PDA

View Full Version : Eve's Laboratory



Dionysus
June 9th, 2004, 09:21 PM
I submit that the original sin was not sin at all.

Eve was the world's first scientist. Being that neither Adam nor Eve had been exposed to prefabrication, they had no concept or understanding of what it was or the ability to recognize the harm done by it. They could only interpret what they were told and analyze it based on the observable evidence and the most recent information. Eve had no reason to doubt what the serpent told her (as far as she knew, things could have changed since she last spoke with God, who by the way, was curiously absent during this going-on) and so she:

1. Analyzed the most current information,

Genesis 3:4-5 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

2. compared it to the observable evidence,

3:6a "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes,

3. formed an hypothesis, "that she would be made wise",

3:6b "and a tree to be desired to make one wise,"

4. and tested the theory by action and observation:

3:6c "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

This was not an act of ill-intent or malice, nor was it a conscious attempt to put herself separate from God. It was a learning experience in which she pro-actively took the lead role utilizing the mind and curious nature given to her by almighty God.

The suggestion that this innocent act was "sin" is ridiculous and remarkably unfair to Adam and Eve. They were both psychological sponges gathering and interpreting data as best as they could whenever and from wherever or whomever it was received. At no point were they commanded to listen to God exclusively nor were they ever advised to be wary of conflicting information. They were innocents deceived in a scenario that was fully preventable by the God who, in a remarkable display of disregard and irresponsibility, allowed this thing to happen through inaction. In this story the fault lies with God, not man and certainly not our daring scientist.

KevinBrowning
June 9th, 2004, 09:29 PM
Disobeying God out of curiosity doesn't make one a scientist, it makes one a foolish, sinful human.

RTShatto
June 9th, 2004, 09:59 PM
I heard a theory that the fruit might have actualy been a grape (and not an apple), and they got drunk as a result which was the sin. Kind of makes a little more sence when you look at it like that, some poeple say this because Noah got drunk right after the flood as well.

So they disobeyed god and got drunk, but thats from apocryphal texts, so I dont necesarily believe that.

Dionysus
June 9th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Disobeying God out of curiosity doesn't make one a scientist, it makes one a foolish, sinful human.

I never said she failed to obey, I said that it wasn't sin i.e an offense against religious or moral law, due to primarily God's ineptitude in recognizing that his most powerful creation was running amuck in the garden and secondly due to Eve's lack of understanding of anything malevolent in nature thus being defenseless against it.

At best she made a mistake which cannot be considered as a moral misdoing because, like I said earlier, her motivation was innocent curiosity, not devious intent or willful disregard. It was an analysis of the most current information and action taken based on that information.

It's also worth noting that it never specifies that God himself told Eve not to take of the tree. It only says that she had been informed of it in some way. Whether that was by God or Adam is unclear. Whether God or Adam told her, she did no wrong in believing them at their word. If she could believe them why then would she have reason to doubt the serpent? Why would she have cause to doubt anything? Why would she be suspect of any new information?

Iluvatar
June 10th, 2004, 02:41 AM
This is true. Consider that Adem and Eve were full grown when they were created. This gives rise to the question, Did they have belly buttons? But it also suggests that they lacked world esperience. Even assuming they were emotionaly mature, they still had no experience with evil, lies, deciet. Young children, babies especialy, are found to believe whoever talked to them last. When they recieve two conflicting sets of information, they lack the experience to know which is worse and discard it. From thier point of view, the snkae was just as credible as god.

Furthermore, you are correct GP. Eve did indeed follow the scientific process. Having two conflicting sets of information (eat it, it's good, and don't eat it, it's bad), she decided to try it on a limited basis.

Oh, and as a side note, I would have taken the apple. as I've stated before, I'd rather have knowledge and wisdom than live in an eternal state of mindless bliss.

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 06:11 AM
Hmmmm...I think I see where you're coming from Godless. As I was re-reading the Book of Genesis, I could see how one could come to your conclusion. I found lots of yummy stuff to debate, too! (must...return...to...evil wisdom...thread.)

