the snake comes along and tells them that it's safe to eat from the tree, and that it's good for them. They are convinced and eat from it, and God punishes them -after- they find out it was wrong to disobey Him.

Is God's discipline for their actions just?

The tree thing is bullshit, anyway.

But supposing it were real, then "god" is a fucking retard.

He creates two innocent people who know absolutely nothing.

Since they know nothing, they don't know right from wrong.

So how'd they know about the fruit being bad?

Pfft, creationism, what a load of de_cbble.

Well, the example you gave wasn't the greatest one, but there's probably not many better bible-wise. But the idea, that there are "loopholes" to sinning or God's law.

I don't think so. I think the Bible, mainly the New Testament speaks a lot about "sincerity of heart" that's the term I like to describe it with. So if Adam took a bite, recognizing and realizing God tells him not to "eat of the tree", then I have to assume his intent and physical manifestation of that intent was against God's spirit.

This is of course, to assume that we take the Bible, especially the earliest Old Testament scripture as objective fact and absolute truth, absolute divine proof. Which I don't.

I think one way to look at it, is as ontalogical explanation. An explanation for "human nature" probably. I like to look at it this way. Call me a "theological oppurtunist" or whatever, this is just how I see it.

quote:I don't think so. I think the Bible, mainly the New Testament speaks a lot about "sincerity of heart" that's the term I like to describe it with. So if Adam took a bite, recognizing and realizing God tells him not to "eat of the tree", then I have to assume his intent and physical manifestation of that intent was against God's spirit.

You're assuming that Adam knew that disobeying God was wrong. I know you're not meaning to, but try not to cover your real point behind a bunch of fancy-sounding religious talk. Let's go over the reasons why Adam/Eve did not know right from wrong.

--They had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was only after they ate of the fruit that they felt and understood guilt and shame.

--God did not tell them that it was "wrong" to eat from the tree, He had to use a threat instead.

And then we have God punishing Adam and Eve from eating the tree. What this sounds like to me is an error on behalf of the writer on not noticing this. Yes, I would agree, it's best interpreted as a story with a meaning, rather than a historical event. After all, it was actually an adaptation of the Sumerian story of the creation of man. But since most of the less liberal Christians want it to be taken literally, I did too.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

You're assuming that Adam knew that disobeying God was wrong. I know you're not meaning to, but try not to cover your real point behind a bunch of fancy-sounding religious talk. Let's go over the reasons why Adam/Eve did not know right from wrong.

--They had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was only after they ate of the fruit that they felt and understood guilt and shame.

--God did not tell them that it was "wrong" to eat from the tree, He had to use a threat instead.

And then we have God punishing Adam and Eve from eating the tree. What this sounds like to me is an error on behalf of the writer on not noticing this. Yes, I would agree, it's best interpreted as a story with a meaning, rather than a historical event. After all, it was actually an adaptation of the Sumerian story of the creation of man. But since most of the less liberal Christians want it to be taken literally, I did too.

Actually, a threat of punishment suffices as warning to most people.

And I'm glad you recognized that I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

Alot of people tend to get into personal faith attacks here, especially the newer folks.

quote:Actually, a threat of punishment suffices as warning to most people.

Ah, here we see the depiction of a typical Mesopotamian god. He isn't punishing them because they purposely did something wrong, he punishes them for not doing what he wants them to do. I guess punishing Adam and Eve would be his way of saying "you'd better listen to me from now on or I'll beat your head into your ass." hehehe...

its kind of funny though, because the sins of one man cause the downfall of the world, but the death of another saved it. think about it.

God did not "punish" them with death. Death was the outcome for having the knowledge of both good and evil.

In many ways, Adam and Eve were incredibly naive. They were very much like children.

In a very roundabout sense, God was responsible for the result of their sin being death, since He created everything.

But that does not mean that He set them up for failure.

If it wasn't for them, we would never have known that we needed God for salvation from our sin.

And if it wasn't Adam and Eve, it would have been Harry and Darla. One way or another, man would have fallen into sin.

