...we've been given no indication that they were even aware of what deception is in the first place.
Indeed one might even say that we've been given every indication that they weren't, deception being an evil and the knowledge of evil coming only from the Tree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Next to nobody actually thinks the Greek ones actually happened, and that's important
You mean, "Next to nobody believes *anymore* that the Greek ones actually happened". If you're going to analyze the Greek myths properly, you need to understand the context in which they were told, and that context is believing that they *did* happen. When I see the out-of-hand rejection of the story like I do here, it's usually because there's a hidden agenda of actively rejecting Christianity as a whole. There's no discussion when one side is spending all their effort on rejection rather than actually analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told. The genesis story shares a lot in common with Homer's epics, in terms of storytelling mechanics (they're traditionally both primarily orally transmitted poems). There's even a line that's an obvious chorus, "and the morning and evening was one day".
You mean, "Next to nobody believes *anymore* that the Greek ones actually happened". If you're going to analyze the Greek myths properly, you need to understand the context in which they were told, and that context is believing that they *did* happen. When I see the out-of-hand rejection of the story like I do here, it's usually because there's a hidden agenda of actively rejecting Christianity as a whole. There's no discussion when one side is spending all their effort on rejection rather than actually analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told. The genesis story shares a lot in common with Homer's epics, in terms of storytelling mechanics (they're traditionally both primarily orally transmitted poems). There's even a line that's an obvious chorus, "and the morning and evening was one day".
There's an out and out rejection of stories that are impossible. It has nothing to do with actively rejecting Christianity.
You can still analyze character motivation and storyline just as you would any work of literature. I don't see why I need to seriously entertain the possibility that Nick really existed to analyze The Great Gatsby.
Next to nobody actually thinks the Greek ones actually happened, and that's important
You mean, "Next to nobody believes *anymore* that the Greek ones actually happened". If you're going to analyze the Greek myths properly, you need to understand the context in which they were told, and that context is believing that they *did* happen. When I see the out-of-hand rejection of the story like I do here, it's usually because there's a hidden agenda of actively rejecting Christianity as a whole. There's no discussion when one side is spending all their effort on rejection rather than actually analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told. The genesis story shares a lot in common with Homer's epics, in terms of storytelling mechanics (they're traditionally both primarily orally transmitted poems). There's even a line that's an obvious chorus, "and the morning and evening was one day".
Yes, that is, indeed, what I meant. I am happy you were able to understand me. Do you imagine that I don't know that when the ancient Greeks were a thriving civilization that there were more people who took it seriously? I hate to be that guy but, well, bro, you do yourself a disservice being pedantic.
Anyway, lets dive in to what you are actually saying.
1. The context in what they were told is great. However, we still know that they did not happen. The greek gods are not real and, as such, we get to figure out the kinds of socioeconomic conditions that led to this group of gods being created as opposed to other kinds of fictitious gods created by other cultures. We hardly need to think of them as true to analyze them.
2. If you want to talk about why some here reject Christianity, make a thread on it. What you should not be doing is lumping us in together with some sort of "hidden agenda" nonsense. The story in genesis has no relation to my deconversion. It is, however, a story that amuses me greatly in retrospect. As to "analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told" we can do that and it can be fun, but we don't need to treat the story as anything more than one of many creation myths that don't conform to reality to discuss why the story became prevalent, what it meant to the ancient Israelites and what have you.
3. You are indeed right that the genesis story shares much with the Homeric epics, although I don't think its the aspect you had in mind.
Either way, some ground rules since you don't know me. This thing where you quote a small part of my post, preach at me all while ignoring the bulk of what I wrote? Yeah, don't do that.
This part of my post,
Quote from ECP »
Once you start getting into the territory of people actually believing that a talking animal is principally responsible for the downfall of humanity via tricking a people that had no concept of right and wrong then you've crossed simply from the philosophical implications of what a story is trying to teach and getting in a much weirder bit of territory
And, no, its not simple since "you die when you eat this" ends up meaning "you will die, eventually" and/or "eating this means I'm taking away your immortality" So, no, it is hardly spot on in any sense of the word.
This still gets back to my initial point, whereby God somehow expected to mental children to be able to handle themselves against a being trying to trick them when we've been given no indication that they were even aware of what deception is in the first place.
This part of my post is exactly that kind of discussion you just said didn't happen when one side is rejecting the factual basis of the story.
A) Off the top of my head? No. I interpreted it as such when I initially read Genesis because of my understanding of Christianity, and because Adam and Eve do not actually immediately die. If God says they'll die, but they don't, then either God is a liar or he's referring to another sort of death. I interpreted it as another sort of death given Christian belief that to be apart from God is effectively death, or some form of nonexistence in itself. Could God be a liar? Of course, but I don't particularly see a reason to believe that besides literally taking what is on the text as truth.
That alternative being distorting the text to mean whatever you want it to mean, as opposed to taking what is written and drawing your conclusion from that?
That's not interpreting the text. That's ignoring the text in favor of your own agenda.
State before eating the fruit: Living forever with God
State after eating the fruit: Living apart from God, and dying
Seems pretty spot-on that when God says "You die when you eat this".
Completely false.
1. Actually read what God says. God says on the day that Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they will die. Notice how Adam and Eve didn't die on the day they ate the fruit.
2. Adam and Eve were not going to live forever prior to the eating of the fruit, as evidenced by God deliberately expelling Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life, which would have made them live forever. Which means they were not going to live forever otherwise.
3. Let's repeat that last part again, because it really needs to be brought home: recognize why Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden.
Quote from Genesis 3:22-24, Oremus Bible Browser »
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
This has nothing to do with separation from God or "spiritual death" or whatever. The reason God expels Adam and Eve is because God doesn't want them to eat from the Tree of Life.
Either way, it's all about trust anyhow. Adam and Eve had to either believe in God and obey, or not believe and disobey.
How the crap does any moral about trust make sense when God is the deceiver?
It's funny how people can keep a straight head when talking about the philosophical implications of the Greek myths, but can't maintain that for the Jewish ones.
You would speak of understanding philosophical implications, despite the fact that you are attempting to reconcile (1) a story in which God acts to prevent mankind from gaining wisdom and eternal life with (2) a religion that specifically states that God was born into the world as a human being whose entire earthly ministry was about giving human beings truth and eternal life?
1. Actually read what God says. God says on the day that Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they will die. Notice how Adam and Eve didn't die on the day they ate the fruit.
2. Adam and Eve were not going to live forever prior to the eating of the fruit, as evidenced by God deliberately expelling Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life, which would have made them live forever. Which means they were not going to live forever otherwise.
3. Let's repeat that last part again, because it really needs to be brought home: recognize why Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden.