But, overall, I think your claim is refutable. You assert that Eve was simply a 'tabla rasa' and that she was experimenting as a baby would in order to acquire knowledge. She was not a clean slate. She had many things on her slate already. She was created a 'woman' not a 'baby.' That would imply she is equipped with the brain of a woman, and not that of a baby.

First, let's make the distinction between "sin" and "bad". Bad is just a concept that is opposite of good. You cannot know good without knowing bad, and you cannot know bad without knowing good. To "sin" is to do a "bad deed."

Let's also make the distinction between "knowing something" and "being aware of something." You can know what a sin is. A sin is a bad deed. But you might not be "aware" of the consequences of a sin. Kind of like when you're 16 and driving 80 mph down the highway. You have the knowledge that you are more likely to get in an accident going 80 than if you followed the speed limit. You know this because you've read statistics, and heard about people in accidents, or even know some people in accidents. But until you crash the car and experience it for yourself, you can't acquire full awareness of those consequences.

Moreso, I assert that the closer to you the consequences are, the more fully you develop the awareness of them. If you read statistics, it is emotionally distant from you. If you have a friend who got in an accident it becomes more personal. A family member, even more personal. And if it happens to you, it doesn't get any more personal than that. You have the ability to l develop awareness in direct relationship to the spectrum in which the experience happens to you.

GEN 2:25 [Adam and Eve] "were both naked, yet they felt no shame."

This implies that Adam and Eve did not have the awareness of the "consequences of sin." They didn't have the feeling of shame that accompanies commiting a sin. It implies nothing of the concept of "good and bad" only of the consequences of sin. The story of creation is not how the concept of "good and bad" came into being, but how the concept of "sin" came into being.

Is it possible that the concept "good and bad" was already in the Garden of Eden? Yes. We have two shows of proof. One is in the Tree of Knowledge. The tree of knowledge is really the tree of awareness. It is knowing all that is good and bad. This implies "good and bad" was 'created' before Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve were simply created without knowledge of the "sin" which is doing a bad deed. Or were they?

GEN 3:1 "Now the serpent was most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made."

In order for God to make the serpent "cunning", God would have had to known "sin." He created "sin" when he created the serpent. To be "cunning" is to have knowledge, but to wield it in negatively manipulative and immoral ways. God created the serpent to be this way. Therefore, God created good AND evil. God also created "sin."

GEN 2:27 "God created man in his image;"

If God created Adam and Eve in his image, then it would have had to have been with the concept of "good and bad" already in place for them. While they might not have had the awareness of the consequences of sin they wouldn't have been able to be ignorant of sin completely, since they were created in God's image, and God created sin.

While we get the impression that God's intentions for creating the Garden of Eden were to create a place and creatures that were "all good", this isn't true, or else he never would have put anything potentially sinful in it, including the Tree of Knowledge, which held the key to the awareness of sin, and including the serpent who was cunning.

GEN 2:9 "Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food..."

Evolution. If we eat the fruit, we'll grow. He made the fruit look tempting so we would be inclined to eat it. This implies that God already put 'temptation' in our hearts. However, this also implies that while he made things "good", he must also have made things to "bad" , else we couldn't know good without knowing bad also. Also, the serpent could not even exist if the concept of bad and temptation wasn't already in the environment.

GEN 3:6 "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom."

This implies that she was tempted by something beyond just that of nourishment. God made the fruit of the trees tempting by making them delightful looking and yummy tasting. But the Tree of Knowledge, he made tempting for other reasons...gaining "knowledge of good and bad."

GEN 2:17 "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

By using the word "doomed", this implies that there was the concept of "bad" in the Garden of Eden, else he wouldn't have conveyed the sense of "doom" to Adam. The fact that Adam didn't eat of the tree initially, shows he understood the concept of "doomed to die."

GEN 3:4 "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You certainly will not die!'"

This is supporting the "temptation" factor. What drew Eve to the tree was the "something more" or awareness. Had it not been so tempting, she would have had fruit from other trees. In order to have temptation, we must already know "sin." We must already have an idea of what it means to sin, but not necessarily the consequences acting on that sin. While understanding the knowledge of "doomed to die," one doesn't necessarily understand the consequences of "doomed to die."