Anyway, the knowledge of evil initiated a spiritual and physical modification; the result: death.

Our physical existence is an actual metaphor for our spiritual life.

Sorry, I can't finish this thought...I am heavily drugged from my surgery, and I am finding it difficult to concentrate.

Sorry...I'll get back to it later.

quote:God did not "punish" them with death. Death was the outcome for having the knowledge of both good and evil.

Death was the outcome for God not allowing Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:21-24 -- "The Lord God made tunics of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them. He said, 'The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out his hand and takes fruit from the tree of life also, eats it and lives for ever?' So the Lord God drove him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. He cast him out, and to the east of the garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and a sword swirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life."

Although you can debate to whether this was really a punishment or not (maybe it would be best for them not to live forever in such a sinful state), here's something that is more obvious.

Genesis 3:16 -- "To the woman he said: 'I will increaes your labour and your groaning, and in labour you shall bear children. You shall be eager for your husband, and he shall be your master.' And to the man he said: 'Because you have listened to your wife and have eaten from the tree which I forbade you, accursed shall be the groud on your account. With labour you shall win your food from it all the days of your life. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, none but wild plants for you to eat. You shall gain your bread by the sweat of your brow until you return to the ground; for from it you were taken. Dust you are, to dust you shall return.' "

The garden story can be summed up

in three words:

Crock of shit.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

The garden story can be summed up

in three words:

Crock of shit.

Dude, actual crocks of shit that are as old as that story are of great value! Fairytale or not, you can't dismiss it lightly. How old r u anyway?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

In a very roundabout sense, God was responsible for the result of their sin being death, since He created everything.

But that does not mean that He set them up for failure.

In a roundabout way it can be argued that he did set them up for failure. As you said He created everything, plus he had already forseen everything from the beginning to the end that would happen in the universe. So he already knew they would fail.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

In a roundabout way it can be argued that he did set them up for failure. As you said He created everything, plus he had already forseen everything from the beginning to the end that would happen in the universe. So he already knew they would fail.



Why does giving someone an opportunity for excellence or failure mean that you set them up for that failure. If Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, sin would not have corrupted the human race.

If God did not give them an opportunity for obedience strictly for the purpose of obeying, then they would not have been able to show their submission to Him.

Obeying a commandment that has obvious benefit to you is not as difficult as obeying a rule that is only for the sake of obeying.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

Why does giving someone an opportunity for excellence or failure mean that you set them up for that failure. If Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, sin would not have corrupted the human race.

If God did not give them an opportunity for obedience strictly for the purpose of obeying, then they would not have been able to show their submission to Him.

Obeying a commandment that has obvious benefit to you is not as difficult as obeying a rule that is only for the sake of obeying.

The fact remains that God is all knowing and all seeing. He created a situation that would tempt them with full foreknowledge of the outcome. They were punished for doing something he already knew they would fail at.

In that old story it looks more like god sinned against man.

There is a tree of the knowledge of good and evil over there and you stupid people shouldn't try to decide what is good or evil...I'll tell you. Don't try thinking for yourselves, you are not god...I am. I do all the thinking. Obey, obey, obey...

Yes sir, yes sir o god. Me no think at all so you can like me.

Now we all know that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is judgement. If you eat that knowledge you gonna start judging things for yourselves.

Wait a minute, me stupid good? Me wise evil?

Screw this!

Now here god pitches a fit, curses and curses everything he blessed and blessed.

Yup, great big daddyo god curses and damns the whole earth in one big jealous rage just like the devil he truly was.

Big sin here. God should have made cabbages instead of humans. He could have eaten them.

Why was there a fucking tree in the first place? or a snake? I think that was the major downfall....

quote:Originally posted by dirtbag:

Why was there a fucking tree in the first place? or a snake? I think that was the major downfall....

The old language was a symbolic language used to create "Striking Images" in minds to not be forgotton. Any "Tree of Knowledge"

or "Serpent" is Symbolic. Any "Symbolic Serpent" carries with it treachery, a noxious creature. Any "Tree of Knowledge" has more to do with "The Accumulation of Knowledge" and nothing of a tree other than the symbolic nature.