1. On the day they ate the fruit, they lost immortality (from the Fruit of Life, but that's just mechanics). You're just interpreting it over-literally. It's a orally passed-down *poem*, stop putting more weight on it then it actually has.
2. Again, Fruit of Life is just mechanics.
3. Because they were too shameful to be in the full presence of God to continue staying in Eden.
This has nothing to do with separation from God or "spiritual death" or whatever. The reason God expels Adam and Eve is because God doesn't want them to eat from the Tree of Life.
No, I don't buy "spiritual death" stuff either, but this is the difference between immortality and mortality. Being mortal means *you die*. God applied the consequence by denying access to the Tree of Life. Parents do *exactly the same thing* all the time when their children misbehave.
The knowledge of good and evil is about *responsibility*, that is, accepting the consequences of your actions. When you decide you know best, then you have to own up to whatever happens. What happened in this case is that humans became mortal.
How the crap does any moral about trust make sense when God is the deceiver?
Doesn't help that you've already decided that he is deceiving them, and then warping things to fit that assumption. I'm pretty sure you've done something bad (due to deciding you wanted to do things your way instead of listening to and trusting your parents), got caught by your parents, then had a consequence imposed on you. The genesis story is literally no different.
You would speak of understanding philosophical implications, despite the fact that you are attempting to reconcile (1) a story in which God acts to prevent mankind from gaining wisdom and eternal life with (2) a religion that specifically states that God was born into the world as a human being whose entire earthly ministry was about giving human beings truth and eternal life?
The genesis story is an old, informal explanation for all the troubles in the world that boils down to "we brought it in on ourselves for overreaching and not trusting that God Knows Best". In order to understand the story in context, you have to assume that God is always in the right. You don't have to personally believe that, but if you don't *start* from that in your interpretation, then you're not even trying to be fair about it and not trying to actually have a proper discussion about it.
The bible is pretty consistent throughout that you can either have "wisdom" or "eternal life", but you can't have both. It is also consistent in saying that "wisdom" is overrated, and usually just gets us into more trouble (and so you should just trust God instead). That's the "truth" that it tries to convey.
This part of my post is exactly that kind of discussion you just said didn't happen when one side is rejecting the factual basis of the story.
That's rather good example of a rejection right there, actually. I've already explained how the serpent was being deceptive. When God says "don't eat this" and serpent is trying to convince you to eat it anyway, that means one of them is not acting in your best interests. Without any other ways to conclude who that is, all you have left is *trust*.
This part of my post is exactly that kind of discussion you just said didn't happen when one side is rejecting the factual basis of the story.
That's rather good example of a rejection right there, actually. I've already explained how the serpent was being deceptive. When God says "don't eat this" and serpent is trying to convince you to eat it anyway, that means one of them is not acting in your best interests. Without any other ways to conclude who that is, all you have left is *trust*.
[quote=Name] will show who you are responding to. I barely caught that you replied to any of my post. I shouldn't be surprised since you've apparently got a habit of replying to the least important part and lecturing me from your ****ing podium instead of talking to me like an equal. OK.
Anyway, for as much as you're *****ing about rejection and the stifling of discussion, that is precisely what you are engaging in here. There are complex thoughts being articulated and your overall response is to ignore them and reiterate your position by preaching.
Color me not impressed, tux, and my advice would be to treat the people her with some respect because these little tricks are hardly going to accomplish whatever it is that you want them to.
A) Off the top of my head? No. I interpreted it as such when I initially read Genesis because of my understanding of Christianity, and because Adam and Eve do not actually immediately die. If God says they'll die, but they don't, then either God is a liar or he's referring to another sort of death. I interpreted it as another sort of death given Christian belief that to be apart from God is effectively death, or some form of nonexistence in itself. Could God be a liar? Of course, but I don't particularly see a reason to believe that besides literally taking what is on the text as truth.
That alternative being distorting the text to mean whatever you want it to mean, as opposed to taking what is written and drawing your conclusion from that?
That's not interpreting the text. That's ignoring the text in favor of your own agenda.
So, since I took the fact that Adam and Eve didn't die the day that they ate the fruit and interpreted it as God possibly meaning another meaning of death, I'm distorting the text?
Distorting implies that there must be a fundamental truth, ya? That there must be an irrevocable fact. And you're saying that anything that doesn't take what the text literally says as ignoring said fact.
If so, then Hamlet literally saw his father's ghost, who literally commanded him to kill his uncle because he committed regicide and fratricide. There cannot be any interpretation because that's literally what's written in the text. The only questions that can be raised then is why the ghost decided to show himself only to Hamlet instead of the entire royal court, which would have been just a lot more convenient for Hamlet and would have prevented the blood-bath that follows.
We cannot raise the possibility that Hamlet may be delusional because of the death of his father whom he is said to have loved dearly, and that out of the delusion he chose to believe that his uncle killed his father to claim the throne. Because the text literally says that Hamlet saw the ghost of his father.
You proposed that God is a liar. I proposed that God meant another form of death. Your proof is that's literally what the text says. My proof is my understanding of Christian belief concerning their relationship with God.
The entire point of interpretation is agenda. You are looking at something in a specific viewpoint that will differ from the way others who do not share your opinion.
It'd help a whole lot if you didn't yell all the time in all-caps and say completely stupid stuff like
And that, kiddies, is why you must love Jesus or BUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN
How complex indeed.
That's where I get that you're actively rejecting Christianity and deliberately missing the forest for the trees.
Oh yeah, I *already* addressed why the tree was in the garden in the first place, but you've apparently ignored that. Pot, meet kettle, I guess.
Lol? If you've read my posts you should be able to tell I like to phrase things in an amusing fashion, and in fact stated it directly. Regarding allcaps? Lolwut? Seems you are having a problem telling the atheists apart, since I've been bolding my stuff for the most part. But yeah, go ahead and quote me out of context. Its not like my one use of allcaps was not directed at you and supposedly shallow thinking was an obvious joke written to someone who had just commented on his appreciation of my sense of humor. That statement your quote mining comes after, essentially, a discussion regarding original sin, so yeah, nice and complex.
Do you have, like, an alergy to the middle sections of my posts?
Regarding why the tree was there, when did I include that in any of my posts? Congradulations, you've given me your answer for a question I never asked, thanks?
Regarding actively rejecting christianity, so what? Deary me, I just might have been an atheist for years and debated with people actually capable of challenging me, people who don't need to do the low level rhetorical tricks you've employed insofar. Hell, I used to live in the same city that the ICR was in, had some fun convos there!
What's with the modifier though? Would you rather me.. I dunno.. passively reject your religion?
1. On the day they ate the fruit, they lost immortality (from the Fruit of Life, but that's just mechanics).
You have no basis for saying they were immortal in the first place.