The serpent simply offered Eve the push. She decided she would not die, against God's order, if she ate of the tree. She knew she would be committing a sin before she committed it because she understood temptation and she understood doomed to die. What she didn't have was the awareness of the consequences of sin.


GEN 3:7 "Then the the eyes of both of them were opened..."

They became aware of the consequences of sin.

If Eve was a scientist, what she was experimenting in was a psychological experiment in gaining awareness of our consequences.

Now, with all of that said, what is the point of life??? Most people agree that life is the quest for knowledge, the quest for experience which provides awareness for the consequences of our actions, whether good or bad.

Therefore, the allegorical story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, is really nothing more than a brilliantly symbolic synopsis of the meaning of life. And yes, life is one great big science experiment. With that, I will agree.

Apokalupsis
June 10th, 2004, 07:20 AM
I never said she failed to obey, I said that it wasn't sin i.e an offense against religious or moral law, due to primarily God's ineptitude in recognizing that his most powerful creation was running amuck in the garden and secondly due to Eve's lack of understanding of anything malevolent in nature thus being defenseless against it.
God was inept? They were running amock? These sound like silly claims to me. Are you able to support them?



At best she made a mistake which cannot be considered as a moral misdoing because, like I said earlier, her motivation was innocent curiosity, not devious intent or willful disregard.
Wait...so as long as an act is done out of curiousity and not devious intent or willful disregard, it is moral? Are you certain about this one?



It's also worth noting that it never specifies that God himself told Eve not to take of the tree. It only says that she had been informed of it in some way.
Really?

Hmmm...what about:

Gen 2: 16,17
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

OK, so we know that God at least said it to Adam, right? But in Eve's dialog with Satan, she says...

Gen 3:2,3
2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, `You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.

So she knows that God say "don't do it". It does not matter if God told her, or Adam told her, she knew what God said about the matter.

Are you suggesting that we are not guilty of any law, unless the highest authority who enforces or legislates the law, actually and physically, personally informs us of it?



Whether that was by God or Adam is unclear.
The command came from God, everyone (God, Satan, Adam, and Eve) fully knew and acknowledged this.



Whether God or Adam told her, she did no wrong in believing them at their word.
It was a moral failure. She was disobedient to the one law that was given to them...it was one law, and that couldn't even be kept.

The story isn't showing the wickedness of mankind, it's showing how ill-placed mistrust and personal ego can lead to severe consequences.



If she could believe them why then would she have reason to doubt the serpent? Why would she have cause to doubt anything? Why would she be suspect of any new information?
Because she knew of God and that he was her creator, she knew that Adam was her mate. She knew that she could do anything BUT take from the tree. Along comes a 3rd party, says they were wrong.

We also know that Satan was very deceitful and cunning.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made

Iluvatar
June 10th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Consider, Eve has two contradicting options, one from satan, and one from god. With hardly any experience at all, she has little to base her trust in. Both sources are, to her, equally credible. they cancel eachother out. The only remaining factors are the immediate benifits of eating it. We would have knowledge of wrongness, but she didn't, because she hadn't eaten the fruit. She didn't have the capicity to tell good from bad, since she hadn't eaten the fruit yet.

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 08:40 AM
God was inept? They were running amock? These sound like silly claims to me. Are you able to support them?

No more or less than anyone can refute them. ;) BTW, it was Satan who was running (ahem, my bad. Guess it's that Southern drawl that makes me hear aMUCK. Duh. :red: ) amock, not A&E. Where was Adam by the way?


Wait...so as long as an act is done out of curiousity and not devious intent or willful disregard, it is moral? Are you certain about this one?

Not necessarily, but certainly in this case. She was acting on the most current information presented by and individual whom she had no reason to distrust.



Really?

Hmmm...what about:

Gen 2: 16,17
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

OK, so we know that God at least said it to Adam, right? But in Eve's dialog with Satan, she says...

Gen 3:2,3
2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, `You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.

So she knows that God say "don't do it". It does not matter if God told her, or Adam told her, she knew what God said about the matter.

Are you suggesting that we are not guilty of any law, unless the highest authority who enforces or legislates the law, actually and physically, personally informs us of it?