Knowledge will open your eyes. Expand your thinking. In the "Mythical Story" Adam and Eve "Opened their eyes." They could see good and evil, they could exercise judgement. This angered the small petty jealous mythical god pictured here.

Good and Evil exists in everything. Every man has a measure of good and a measure of evil inside him. No man or creature is all good or all evil. Same for the god here.

In the image of this god, so is the image of man.

Let's look at this god of Eden. First he "Blesses the whole Earth." Next second, he "Curses the whole Earth." Quite a temper here.

So, the same mouth that blesses also curses.

Good and Evil come from the same mouth. Even the Bible tells you so, "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (LAM 3:39) Sure it does. Anyone

that reads Deut 28 reads of "Promised Blessings" and "Promised Curses" placed upon man from the one Good/Evil god is minus any satan. There is no need for any satan disguise here.

There is none beside the him. And he say's this: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) One god, good or evil. The myth twists and turns on and on, changing through the centuries.

Where there is any gathering of fools, religions will be found among them. They are fearful dimwitted thinkers.

quote:There is none beside the him. And he say's this: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) One god, good or evil. The myth twists and turns on and on, changing through the centuries.

[/B]

Isaiah 45:7 (New King James Version)

'I form the light and create darkness,

I make peace and create calamity;

I, the LORD, do all these things.'

Calamity and evil are not synomynous:

calamity: An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster

evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

A calamity may not be evil if it is the consequences of a person's choices, it may be justice.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

Isaiah 45:7 (New King James Version)

'I form the light and create darkness,

I make peace and create calamity;

I, the LORD, do all these things.'

Calamity and evil are not synomynous:

calamity: An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster

evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

A calamity may not be evil if it is the consequences of a person's choices, it may be justice.

The OKJV said "Evil," the NKJV say's "Calamity." You must remember, in those days any "Calamity" was deemed rendered by hidden spirits. If a dead limb fell out tree and hit someone on the head they could cry out, "Why have YOU done this to me." Trees held good and evil spirits.

"And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..." (1 Sam 18:10.)

Good and Evil is two sides of the same coin.

The whole story, concerning man, in a nutshell is this: Blessing=Good, Curses=Evil.

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good and evil." Deut 30:15

"A blessing if ye obey...And a curse if ye will not obey..." Deut 11:26-28

In this Story, this is the Table of God that is set before mankind. You must eat from it.

A blessing is Good for YOU, it may be Evil for the Caanites. These curses are Evil for YOU, whether it be calamity or boils on your head...whatever. Good for you to steal my land and kill my children and babies may have been good for YOU, but Evil for ME.



"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Deut 32:39

Originally, Good and Evil came from the same source. Later, after the Persians took Babylon and brought their Zoroastrian religion of seperate Good and Evil spirits,

Spirit of Light vs. Spirit of Darkness, we seem to notice a change in scripture thinking. Good from god, Evil from satan.

But grow up, they are ONE. Who cursed the earth? Who Curses man? Nowadays, we know that a calamity happens to good and evil alike. Back then, calamity was thought only to be a result of disobediance. What you refer to as (misguided) justice. Like the scriptures say, if god blesses who can curse or do evil towards him? BS!

Get this. Like is not really about Good and Evil. It is about Survival. Whatever gets you and your loved ones to another tomorrow would be considered Good. To Survive is Good/Life. To perish is Evil/Death. Good and Evil is often in the eyes of the beholder. Any "Good" should be questioned with "Good For Who?" Often Good is not really Good for YOU. Again, Life's main purpose is about Survival...not Good or Evil.

And even furthermore, in this Story, any flaming sword left to guard this said Tree Of Life that turns every way to keep it:

This is a sharp two-edged sword, it has two edges, an edge for Good and an edge for Evil. It cuts for Good, it cuts for Evil, it cuts both ways, but always...it cuts to the way of life. Good or Evil! After all, that was your forbidden fruit...wasn't it?