You're just interpreting it over-literally.
No, I'm reading what it says. You have no basis for making your claims.
It's a orally passed-down *poem*, stop putting more weight on it then it actually has.
Oh I don't take this poem seriously at all. That doesn't change the fact that nothing you're saying has any basis.
You don't just get to make stuff up about what a text says. This applies whether it's an ancient holy text or a Terry Pratchett novel. Literary interpretation demands evidence.
2. Again, Fruit of Life is just mechanics.
What does that even mean? Are you confusing the word "mechanics" with "semantics"?
3. Because they were too shameful to be in the full presence of God to continue staying in Eden.
It specifically says "He drove out the man." God drove out man, then sent a cherubim with a flaming sword to guard Eden.
The answer is no, God kicked man out. All you're doing is revealing that you haven't even bothered to read Genesis 3 even when I quoted it specifically in response to you.
If you're just going to be that lazy, then why are you here?
No, I don't buy "spiritual death" stuff either, but this is the difference between immortality and mortality. Being mortal means *you die*. God applied the consequence by denying access to the Tree of Life. Parents do *exactly the same thing* all the time when their children misbehave.
You cannot say that Adam and Eve were not going to die when the reason God expelled them from Eden was the possibility they might eat a fruit that would cause them to not die.
The knowledge of good and evil is about *responsibility*, that is, accepting the consequences of your actions. When you decide you know best, then you have to own up to whatever happens. What happened in this case is that humans became mortal.
You keep saying this, but you have no basis in the text that they weren't mortal from the start.
Notice that everything other plant and animal in Eden is mortal and nothing ate any fruit of knowledge.
Doesn't help that you've already decided that he is deceiving them, and then warping things to fit that assumption.
I have warped nothing. Every claim I have made has been founded upon the text. You, on the other hand, have not backed up your claims with anything, and have demonstrated ignorance of Genesis even after I quoted it in the post you're responding to.
Again, why are you even here if you can't even be bothered to read the text you're talking about? There's multiple forums for you to post in if all you want is to hear yourself talk. This forum is for intelligent, thoughtful discussion. If you're not even going to be bothered to read Genesis in a discussion on Genesis when it's quoted in the post you're responding to, then this place is clearly not for you.
The genesis story is an old, informal explanation for all the troubles in the world that boils down to "we brought it in on ourselves for overreaching and not trusting that God Knows Best". In order to understand the story in context, you have to assume that God is always in the right.
It doesn't matter what the intent of the story ways. As evidenced in the events of the story, God lies and the serpent tells the truth. Indeed, the discrepancy between these two positions has been my point all along.
The bible is pretty consistent throughout that you can either have "wisdom" or "eternal life", but you can't have both.
So, since I took the fact that Adam and Eve didn't die the day that they ate the fruit and interpreted it as God possibly meaning another meaning of death, I'm distorting the text?
Yes, because you have no basis for interpreting it in that way.
Distorting implies that there must be a fundamental truth, ya? That there must be an irrevocable fact. And you're saying that anything that doesn't take what the text literally says as ignoring said fact.
You're not even going by the text. You're trying to make the text say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we're interpreting it literally or not. It has to do with whether or not you're bringing your own biases into the text instead of assessing the text for what it says.
If so, then Hamlet literally saw his father's ghost, who literally commanded him to kill his uncle because he committed regicide and fratricide.
Yes, correct. That is what happens in the play.
There cannot be any interpretation because that's literally what's written in the text.
Well you certainly couldn't say that Hamlet didn't see his father's ghost in the text, that'd be contradicting the text.
The only questions that can be raised then is why the ghost decided to show himself only to Hamlet instead of the entire royal court, which would have been just a lot more convenient for Hamlet and would have prevented the blood-bath that follows.
That's far from the only question that could be raised.
We cannot raise the possibility that Hamlet may be delusional because of the death of his father whom he is said to have loved dearly, and that out of the delusion he chose to believe that his uncle killed his father to claim the throne. Because the text literally says that Hamlet saw the ghost of his father.
Well no, that's a terrible argument, because multiple people see the ghost in the first act.
Now, the ghost's later appearance, in which Gertrude does not see him, on the other hand, you can argue that Hamlet was delusional, and people have.
Again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that everything must be interpreted literally. I'm saying that the way you're arguing that the text should be interpreted has absolutely nothing to do with the text and everything to do with what you want to be true.
For instance, if you're going to argue anything about Hamlet, you must have basis for arguing it. And if someone says your interpretation is wrong because there's no textual basis for it, your response should not be, "Well, then I suppose you believe we have to interpret it literally," because that's a non-sequitur. Certainly texts can contain metaphors, but you have to demonstrate that the text contains them. You have to demonstrate that your claims about the text have basis.
You haven't done that. You've offered no valid evidence that we should not take what God says at face value. Again, yes, texts CAN contain metaphors, but that does not mean that statement by God is one, and you have to demonstrate that it is a figurative and not a literal death if you're going to claim to.
You proposed that God is a liar. I proposed that God meant another form of death. Your proof is that's literally what the text says. My proof is my understanding of Christian belief concerning their relationship with God.
Except this contradicts what the text says and appeals to traditions that did not exist at the time of the text's authorship. So your interpretation is without basis.
I do have a question though- Does what you wrote only apply to stories? Or do they apply to all types of writings?
From what I understand, you're saying that you cannot interpret a work called X based off sources or understanding gained from things that are not in X.
I do have a question though- Does what you wrote only apply to stories? Or do they apply to all types of writings?
From what I understand, you're saying that you cannot interpret a work called X based off sources or understanding gained from things that are not in X.
Of course you can use outside sources to assist you in understanding X.
Those sources, however, must actually pertain to X.
Your argument that God is talking about spiritual death instead of literal death fails for a number of reasons.
For starters, there's no evidence or basis for accepting your hypothesis, as it seems to be purely born out of the fact that you don't want to accept the idea that God is lying, as opposed to anything rooted in the text itself.
Second, what you're saying makes no sense within the context of what is written. Again, yes, texts can contain metaphors, but that doesn't mean what God is talking about is metaphorical death, especially not when you read Genesis 3 as a whole.
Third, you're appealing to traditions that weren't contemporaneous to the text we're talking about. Genesis was written before Christianity. If you're going to talk about this contrast of spiritual vs. physical death, you're going to have to demonstrate that this concept existed at that time. Saying it's Christian doesn't work if the text predates Christianity. Further, even if you were to claim that Judaism had a concept of spiritual death separate from physical death, that still does not mean that God was saying the former.
Your argument collapses because there's no evidence supporting what you're saying.
It would really behoove you to study Biblical and literary criticism.