No. I'm suggesting that merely interpreted the most recent information and acted on it. Along those lines, can you demonstrate where God placed himself as THE SOLE authority figure in any way concerning Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve were in a position where they were forced to interpret whatever was told to them and act on it accordingly. Without an established authority figure, why should they doubt anything that was told to them? God was certainly a focal point but by no means had he established Himself as the C.O.



The command came from God, everyone (God, Satan, Adam, and Eve) fully knew and acknowledged this.


It was a moral failure. She was disobedient to the one law that was given to them...it was one law, and that couldn't even be kept.

The story isn't showing the wickedness of mankind, it's showing how ill-placed mistrust and personal ego can lead to severe consequences.


Because she knew of God and that he was her creator, she knew that Adam was her mate. She knew that she could do anything BUT take from the tree. Along comes a 3rd party, says they were wrong.

We also know that Satan was very deceitful and cunning.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made

Well, WE know that. SHE didn't, nor did she have any reason to.

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 08:49 AM
But, overall, I think your claim is refutable. You assert that Eve was simply a 'tabla rasa' and that she was experimenting as a baby would in order to acquire knowledge. She was not a clean slate. She had many things on her slate already. She was created a 'woman' not a 'baby.' That would imply she is equipped with the brain of a woman, and not that of a baby.

That presupposes adultHOOD i.e. a fully matured intellect developed by life experience.

First, let's make the distinction between "sin" and "bad". Bad is just a concept that is opposite of good. You cannot know good without knowing bad, and you cannot know bad without knowing good. To "sin" is to do a "bad deed."

Let's also make the distinction between "knowing something" and "being aware of something." You can know what a sin is. A sin is a bad deed. But you might not be "aware" of the consequences of a sin. Kind of like when you're 16 and driving 80 mph down the highway. You have the knowledge that you are more likely to get in an accident going 80 than if you followed the speed limit. You know this because you've read statistics, and heard about people in accidents, or even know some people in accidents. But until you crash the car and experience it for yourself, you can't acquire full awareness of those consequences.

Moreso, I assert that the closer to you the consequences are, the more fully you develop the awareness of them. If you read statistics, it is emotionally distant from you. If you have a friend who got in an accident it becomes more personal. A family member, even more personal. And if it happens to you, it doesn't get any more personal than that. You have the ability to l develop awareness in direct relationship to the spectrum in which the experience happens to you.

GEN 2:25 [Adam and Eve] "were both naked, yet they felt no shame."

This implies that Adam and Eve did not have the awareness of the "consequences of sin." They didn't have the feeling of shame that accompanies commiting a sin. It implies nothing of the concept of "good and bad" only of the consequences of sin. The story of creation is not how the concept of "good and bad" came into being, but how the concept of "sin" came into being.

Is it possible that the concept "good and bad" was already in the Garden of Eden? Yes. We have two shows of proof. One is in the Tree of Knowledge. The tree of knowledge is really the tree of awareness. It is knowing all that is good and bad. This implies "good and bad" was 'created' before Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve were simply created without knowledge of the "sin" which is doing a bad deed. Or were they?

GEN 3:1 "Now the serpent was most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made."

In order for God to make the serpent "cunning", God would have had to known "sin." He created "sin" when he created the serpent. To be "cunning" is to have knowledge, but to wield it in negatively manipulative and immoral ways. God created the serpent to be this way. Therefore, God created good AND evil. God also created "sin."

GEN 2:27 "God created man in his image;"

If God created Adam and Eve in his image, then it would have had to have been with the concept of "good and bad" already in place for them. While they might not have had the awareness of the consequences of sin they wouldn't have been able to be ignorant of sin completely, since they were created in God's image, and God created sin.

While we get the impression that God's intentions for creating the Garden of Eden were to create a place and creatures that were "all good", this isn't true, or else he never would have put anything potentially sinful in it, including the Tree of Knowledge, which held the key to the awareness of sin, and including the serpent who was cunning.

GEN 2:9 "Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food..."