[This message has been edited by MoonTalker (edited 03-18-2005).]

ok so i havent read the whole topic cuz i am kinda tired of reading long ass topics but i have an interesting point. in thestory of the garden it is said that the snake was the most cunning of all beings, i think. in hebrew or greek (i cant remember)the word that is associated with cunning is a word that in every other use within holy scriptures is associated with wisdom. it is only when refferring to the snake that it hs been translated as cunning in other languages. chew on that and it s implications

I try not to look at it as literal as some, one would like to think that the apple had no spiritual impact at all, i mean come on, it is an apple. Some have called it a kiwi but that is also irrelevant to my point. What if God created man to love Him and only Him. And this creation he also loved because they were his own. He wanted his creation to serve him and to obey what he said, but why? He wanted someone to choose His will over there own. He wanted someone to choose him. Well in order for someone to have a choice he had to make an option they could take if they so choosed. But in taking this option it would open their mind to something that he could not explain to them before because they had not expirienced it. It opened their mind and they saw that they didnt have to obey what He said, it opened their mind to choice between what He said to do and what they wanted to do.

A view of what the devil said to them could be taken not so literal, i mean look at it this way: Instead of the devil saying you can eat of that tree, maybe he could have said, you dont have to be bound by God, you can choose you can be free to do what you want. The temptation opened there mind to choice which before they did not concieve. That is what the death was, it was death to ignorance basically. After they found that they could choose and used it in the wrong way that separated them from God, it hurt him because his own creation didnt choose him.

Basically the point isnt wether they spit out the apple or kiwi or what ever, it is thet their eyes were opened to choice or free will, which before this they didnt understand. They made a choice and saw they could a choice to do anything.

What i just said i do not take as truth and i hope the reader doesnt either. How do you really know what is right, no one does. Everything can be contradicted in some way or another, so what is the right understanding? It is hard to say who is right and who is wrong. But as long as you search it yourself and understand for yourself and not follow somone elses belief just because you can, then you are above most. I feel that there is an understanding above what we can concieve as of yet or there is nothing at all but the physical, you make your own choice.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

God says: Dont not eat of the tree of knowledge or you will die.





So if God said that if they eat from the tree, they will die, and they ate, and didn't die, does that make God a liar?

quote:Originally posted by 91stParallel:



So if God said that if they eat from the tree, they will die, and they ate, and didn't die, does that make God a liar?

Adam and Eve are still alive???! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by bigjrod_1981:

free will

But it's not free will if the omniscient god knows what they're going to do.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

But it's not free will if the omniscient god knows what they're going to do.

If a car is going at the speed of light, and turns on the headlights, how fast is the light from the lamps going? speed of light or

speed of light times 2?

It is going at the speed of light relative to the car.

quote:If a car is going at the speed of light, and turns on the headlights, how fast is the light from the lamps going? speed of light or

speed of light times 2?

It is going at the speed of light relative to the car.

1. You should say "if a car is going at nearly the speed of light." In order for the car to actually travel at the speed of light, it would have to tranform into light.

2. I don't see how that relates to free will and knowledge of the future. In order for anyone to truly have free will, the future must not be completely determined yet. And in order for someone to have complete knowledge of the future, the future cannot be in limbo before free will determines it.

Let me say this a different way... If someone has complete knowledge of the future and free will exists, then only all the possible states of the future can be known (for each action made with free will) and no single possibility can be narrowed down, unless all those possible future states lead to the same event at some point. And since humans eating from the tree is directly following their free will, God cannot "know" what future they will choose, unless free will is merely an illusion.

Objection: God knows what people will do, and people have free will.

Okay, it's possible to determine what choices a computer program will make because we know its code. In a sense, you could say that the program has "free will" because it can make choices. However, the choice it will make is predetermined by its code. Even randomization is not truly random, because it is dependent on its code and, if used, input from the outside world. What I mean by true free will, however, is a choice at least partially independent of our brains and our sensory input, so that it is at least partially dependent on the "self." Otherwise, all you're left with is a single, predetermined future in which all choices were predetermined as well. The very point of having a complete "free will" self is that we can make our own decisions independent of everything else, and nothing, even God, can ultimately predict what this "self" will do with 100% accuracy.