For starters, there's no evidence or basis for accepting your hypothesis, as it seems to be purely born out of the fact that you don't want to accept the idea that God is lying, as opposed to anything rooted in the text itself.
Well, actually, I'm more or less repeating that I've heard from other seemingly knowledgeable people who explained Genesis to me. I suppose I should have considered the possibility that they were wrong, or at the very least I should have asked them what their justifications were for saying so.
Third, you're appealing to traditions that weren't contemporaneous to the text we're talking about. Genesis was written before Christianity. If you're going to talk about this contrast of spiritual vs. physical death, you're going to have to demonstrate that this concept existed at that time. Saying it's Christian doesn't work if the text predates Christianity.
Eh, I said that's the Christian interpretation of Genesis, not that Genesis was written to support Christianity or that the author wrote it with that specific intention in mind. I never made that argument, and if I came off that way then I apologize.
I will ask a pastor about this when I get a chance. I find it hard to believe that there is no evidence supporting this view, especially since Christian pastors/scholars tend to spend an enormous amount of time making sure whatever they say at least makes sense in regards to the Bible.
Edit-
After ruminating overnight, I've realized that you're right. I was allowing my preconceptions about God shadow my judgment and made me forget the single most important thing about literary criticism.
You have no basis for saying they were immortal in the first place.
Before they were banished... they could eat the Fruit of Life (it was in the garden.. and they it's not the fruit they were warned against). Which makes them immortal.
What does that even mean? Are you confusing the word "mechanics" with "semantics"?
Mechanics is the "how" in the story, the Fruit of Life. Just because they had to eat the fruit doesn't make them not immortal.
The answer is no, God kicked man out. All you're doing is revealing that you haven't even bothered to read Genesis 3 even when I quoted it specifically in response to you.
And you're totally ignoring the part where they hid themselves from God due to the shame from being guilty. Yes, God put some protections to make sure they didn't get back in, but fundamentally they simply could no longer stand to be in the same place as God. There's other accounts in the Bible of when humans have been in the full presence of God. Usually results in getting blinded, sometimes crippled even further. Besides which, it's God's garden, God can choose to let or not let anything be there.
It doesn't matter what the intent of the story ways. As evidenced in the events of the story, God lies and the serpent tells the truth. Indeed, the discrepancy between these two positions has been my point all along.
No, what you've said is "God is lying because God is lying". I've already explained like 10 times why God is telling the truth. You can't even hope to properly interpret the story without accepting at least that. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience.
You're not even going by the text. You're trying to make the text say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we're interpreting it literally or not. It has to do with whether or not you're bringing your own biases into the text instead of assessing the text for what it says.
Your bias is "God is lying and evil". With that fundamental problem, there's no way to actually discuss the story. Try "God is acting like how a parent would" and go from there.
Jesus is both truth and eternal life.
Truth is not the same thing as wisdom. Wisdom is trying to discern the truth yourself. *Real* wisdom is understanding that you can't, it's not even from just biblical sources, try Socrates.
Straight up, yes or no: Have you, as a child, ever misbehaved, got caught by your parents, then had a punishment imposed on you?
The TLDR of the genesis story is fundamentally "Here's how humans got *grounded*". The rest of the bible? "Here's how you can get back into God's good graces and get un-grounded".
Your bias is "God is lying and evil". With that fundamental problem, there's no way to actually discuss the story. Try "God is acting like how a parent would" and go from there.
God's a ****ty parent then. He intentionally set up his children to disobey him or at least didn't take precautions to keep them from disobeying. His punishment far exceeds what is applicable; I wouldn't throw my daughter out of the house if she eats my piece of cake when I told her not to. Is that the kind of parenting you find even remotely acceptable?
God's a ****ty parent then. He intentionally set up his children to disobey him or at least didn't take precautions to keep them from disobeying. His punishment far exceeds what is applicable; I wouldn't throw my daughter out of the house if she eats my piece of cake when I told her not to. Is that the kind of parenting you find even remotely acceptable?
I've already addressed why the option to disobey was even there.. There is *no point* for humans to exist without that option. God wants trust (AKA love). He can't get it if he's there isn't a way to express distrust.
Also, it's getting grounded, not getting kicked out of the house. The whole universe is God's house.
I've already addressed why the option to disobey was even there.. There is *no point* for humans to exist without that option. God wants trust (AKA love). He can't get it if he's there isn't a way to express distrust.
Still doesn't make him a good parent. Going back to my Drano example, if my daughter disobeys and drinks the Drano of Knowledge I'm still a horrible parent for not taking precautions to keep my daughter from doing something I know to be dangerous. If eating from the Tree of Knowledge would result in such horrible punishment then it was God's responsibility to take better precautions. He knew that eating from the Tree would result in pain from childbirth, toil in the dirt, and eventual death; if he really loved his children then to avoid doing something beyond a simple instruction boggles my mind.
Also, it's getting grounded, not getting kicked out of the house. The whole universe is God's house.
I don't ground my daughter by condemning her to eking out an existence and a life of pain and subjugation:
Unto the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
And unto Adam he said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field: in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art,and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:16-19)
Still doesn't make him a good parent. Going back to my Drano example, if my daughter disobeys and drinks the Drano of Knowledge I'm still a horrible parent for not taking precautions to keep my daughter from doing something I know to be dangerous. If eating from the Tree of Knowledge would result in such horrible punishment then it was God's responsibility to take better precautions. He knew that eating from the Tree would result in pain from childbirth, toil in the dirt, and eventual death; if he really loved his children then to avoid doing something beyond a simple instruction boggles my mind.
Again, there is *zero point* to humanity without the option to distrust. Also, I've also mentioned how the actual Fruit itself was a prop more than anything else. Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Tada, you just ate the fruit too! That shame and guilt you experienced? That's the knowledge of Good and Evil.
When I was little, my mom set up the house such that she would never have to say "no" to anything. I didn't have to trust her at all. I didn't have any real love for her. I didn't have the knowledge of Good and Evil. I only really started to love and trust my mom when I actually had real choices to make. Trust and the option to distrust are two sides of the same coin.
I don't ground my daughter by condemning her to eking out an existence and a life of pain and subjugation:
It's not condemnation, it's the consequence of rejecting God and his blessings. The genesis story is humans saying to God "We don't love you or trust you. We think we know what's best for ourselves, not you. We don't need you in our lives." Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Before they were banished... they could eat the Fruit of Life (it was in the garden.. and they it's not the fruit they were warned against). Which makes them immortal.
Mechanics is the "how" in the story, the Fruit of Life. Just because they had to eat the fruit doesn't make them not immortal.
No, that's exactly what it means. God wouldn't talk about a risk of them eating the tree of life and living forever if they were already going to live forever.
And you're totally ignoring the part where they hid themselves from God due to the shame from being guilty.