Evolution. If we eat the fruit, we'll grow. He made the fruit look tempting so we would be inclined to eat it. This implies that God already put 'temptation' in our hearts. However, this also implies that while he made things "good", he must also have made things to "bad" , else we couldn't know good without knowing bad also. Also, the serpent could not even exist if the concept of bad and temptation wasn't already in the environment.

GEN 3:6 "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom."

This implies that she was tempted by something beyond just that of nourishment. God made the fruit of the trees tempting by making them delightful looking and yummy tasting. But the Tree of Knowledge, he made tempting for other reasons...gaining "knowledge of good and bad."

GEN 2:17 "From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

By using the word "doomed", this implies that there was the concept of "bad" in the Garden of Eden, else he wouldn't have conveyed the sense of "doom" to Adam. The fact that Adam didn't eat of the tree initially, shows he understood the concept of "doomed to die."

GEN 3:4 "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You certainly will not die!'"

This is supporting the "temptation" factor. What drew Eve to the tree was the "something more" or awareness. Had it not been so tempting, she would have had fruit from other trees. In order to have temptation, we must already know "sin." We must already have an idea of what it means to sin, but not necessarily the consequences acting on that sin. While understanding the knowledge of "doomed to die," one doesn't necessarily understand the consequences of "doomed to die."

The serpent simply offered Eve the push. She decided she would not die, against God's order, if she ate of the tree. She knew she would be committing a sin before she committed it because she understood temptation and she understood doomed to die. What she didn't have was the awareness of the consequences of sin.


GEN 3:7 "Then the the eyes of both of them were opened..."

They became aware of the consequences of sin.

If Eve was a scientist, what she was experimenting in was a psychological experiment in gaining awareness of our consequences.

Now, with all of that said, what is the point of life??? Most people agree that life is the quest for knowledge, the quest for experience which provides awareness for the consequences of our actions, whether good or bad.

Therefore, the allegorical story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, is really nothing more than a brilliantly symbolic synopsis of the meaning of life. And yes, life is one great big science experiment. With that, I will agree.

This whole statement presupposes adultHOOD i.e. a fully matured intellect developed by life experience and time, of which Adam, Eve and the planet for that matter, had none.

Slipnish
June 10th, 2004, 09:01 AM
And yet, according to the apologists, death never entered the Garden until after the fruit was eaten.

If this is true, even though God said, "Thou shalt surely die." How could Adam or Eve have a concept of what "death" was? The certainly had no concept of it prior to the event, right?

I don't recall a phrase where God explains what death actually means, either in terms of physical or spiritual death. At least not in Genesis...

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 09:27 AM
This whole statement presupposes adultHOOD i.e. a fully matured intellect developed by life experience and time, of which Adam, Eve and the planet for that matter, had none.

They were adults capable of reproducing. That would support that they did have a mature intellect. It would be unnatural for them to just be created adults but with baby brains, wouldn't it?

Apokalupsis
June 10th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Consider, Eve has two contradicting options, one from satan, and one from god. With hardly any experience at all, she has little to base her trust in. Both sources are, to her, equally credible. they cancel eachother out. The only remaining factors are the immediate benifits of eating it. We would have knowledge of wrongness, but she didn't, because she hadn't eaten the fruit. She didn't have the capicity to tell good from bad, since she hadn't eaten the fruit yet.
No, they are not equally credible. She had a relationship with God. She knew God. She spent a heck of a lot more time with God than she did with Satan.

Also, they DID have a knowledge of wrongness. This wasn't a Tree of Knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 09:30 AM
They were adults capable of reproducing. That would support that they did have a mature intellect. It would be unnatural for them to just be created adults but with baby brains, wouldn't it?

It's not a matter of physically underdeveloped brains, it's a matter of them being a clean slate with no frame of reference for anything.

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 09:32 AM
No, they are not equally credible. She had a relationship with God. She knew God. She spent a heck of a lot more time with God than she did with Satan.

What's a heck of a lot more time? There isn't any record of God actually interacting with Eve until he cursed her. Seems like Satan interacted more with her than God did.

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 09:38 AM
It's not a matter of physically underdeveloped brains, it's a matter of them being a clean slate with no frame of reference for anything.