If free will is true, some things are impossible to know. So, speaking of God's knowledge, God knows everything that is possible to know, but of course he doesn't know what is impossible to know, because the knowledge doesn't exist at that point.

quote:Originally posted by 91stParallel:



So if God said that if they eat from the tree, they will die, and they ate, and didn't die, does that make God a liar?

God didn't say they'd bite the bullet there and then, but they did die eventually

quote:Source:

God didn't say they'd bite the bullet there and then, but they did die eventually

Genesis 2:16 -- He told the man, 'You may eat from every tree in the garden, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day that you eat from it, you will certainly die.'

Others say that Adam and Eve died spiritually that day, but the fact is that even if that were so, God deceived them by not giving them all the details: He gave them the impression that they would physically die the day they ate from the tree. It's like when a kid tells her mother that she finished her homework, while leaving out the fact that by "homework" she means the work she felt like doing that night. Actually, that's something I used to do.

It's deception, no matter what your reasons are. Whether or not it's wrong depends on your intentions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clarphimous:

1. You should say "if a car is going at nearly the speed of light." In order for the car to actually travel at the speed of light, it would have to tranform into light.

excuse me, but it was close enough for the point...

2. I don't see how that relates to free will and knowledge of the future. In order for anyone to truly have free will, the future must not be completely determined yet. And in order for someone to have complete knowledge of the future, the future cannot be in limbo before free will determines it.

...the point being, i believe that (in a nutshell) it is a perspective thing. From God's perspective, all things are predetermined (remember, i said, "in a nutshell.. and i'll get to this).

From our perspective, we have the ability of choices (limited, not only by the physical..grativty,etc. , but by what God allows us to choose).

Ok, now to open the nutshell alittle. Scripture does not say that we have freewill, but it does say that all things are God's Will. The concept of freewill was "put forward" by St. Augustine, and he had "training" in Greek philosophy, so it did influence his writing. If i remember correctly, they (philosophers of his day) were arguing the same thing that has been argued on TOTSE reguarding God's omnipotence/omniscients vs. His Justness and Love. Freewill was Hippo's answer to the problem, which Scripture alludes/implies i.e. that we are told that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Christ (this implies a choice on our part), we are told to pray to God (which alludes to the choice of "pray or not to pray"), Jesus told the woman, "sin no more" (this could be taken two ways: 1. as a "command" like in a program

2. as a warning, but still allowing the ability to "screw up" (no pun intended).

I also said, "limited, not only by the physical..grativty,etc. , but by what God allows us to choose)". God being all powerful, would have the ability to allow us choices [b]AND[b/] also have the ability to know what the choice are. But i think He limits that choice to two.. 1. to accept Him or to reject Him. 2. to sin or not to sin (which is really a variation of the first, but the first is for salvation and the second is day to day sins).

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

God deceived them by not giving them all the details: He gave them the impression that they would physically die the day they ate from the tree.

I disagree that He decieved them, but i do agree that (atleast from the account we are given) He did not give them all the details.

The question (of details) is, did they even understand what physical or spiritual death was?

There is another question from this, that i have never seen asked, let alone address.. but i'll leave that for someother time .. and actually, i am surprised Rust has not asked it.. he was so close a few times, that i'm very surprised that it didnt just come out.

quote:xtreem5150ahm:

God being all powerful, would have the ability to allow us choices [b]AND[b/] also have the ability to know what the choice are.

Okay, I'm going to assume that somebody is making a choice whether or not to sin. Before they make the choice, there is no knowledge of what will happen. God cannot know, because there is nothing to know. Can God tell you what a feekleioruslraw is? No, all He can tell is that it's a word I just made up. He won't come up with knowledge that doesn't exist.

quote:xtreem5150ahm:

I disagree that He decieved them, but i do agree that (atleast from the account we are given) He did not give them all the details.

The question (of details) is, did they even understand what physical or spiritual death was?