You posted:
3. Because they were too shameful to be in the full presence of God to continue staying in Eden.
The answer is no, that's not why they left Eden. They left Eden because God kicked them out, and God kicked them out specifically to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life. We know this because God says so.
No, what you've said is "God is lying because God is lying". I've already explained like 10 times why God is telling the truth. You can't even hope to properly interpret the story without accepting at least that.
Begging the question. Your conclusion cannot be evidence for your conclusion.
Of course, a prerequisite to having your argument have Scriptural basis is to actually read Genesis 3, which you've consistently demonstrated that you're not willing to actually do. So until you do that, as opposed to talking about a text that you're clearly not familiar enough with given the numerous erroneous claims you've made about it, you're really just wasting your own time in being here.
Your bias is "God is lying and evil".
No, that's my conclusion, which I have backed with evidence. You have made no attempt at a valid argument.
The answer is no, that's not why they left Eden. They left Eden because God kicked them out, and God kicked them out specifically to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life. We know this because God says so.
Yes, God kicked them out of Eden in order to stop them from *continuing* to eat the Fruit of Life.
Because it's an incredibly Bad Idea to do otherwise. Just think of the most evil historical figure you can think of, then imagine them also being immortal. Mortality is damage mitigation against evil.
Humanity rejected God and wanted independence. We got that independence, turns out it's not as great as it was cracked up to be. This is what you're fundamentally trying to ignore that is the whole point of the story.
Begging the question. Your conclusion cannot be evidence for your conclusion.
Of course, a prerequisite to having your argument have Scriptural basis is to actually read Genesis 3, which you've consistently demonstrated that you're not willing to actually do. So until you do that, as opposed to talking about a text that you're clearly not familiar enough with given the numerous erroneous claims you've made about it, you're really just wasting your own time in being here.
No, I'm making my argument based on the *entire* book, not just a little chapter.
No, that's my conclusion, which I have backed with evidence. You have made no attempt at a valid argument.
Speak for yourself. I've told you *exactly* how God was telling the truth, you're just obstinately refusing to accept it. You're attributing malice to God's actions based on your own preconception that God is an evil liar, when human parents do the same sort of thing at a smaller scale for the good of their own chidlren.
You're attributing malice to God's actions based on your own preconception that God is an evil liar, when human parents do the same sort of thing at a smaller scale for the good of their own chidlren.
This sounds like you are making the argument that gods punishment is OK because humans also punish their children. But you are completely ignoring the scope of the punishment.
1. Child breaks a rule and is punished with a time out.
2. Child breaks a rule and is punished with 25 lashes.
3. Child breaks a rule and is tortured for 7 days before being disemboweled and left to bleed to death.
The "scale" of the punishment is surely relevant to the conversation. How could it not be?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Again, there is *zero point* to humanity without the option to distrust. Also, I've also mentioned how the actual Fruit itself was a prop more than anything else.
Here's where my issue comes in. I understand that without the ability to disobey there is no free will. But if the Tree of Life was merely a test for humanity, then God's a real ******* for making the punishment for disobeying him so severe.
If I put out a cookie and tell my daughter, "Don't eat that cookie," I don't throw her out of the house and condemn her to a life of suffering if she disobeys me and eats the cookie. If she does eat the cookie then I punish her appropriately.
Conversely, if I tell my daughter, "Don't drink the Drano," I follow it up by taking adequate precautions against her drinking the Drano. The consequences of her disobeying me and drinking the Drano are really, really bad, and I don't want her to suffer them even if she disobeys me. I'm being a responsible parent by locking the Drano away in addition to giving her a commandment.
God, on the other hand, put out a cookie but is punishing Adam and Eve like they drank the Drano. Either he's applying a punishment that far exceeds what is necessary or he didn't take adequate precautions in making sure Adam and Eve didn't disobey him. If he knew that disobeyment required such a severe punishment then it's absolutely his fault for letting Adam and Eve fall into the trap. Now I'm not trying to absolve Adam and Eve; I'm just saying God's not blameless.
It's not condemnation, it's the consequence of rejecting God and his blessings. The genesis story is humans saying to God "We don't love you or trust you. We think we know what's best for ourselves, not you. We don't need you in our lives." Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
You just compared getting thrown out of paradise and cursed to a hard life with a parent ground his or her child. You can't go back on it now.
Yes, God kicked them out of Eden in order to stop them from *continuing* to eat the Fruit of Life.
This is just embarrassing. It's completely transparent that you haven't even bothered to read the thing you're arguing about.
Quote from Genesis 3:22-24 »
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
So no, obviously they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life yet, because if they had, they would never die. That's why they were kicked out of Eden.
No, I'm making my argument based on the *entire* book, not just a little chapter.
Dude, you haven't even read the little section of the little chapter, so don't give me crap about making an argument based on the entire book.
Again I ask why you're even here. You obviously haven't read the chapter in question because you continuously make errors that demonstrate that you haven't read it. It would be like if someone were to say, "Yeah, that part in Moby Dick when Captain Ahab kills the white whale." Anyone who read Moby Dick or even read a summary of it would know that person has no idea what he's talking about.
Likewise, anyone who reads Genesis 3, or even just the passage I quoted, can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about due to the errors you continue to make, because you haven't even bothered to read the passage in question. Even when I've quoted it for you.
So why are you here, other than to showcase your own laziness? You obviously don't care about the passage, or else you might have actually read it. Is it because you want to get the last word in? Is it because you like reading what you wrote? Because there are plenty of other venues to listen to yourself talk.
Speak for yourself. I've told you *exactly* how God was telling the truth,
No, because God is demonstratively not telling the truth. You can't say, "Well God must be telling the truth or else the story doesn't work," because that's exactly what I've been saying: The story doesn't work!
Indeed one might even say that we've been given every indication that they weren't, deception being an evil and the knowledge of evil coming only from the Tree.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
You mean, "Next to nobody believes *anymore* that the Greek ones actually happened". If you're going to analyze the Greek myths properly, you need to understand the context in which they were told, and that context is believing that they *did* happen. When I see the out-of-hand rejection of the story like I do here, it's usually because there's a hidden agenda of actively rejecting Christianity as a whole. There's no discussion when one side is spending all their effort on rejection rather than actually analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told. The genesis story shares a lot in common with Homer's epics, in terms of storytelling mechanics (they're traditionally both primarily orally transmitted poems). There's even a line that's an obvious chorus, "and the morning and evening was one day".
Twitch channel
You can still analyze character motivation and storyline just as you would any work of literature. I don't see why I need to seriously entertain the possibility that Nick really existed to analyze The Great Gatsby.