Right, you view them as a "clean slate." I do not. They had the concept of "good and bad" all around them in their environment. God told them if they ate of that tree, they would die. They resisted that temptation because they knew whatever death was, it was bad. They knew at least that they didn't want to die, else the serpent wouldn't have used that phrase in his cunningness. "Go ahead, you won't die." Obviously, they had "fear of death", fear of a consequence, even if they didn't have the awareness of what the consequence really was and only that "death is bad."

They had a frame of reference for "good" "bad" and "sin". That is what I spent an hour compiling in my post. ;)

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 09:42 AM
Right, you view them as a "clean slate." I do not. They had the concept of "good and bad" all around them in their environment. God told them if they ate of that tree, they would die. They resisted that temptation because they knew whatever death was, it was bad. They knew at least that they didn't want to die, else the serpent wouldn't have used that phrase in his cunningness. "Go ahead, you won't die." Obviously, they had "fear of death", fear of a consequence, even if they didn't have the awareness of what the consequence really was and only that "death is bad."

They had a frame of reference for "good" "bad" and "sin". That is what I spent an hour compiling in my post. ;)

Sorry I don't agree with your effort.

Apokalupsis
June 10th, 2004, 10:02 AM
No more or less than anyone can refute them. ;)
This is like saying:

I claim: paunta ukbarba up simulate the cat.

Now refute it. I know I can't support it, but neither can you refute it.

I don't have to refute anything that isn't a supported argument. It isn't a cogent argument until it is supported to be true and valid.



Where was Adam by the way?
Petting goats.



Not necessarily, but certainly in this case.
So how do you differentiate between the times that it is not wrong and it is wrong solely because one was "curious"?


She was acting on the most current information presented by and individual whom she had no reason to distrust.
You mean other than the fact that she had previously heard from at least 2 beings she knew and had a relationship with, that she wasn't to eat from the tree and yet she did because she believed a apparent stranger who had done nothing to earn trust in any way? Yes...I suppose you could be correct there in light of that "argument". ;)



No. I'm suggesting that merely interpreted the most recent information and acted on it.
Someone told me that my boss is going to blow up my building. That was the most recent information I heard, and you are saying as such...I should act on it? This seems like a pretty flimsy qualifier to me.


Along those lines, can you demonstrate where God placed himself as THE SOLE authority figure in any way concerning Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve were in a position where they were forced to interpret whatever was told to them and act on it accordingly.
You mean other than God creating them, their world, Adam and Eve acknowledging him to do as such and having a submissive relationship with God? No...outside of that, I cannot. ;)


Without an established authority figure, why should they doubt anything that was told to them?
Do you trust everything you are told by the US government? After all, it is an established authority, therefore, according to your logic, you must believe and do everything it says right?


God was certainly a focal point but by no means had he established Himself as the C.O.
Wait, you are suggesting that it is reasonable to believe here for this story, that God created the world, created Adam and Eve, God told them what they could and could not do, He had a relationship with them, they fully understood this, and despite this, it is unreasonable for them to have believed that God was in a position of authority over them? C'mon now, I think you are stretching. ;)

Even after they ate, they were submissive to Him. They knew. Also, knowing God's nature throughout the rest of the Bible, it's reasonable to believe that like the rest of his followers, they were aware of God's sovereignity.




Well, WE know that. SHE didn't, nor did she have any reason to.
Very well. Then you believe it is reasonable for you to believe a complete stranger to tell you something that is a direct opposite of what your friends, family, or even personal experience has told you and you believed.

Therefore, the next person you meet who tells you Christianity is true, you will accept it according to your own logic. ;)

Symantix
June 10th, 2004, 10:12 AM
The english word "sin" is derived from the Greek "hamartia", as used in the NT, or the Hebrew term "chata" in the OT. Both terms are also used in reference to archery. They mean, simply, "to miss the mark". It doesn't matter whether you did it knowingly, intentionally, ignorantly, or accidentally.

Eve very likely did not realize the repercussions of her action. But she was told not to do something. When she did it anyway, it was not as if she said to herself "hehe...I'll show my creator...I can do anything I want". She was, indeed, mislead by the serpent. But she nevertheless, "missed the mark".