The way the snake was able to change Eve's mind tells me that she didn't understand the concept of spiritual death. And God wouldn't have threatened them with death if they didn't at least know what physical death was.

If they didn't know what spiritual death, but did know what physical death was, then God most certainly deceived them.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

The way the snake was able to change Eve's mind tells me that she didn't understand the concept of spiritual death. And God wouldn't have threatened them with death if they didn't at least know what physical death was.

If they didn't know what spiritual death, but did know what physical death was, then God most certainly deceived them.

I agree with you that Adam and Eve likely didn't truly understand "death", be it spiritual or physical.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no real timeline for the garden of Eden, but even if Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, it seems to me they would have had the intellect of young children. That would be like telling a 4 year old, don't touch that freshly baked pie or it will burn your fingers off. The 4 year old will do it anyway because there is no understanding of the concept of how much pain it will cause. A good parent would keep an eye on the kids.

I think God was just getting bored of watching Adam and Eve do the same things so...he put up a tree, told them not to eat from it, watched them eat from it, punished them, and watched them grow in a new direction. If God is aware of everything anyway, and nothing happens without him planning it, then he wanted them to eat from that tree, or else he wouldn't have put it there. After all, where would the human race be if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed? God would have gotten bored and changed the channel...found something else to work on. Who wants to watch two people doing the same stuff for thousands of years?

[This message has been edited by 91stParallel (edited 03-24-2005).]

So it was all part of god's plan?

God's plan was for man to fall.

Obviously he set them up.

And if anything that happens

now is still part of god's divine

plan, so was the fall, and satan,

and everything...

Creating the initial conditions with

full knowledge of the eventual

outcome, makes that "his will".

How then can anything not be what

god wanted in the first place?

He created creatures he knew would fail,

and made circumstances that guaranteed

their failure.

quote:Originally posted by 91stParallel:



I think God was just getting bored of watching Adam and Eve do the same things so...he put up a tree, told them not to eat from it, watched them eat from it, punished them, and watched them grow in a new direction. If God is aware of everything anyway, and nothing happens without him planning it, then he wanted them to eat from that tree, or else he wouldn't have put it there. After all, where would the human race be if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed? God would have gotten bored and changed the channel...found something else to work on. Who wants to watch two people doing the same stuff for thousands of years?



Well, I don't suppose that God watches us like some kind of reality show, but I'll tell you the way I agree with you.

If we make out the story to be symbolical (frankly, I don't see how it could be literal!), it is referring to the first humans, the first families. My theory is (actually, not "my", I read this and I kinda agree) that those first small societies were matriarchical (is there actually any evidence for this? does anyone know?). Man can be assumed to have been perfect then like Adam and Eve in paradise. It was all about gathering food, raising babies etc and the females were in charge. But there were problems. Man was not a match for wild beasts and natural catastrophs and the females could not deal with those problems when raising babies. God probably also thought that it is unfair for His creation to live such harsh life, even though it was perfect. In this sense, He did want the first original sin : the passage to patriarchical society which is symbolized by the Adam and Eve story. Man (the snake) convinces Woman (Eve) to give authority (apple) to Man (Adam). Man's intelligence finds ways to better the conditions of life but this equals exit from paradise. Man's inventions now hold Woman willingly hostage as they make it easier for her to raise her children. Man's nature though is not content at that. He realized that he now has advantages over other people that he can exploit. "I'll show you how to make axes if you give me half of the meat." And that's how mankind fell from paradise to sin. It was a necessary step and if you pay attention to the story you can see that God cleverly set it up so that He has no responsibility for this "downfall". Man was fully warned that eating the fruit would cause death. And death here means of course something spiritual with the introduction of lie, greed, lust etc in the world. And the snake did not lie either, as Man did become wiser. Even though the downfall is Man's fault, God still promises to dispose of sin when the time is right. But that's off topic.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

And God wouldn't have threatened them with death if they didn't at least know what physical death was.

It is an assumption that they knew what death was. I'm not saying that is correct or not.. just that it is an assumption. God could have told them that an airplane was going to fall on their head, whether they knew what an airplane was, is not indicated in scripture.