Yes, that is, indeed, what I meant. I am happy you were able to understand me. Do you imagine that I don't know that when the ancient Greeks were a thriving civilization that there were more people who took it seriously? I hate to be that guy but, well, bro, you do yourself a disservice being pedantic.
Anyway, lets dive in to what you are actually saying.
1. The context in what they were told is great. However, we still know that they did not happen. The greek gods are not real and, as such, we get to figure out the kinds of socioeconomic conditions that led to this group of gods being created as opposed to other kinds of fictitious gods created by other cultures. We hardly need to think of them as true to analyze them.
2. If you want to talk about why some here reject Christianity, make a thread on it. What you should not be doing is lumping us in together with some sort of "hidden agenda" nonsense. The story in genesis has no relation to my deconversion. It is, however, a story that amuses me greatly in retrospect. As to "analyzing the story for what it is and why it was told" we can do that and it can be fun, but we don't need to treat the story as anything more than one of many creation myths that don't conform to reality to discuss why the story became prevalent, what it meant to the ancient Israelites and what have you.
3. You are indeed right that the genesis story shares much with the Homeric epics, although I don't think its the aspect you had in mind.
Either way, some ground rules since you don't know me. This thing where you quote a small part of my post, preach at me all while ignoring the bulk of what I wrote? Yeah, don't do that.
This part of my post,
This part of my post is exactly that kind of discussion you just said didn't happen when one side is rejecting the factual basis of the story.
That alternative being distorting the text to mean whatever you want it to mean, as opposed to taking what is written and drawing your conclusion from that?
That's not interpreting the text. That's ignoring the text in favor of your own agenda.
Completely false.
1. Actually read what God says. God says on the day that Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they will die. Notice how Adam and Eve didn't die on the day they ate the fruit.
2. Adam and Eve were not going to live forever prior to the eating of the fruit, as evidenced by God deliberately expelling Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life, which would have made them live forever. Which means they were not going to live forever otherwise.
3. Let's repeat that last part again, because it really needs to be brought home: recognize why Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden.
This has nothing to do with separation from God or "spiritual death" or whatever. The reason God expels Adam and Eve is because God doesn't want them to eat from the Tree of Life.
How the crap does any moral about trust make sense when God is the deceiver?
You would speak of understanding philosophical implications, despite the fact that you are attempting to reconcile (1) a story in which God acts to prevent mankind from gaining wisdom and eternal life with (2) a religion that specifically states that God was born into the world as a human being whose entire earthly ministry was about giving human beings truth and eternal life?
No, he doesn't misrepresent anything.
1. On the day they ate the fruit, they lost immortality (from the Fruit of Life, but that's just mechanics). You're just interpreting it over-literally. It's a orally passed-down *poem*, stop putting more weight on it then it actually has.
2. Again, Fruit of Life is just mechanics.
3. Because they were too shameful to be in the full presence of God to continue staying in Eden.
No, I don't buy "spiritual death" stuff either, but this is the difference between immortality and mortality. Being mortal means *you die*. God applied the consequence by denying access to the Tree of Life. Parents do *exactly the same thing* all the time when their children misbehave.
The knowledge of good and evil is about *responsibility*, that is, accepting the consequences of your actions. When you decide you know best, then you have to own up to whatever happens. What happened in this case is that humans became mortal.
Doesn't help that you've already decided that he is deceiving them, and then warping things to fit that assumption. I'm pretty sure you've done something bad (due to deciding you wanted to do things your way instead of listening to and trusting your parents), got caught by your parents, then had a consequence imposed on you. The genesis story is literally no different.
The genesis story is an old, informal explanation for all the troubles in the world that boils down to "we brought it in on ourselves for overreaching and not trusting that God Knows Best". In order to understand the story in context, you have to assume that God is always in the right. You don't have to personally believe that, but if you don't *start* from that in your interpretation, then you're not even trying to be fair about it and not trying to actually have a proper discussion about it.
The bible is pretty consistent throughout that you can either have "wisdom" or "eternal life", but you can't have both. It is also consistent in saying that "wisdom" is overrated, and usually just gets us into more trouble (and so you should just trust God instead). That's the "truth" that it tries to convey.
That's rather good example of a rejection right there, actually. I've already explained how the serpent was being deceptive. When God says "don't eat this" and serpent is trying to convince you to eat it anyway, that means one of them is not acting in your best interests. Without any other ways to conclude who that is, all you have left is *trust*.
Twitch channel
[quote=Name] will show who you are responding to. I barely caught that you replied to any of my post. I shouldn't be surprised since you've apparently got a habit of replying to the least important part and lecturing me from your ****ing podium instead of talking to me like an equal. OK.
Anyway, for as much as you're *****ing about rejection and the stifling of discussion, that is precisely what you are engaging in here. There are complex thoughts being articulated and your overall response is to ignore them and reiterate your position by preaching.
Color me not impressed, tux, and my advice would be to treat the people her with some respect because these little tricks are hardly going to accomplish whatever it is that you want them to.
How complex indeed.
That's where I get that you're actively rejecting Christianity and deliberately missing the forest for the trees.
Oh yeah, I *already* addressed why the tree was in the garden in the first place, but you've apparently ignored that. Pot, meet kettle, I guess.
Twitch channel
So, since I took the fact that Adam and Eve didn't die the day that they ate the fruit and interpreted it as God possibly meaning another meaning of death, I'm distorting the text?
Distorting implies that there must be a fundamental truth, ya? That there must be an irrevocable fact. And you're saying that anything that doesn't take what the text literally says as ignoring said fact.
If so, then Hamlet literally saw his father's ghost, who literally commanded him to kill his uncle because he committed regicide and fratricide. There cannot be any interpretation because that's literally what's written in the text. The only questions that can be raised then is why the ghost decided to show himself only to Hamlet instead of the entire royal court, which would have been just a lot more convenient for Hamlet and would have prevented the blood-bath that follows.
We cannot raise the possibility that Hamlet may be delusional because of the death of his father whom he is said to have loved dearly, and that out of the delusion he chose to believe that his uncle killed his father to claim the throne. Because the text literally says that Hamlet saw the ghost of his father.
You proposed that God is a liar. I proposed that God meant another form of death. Your proof is that's literally what the text says. My proof is my understanding of Christian belief concerning their relationship with God.
The entire point of interpretation is agenda. You are looking at something in a specific viewpoint that will differ from the way others who do not share your opinion.
Lol? If you've read my posts you should be able to tell I like to phrase things in an amusing fashion, and in fact stated it directly. Regarding allcaps? Lolwut? Seems you are having a problem telling the atheists apart, since I've been bolding my stuff for the most part. But yeah, go ahead and quote me out of context. Its not like my one use of allcaps was not directed at you and supposedly shallow thinking was an obvious joke written to someone who had just commented on his appreciation of my sense of humor. That statement your quote mining comes after, essentially, a discussion regarding original sin, so yeah, nice and complex.
Do you have, like, an alergy to the middle sections of my posts?
Regarding why the tree was there, when did I include that in any of my posts? Congradulations, you've given me your answer for a question I never asked, thanks?
Regarding actively rejecting christianity, so what? Deary me, I just might have been an atheist for years and debated with people actually capable of challenging me, people who don't need to do the low level rhetorical tricks you've employed insofar. Hell, I used to live in the same city that the ICR was in, had some fun convos there!
What's with the modifier though? Would you rather me.. I dunno.. passively reject your religion?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You have no basis for saying they were immortal in the first place.
No, I'm reading what it says. You have no basis for making your claims.
Oh I don't take this poem seriously at all. That doesn't change the fact that nothing you're saying has any basis.
You don't just get to make stuff up about what a text says. This applies whether it's an ancient holy text or a Terry Pratchett novel. Literary interpretation demands evidence.
What does that even mean? Are you confusing the word "mechanics" with "semantics"?
It specifically says "He drove out the man." God drove out man, then sent a cherubim with a flaming sword to guard Eden.
The answer is no, God kicked man out. All you're doing is revealing that you haven't even bothered to read Genesis 3 even when I quoted it specifically in response to you.
If you're just going to be that lazy, then why are you here?
You cannot say that Adam and Eve were not going to die when the reason God expelled them from Eden was the possibility they might eat a fruit that would cause them to not die.
You keep saying this, but you have no basis in the text that they weren't mortal from the start.
Notice that everything other plant and animal in Eden is mortal and nothing ate any fruit of knowledge.
I have warped nothing. Every claim I have made has been founded upon the text. You, on the other hand, have not backed up your claims with anything, and have demonstrated ignorance of Genesis even after I quoted it in the post you're responding to.
Again, why are you even here if you can't even be bothered to read the text you're talking about? There's multiple forums for you to post in if all you want is to hear yourself talk. This forum is for intelligent, thoughtful discussion. If you're not even going to be bothered to read Genesis in a discussion on Genesis when it's quoted in the post you're responding to, then this place is clearly not for you.
It doesn't matter what the intent of the story ways. As evidenced in the events of the story, God lies and the serpent tells the truth. Indeed, the discrepancy between these two positions has been my point all along.
Jesus is both truth and eternal life.
Yes, because you have no basis for interpreting it in that way.
You're not even going by the text. You're trying to make the text say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we're interpreting it literally or not. It has to do with whether or not you're bringing your own biases into the text instead of assessing the text for what it says.
Yes, correct. That is what happens in the play.
Well you certainly couldn't say that Hamlet didn't see his father's ghost in the text, that'd be contradicting the text.
That's far from the only question that could be raised.
Well no, that's a terrible argument, because multiple people see the ghost in the first act.
Now, the ghost's later appearance, in which Gertrude does not see him, on the other hand, you can argue that Hamlet was delusional, and people have.
Again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that everything must be interpreted literally. I'm saying that the way you're arguing that the text should be interpreted has absolutely nothing to do with the text and everything to do with what you want to be true.
For instance, if you're going to argue anything about Hamlet, you must have basis for arguing it. And if someone says your interpretation is wrong because there's no textual basis for it, your response should not be, "Well, then I suppose you believe we have to interpret it literally," because that's a non-sequitur. Certainly texts can contain metaphors, but you have to demonstrate that the text contains them. You have to demonstrate that your claims about the text have basis.
You haven't done that. You've offered no valid evidence that we should not take what God says at face value. Again, yes, texts CAN contain metaphors, but that does not mean that statement by God is one, and you have to demonstrate that it is a figurative and not a literal death if you're going to claim to.
Except this contradicts what the text says and appeals to traditions that did not exist at the time of the text's authorship. So your interpretation is without basis.
God lied.
I do have a question though- Does what you wrote only apply to stories? Or do they apply to all types of writings?
From what I understand, you're saying that you cannot interpret a work called X based off sources or understanding gained from things that are not in X.
Of course you can use outside sources to assist you in understanding X.
Those sources, however, must actually pertain to X.
Your argument that God is talking about spiritual death instead of literal death fails for a number of reasons.
For starters, there's no evidence or basis for accepting your hypothesis, as it seems to be purely born out of the fact that you don't want to accept the idea that God is lying, as opposed to anything rooted in the text itself.
Second, what you're saying makes no sense within the context of what is written. Again, yes, texts can contain metaphors, but that doesn't mean what God is talking about is metaphorical death, especially not when you read Genesis 3 as a whole.
Third, you're appealing to traditions that weren't contemporaneous to the text we're talking about. Genesis was written before Christianity. If you're going to talk about this contrast of spiritual vs. physical death, you're going to have to demonstrate that this concept existed at that time. Saying it's Christian doesn't work if the text predates Christianity. Further, even if you were to claim that Judaism had a concept of spiritual death separate from physical death, that still does not mean that God was saying the former.
Your argument collapses because there's no evidence supporting what you're saying.
It would really behoove you to study Biblical and literary criticism.
Well, actually, I'm more or less repeating that I've heard from other seemingly knowledgeable people who explained Genesis to me. I suppose I should have considered the possibility that they were wrong, or at the very least I should have asked them what their justifications were for saying so.
Eh, I said that's the Christian interpretation of Genesis, not that Genesis was written to support Christianity or that the author wrote it with that specific intention in mind. I never made that argument, and if I came off that way then I apologize.
I will ask a pastor about this when I get a chance. I find it hard to believe that there is no evidence supporting this view, especially since Christian pastors/scholars tend to spend an enormous amount of time making sure whatever they say at least makes sense in regards to the Bible.
Edit-
After ruminating overnight, I've realized that you're right. I was allowing my preconceptions about God shadow my judgment and made me forget the single most important thing about literary criticism.
This was a good discussion. Thank you.
Before they were banished... they could eat the Fruit of Life (it was in the garden.. and they it's not the fruit they were warned against). Which makes them immortal.
Mechanics is the "how" in the story, the Fruit of Life. Just because they had to eat the fruit doesn't make them not immortal.
And you're totally ignoring the part where they hid themselves from God due to the shame from being guilty. Yes, God put some protections to make sure they didn't get back in, but fundamentally they simply could no longer stand to be in the same place as God. There's other accounts in the Bible of when humans have been in the full presence of God. Usually results in getting blinded, sometimes crippled even further. Besides which, it's God's garden, God can choose to let or not let anything be there.
No, what you've said is "God is lying because God is lying". I've already explained like 10 times why God is telling the truth. You can't even hope to properly interpret the story without accepting at least that. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience.