I am not saying that assumptions are not made by theologeons. bible scholars, or anyone who reads the bible... including me, which i have already indicted.. quote:...the point being, i believe that (in a nutshell) it is a perspective thing.

you said, "Before they make the choice, there is no knowledge of what will happen. God cannot know, because there is nothing to know".

First, you are putting limmits on God. The Bible says that He is infinite and all knowing (which is kinda the same thing, sorta).

Second, no one can really prove that we can actually make a choice about anything..atleast until a time machine is invented and you can call a "do over". (I believe we can make choices--limited, like i said before-- but i dont think anyone can actually prove that a choice was made vs. God's Will (predestination).

Which goes back to what i said before, that i think (my assumption, based on what God's Word in the Bible says) freewill is a perspective thing with a small amount of "choice" given us by God.

All right, I'll admit that my arguments aren't very good. I'll give up on most of it, but here's a few last things I have to say.

quote:Which goes back to what i said before, that i think (my assumption, based on what God's Word in the Bible says) freewill is a perspective thing with a small amount of "choice" given us by God."

It really wouldn't matter if God only gave you a few choices, or all of the choices possible in your life. The nature of the universe would still be about the same, just with a different amount of choices. So you really don't need to specify whether God does that or not.

My personal opinion is slightly in favor of predestination, but I don't think it's likely that they can simultaneously occur unless it's like the multiple universe theory. In the multiple universe theory, every possibility leads to a different universe. A choice could be considered a possibility, and each choice they made would lead their existence to a certain universe different from all the others. And God could be saying that He knows what will happen, only he'd be saying a slightly different thing depending on what universe you're in. The main problem I see with that version in particular is that everyone's souls would be in different universes, so that doesn't make much sense. Or maybe it's just that I don't understand the theory.

I want to fuck your eyesocket.

I feel the Bible is a story of a person's life. The adam and eve chapter is our face off with the loss of innocence. Everyone here knows you can't ever, ever go back. Once you taste it, it is gone forever.

Baby

quote:Originally posted by Anarky:

Here me out:

God's command was "Do not eat from the tree".

Let's assume that Adam and Eve had gone to the tree, had taken an apple, had taken a bite, had chewed and then spitted it out. Would God still have been upset? They wouldn't have technically eaten from the tree?

I promise i'll reply when i'm sober.

If it was'nt Eve it would have been someone else (most probly a totseien)

the fact is it would have happened, welcome to the gift of free will.

Lucifer had/has a free will

so do we, Eve chose to listen to the serpent

if it was'nt her it would have been another ,mayby you?

Imagine if eve did'nt eat , couple of thousand years running around naked in a paridise and YOU eat from the tree.

A little bit like stuffing up a good L.T.I in a workplace .

Imagine if Adam had the forethought to build a cage around the "tree" and subsequent generations fortified the tree,

there would be a fort knox tree that held the "truth" would'nt that make us all feel better? A singer dies and we cry conspricy!

The truth is the truth hurts but there is no other way to learn the truth.

Just think for one second ,just one

if Eve did not eat from the tree

just think about it for one second after thinking about your post, If that tree was free now,Would you or I would eat from it.

Then think about the pain and suffering and inhumanity and the extream chaos that exist now,think of the Billions of fathers and sons and daughters that have died in wars and famine to name but two,if you answer yes then you do deserve to die and you most surely will.Those that have sufferd will get their lives back.

Hard lesson to learn?Fuck yes,worth learning?

Fuck yes.

And what lesson was that?

Life with Lucifer is all down hill.He had his pourpose in life but it is derogative to life itself.

Surely you do not have to be to learned to work that one out.

.

quote:Originally posted by Anarky:

Here me out:

God's command was "Do not eat from the tree".

Let's assume that Adam and Eve had gone to the tree, had taken an apple, had taken a bite, had chewed and then spitted it out. Would God still have been upset? They wouldn't have technically eaten from the tree?

I promise i'll reply when i'm sober.

your name makes me luaph