Your bias is "God is lying and evil". With that fundamental problem, there's no way to actually discuss the story. Try "God is acting like how a parent would" and go from there.
Truth is not the same thing as wisdom. Wisdom is trying to discern the truth yourself. *Real* wisdom is understanding that you can't, it's not even from just biblical sources, try Socrates.
Straight up, yes or no: Have you, as a child, ever misbehaved, got caught by your parents, then had a punishment imposed on you?
The TLDR of the genesis story is fundamentally "Here's how humans got *grounded*". The rest of the bible? "Here's how you can get back into God's good graces and get un-grounded".
Twitch channel
God's a ****ty parent then. He intentionally set up his children to disobey him or at least didn't take precautions to keep them from disobeying. His punishment far exceeds what is applicable; I wouldn't throw my daughter out of the house if she eats my piece of cake when I told her not to. Is that the kind of parenting you find even remotely acceptable?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I've already addressed why the option to disobey was even there.. There is *no point* for humans to exist without that option. God wants trust (AKA love). He can't get it if he's there isn't a way to express distrust.
Also, it's getting grounded, not getting kicked out of the house. The whole universe is God's house.
Twitch channel
Still doesn't make him a good parent. Going back to my Drano example, if my daughter disobeys and drinks the Drano of Knowledge I'm still a horrible parent for not taking precautions to keep my daughter from doing something I know to be dangerous. If eating from the Tree of Knowledge would result in such horrible punishment then it was God's responsibility to take better precautions. He knew that eating from the Tree would result in pain from childbirth, toil in the dirt, and eventual death; if he really loved his children then to avoid doing something beyond a simple instruction boggles my mind.
I don't ground my daughter by condemning her to eking out an existence and a life of pain and subjugation:
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Again, there is *zero point* to humanity without the option to distrust. Also, I've also mentioned how the actual Fruit itself was a prop more than anything else. Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Tada, you just ate the fruit too! That shame and guilt you experienced? That's the knowledge of Good and Evil.
When I was little, my mom set up the house such that she would never have to say "no" to anything. I didn't have to trust her at all. I didn't have any real love for her. I didn't have the knowledge of Good and Evil. I only really started to love and trust my mom when I actually had real choices to make. Trust and the option to distrust are two sides of the same coin.
It's not condemnation, it's the consequence of rejecting God and his blessings. The genesis story is humans saying to God "We don't love you or trust you. We think we know what's best for ourselves, not you. We don't need you in our lives." Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Twitch channel
No, that's exactly what it means. God wouldn't talk about a risk of them eating the tree of life and living forever if they were already going to live forever.
You posted:
The answer is no, that's not why they left Eden. They left Eden because God kicked them out, and God kicked them out specifically to prevent them from eating the Tree of Life. We know this because God says so.
Begging the question. Your conclusion cannot be evidence for your conclusion.
Of course, a prerequisite to having your argument have Scriptural basis is to actually read Genesis 3, which you've consistently demonstrated that you're not willing to actually do. So until you do that, as opposed to talking about a text that you're clearly not familiar enough with given the numerous erroneous claims you've made about it, you're really just wasting your own time in being here.
No, that's my conclusion, which I have backed with evidence. You have made no attempt at a valid argument.
Yes, God kicked them out of Eden in order to stop them from *continuing* to eat the Fruit of Life.
Because it's an incredibly Bad Idea to do otherwise. Just think of the most evil historical figure you can think of, then imagine them also being immortal. Mortality is damage mitigation against evil.
Humanity rejected God and wanted independence. We got that independence, turns out it's not as great as it was cracked up to be. This is what you're fundamentally trying to ignore that is the whole point of the story.
No, I'm making my argument based on the *entire* book, not just a little chapter.
Speak for yourself. I've told you *exactly* how God was telling the truth, you're just obstinately refusing to accept it. You're attributing malice to God's actions based on your own preconception that God is an evil liar, when human parents do the same sort of thing at a smaller scale for the good of their own chidlren.
Twitch channel
This sounds like you are making the argument that gods punishment is OK because humans also punish their children. But you are completely ignoring the scope of the punishment.
1. Child breaks a rule and is punished with a time out.
2. Child breaks a rule and is punished with 25 lashes.
3. Child breaks a rule and is tortured for 7 days before being disemboweled and left to bleed to death.
The "scale" of the punishment is surely relevant to the conversation. How could it not be?
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Here's where my issue comes in. I understand that without the ability to disobey there is no free will. But if the Tree of Life was merely a test for humanity, then God's a real ******* for making the punishment for disobeying him so severe.
If I put out a cookie and tell my daughter, "Don't eat that cookie," I don't throw her out of the house and condemn her to a life of suffering if she disobeys me and eats the cookie. If she does eat the cookie then I punish her appropriately.
Conversely, if I tell my daughter, "Don't drink the Drano," I follow it up by taking adequate precautions against her drinking the Drano. The consequences of her disobeying me and drinking the Drano are really, really bad, and I don't want her to suffer them even if she disobeys me. I'm being a responsible parent by locking the Drano away in addition to giving her a commandment.
God, on the other hand, put out a cookie but is punishing Adam and Eve like they drank the Drano. Either he's applying a punishment that far exceeds what is necessary or he didn't take adequate precautions in making sure Adam and Eve didn't disobey him. If he knew that disobeyment required such a severe punishment then it's absolutely his fault for letting Adam and Eve fall into the trap. Now I'm not trying to absolve Adam and Eve; I'm just saying God's not blameless.
You just compared getting thrown out of paradise and cursed to a hard life with a parent ground his or her child. You can't go back on it now.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
This is just embarrassing. It's completely transparent that you haven't even bothered to read the thing you're arguing about.
So no, obviously they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life yet, because if they had, they would never die. That's why they were kicked out of Eden.
Dude, you haven't even read the little section of the little chapter, so don't give me crap about making an argument based on the entire book.
Again I ask why you're even here. You obviously haven't read the chapter in question because you continuously make errors that demonstrate that you haven't read it. It would be like if someone were to say, "Yeah, that part in Moby Dick when Captain Ahab kills the white whale." Anyone who read Moby Dick or even read a summary of it would know that person has no idea what he's talking about.
Likewise, anyone who reads Genesis 3, or even just the passage I quoted, can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about due to the errors you continue to make, because you haven't even bothered to read the passage in question. Even when I've quoted it for you.
So why are you here, other than to showcase your own laziness? You obviously don't care about the passage, or else you might have actually read it. Is it because you want to get the last word in? Is it because you like reading what you wrote? Because there are plenty of other venues to listen to yourself talk.
No, because God is demonstratively not telling the truth. You can't say, "Well God must be telling the truth or else the story doesn't work," because that's exactly what I've been saying: The story doesn't work!