It's always nice to watch people as they assume that they have a better concept of justice than the author of justice Himself. Spend about 10 years studying the mercy, justice, and love of God, then come back and tell me that:

1) Eve did not sin

2) God was not merciful to her

Not all sin is the same. Some is willful, some is unintentional. When God says we have sinned, He means that we have missed the mark. The "mark" in this context, is His character. When we sin, we have done something that does not reflect the character of God. So it doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not; failing to reflect the character of God is not dependent upon motive or foreknowledge.

Apokalupsis
June 10th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Good points symmy. ;)

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 10:47 AM
This is like saying:

[i]I claim: paunta ukbarba up simulate the cat.

Not so, based on what I have already posted.

I submit that God, the parent of his creations, allowed the following:

His human creations to be ignorant of the concept of lies and deceit

His most powerful creation and most prominant enemy, Satan, to operate unchecked among st his ignorant creations

This to me indicates either carelessness, ineptitude, lack of concern or outright stupidity.


Petting goats.

Sure he wasn't trying to get a little "help-meet" on the side? :?:


So how do you differentiate between the times that it is not wrong and it is wrong solely because one was "curious"?

I don't. I differentiating this one.


You mean other than the fact that she had previously heard from at least 2 beings she knew and had a relationship with, that she wasn't to eat from the tree and yet she did because she believed a apparent stranger who had done nothing to earn trust in any way? Yes...I suppose you could be correct there in light of that "argument". ;)

How do you know she had any relationship with God? I never mentions him interacting with her in any way until her codemnation.


Someone told me that my boss is going to blow up my building. That was the most recent information I heard, and you are saying as such...I should act on it? This seems like a pretty flimsy qualifier to me.

Is it someone you work with or at least inhavit the same building with? Do you have any reason to distrust the person?



Do you trust everything you are told by the US government? After all, it is an established authority, therefore, according to your logic, you must believe and do everything it says right?

No I mustn't. I have life experience to help me judge such things. ;)



Wait, you are suggesting that it is reasonable to believe here for this story, that God created the world, created Adam and Eve, God told them what they could and could not do, He had a relationship with them, they fully understood this, and despite this, it is unreasonable for them to have believed that God was in a position of authority over them? C'mon now, I think you are stretching. ;)

Maybe so, but you've yet to convince me otherwise. And it does make for fun conversation, no? ;)


Even after they ate, they were submissive to Him. They knew. Also, knowing God's nature throughout the rest of the Bible, it's reasonable to believe that like the rest of his followers, they were aware of God's sovereignity.

SOLE sovereignty is the key here.


Very well. Then you believe it is reasonable for you to believe a complete stranger to tell you something that is a direct opposite of what your friends, family, or even personal experience has told you and you believed.

What experience of Eve' are you referring to?


Therefore, the next person you meet who tells you Christianity is true, you will accept it according to your own logic. ;)

I accept and respect that you would accept it. :)

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 10:49 AM
....Spend about 10 years studying the mercy, justice, and love of God, then come back and tell me that:

1) Eve did not sin

2) God was not merciful to her [/size]

I already have and I just did. ;)

Slipnish
June 10th, 2004, 10:52 AM
Not all sin is the same. Some is willful, some is unintentional. When God says we have sinned, He means that we have missed the mark. The "mark" in this context, is His character. When we sin, we have done something that does not reflect the character of God. So it doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not; failing to reflect the character of God is not dependent upon motive or foreknowledge.


"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. "
Matthew 19:14

Can children not sin and be blameless? Intentional or not? Are they then to be punished, providing that heaven is "childlike" in its innocence?

Which brings up, can innocence sin?

Hmmm. What about Eve?

Symantix
June 10th, 2004, 10:56 AM
I already have and I just did. ;)I think about you a lot more than you realize, GP, and pray for you as well.

Only God knows your heart; not me. But I know this: God loves you, and one day you will witness His love and mercy firsthand, and it will overpower your doubting mind.

Symantix
June 10th, 2004, 11:00 AM
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. "
Matthew 19:14

Can children not sin and be blameless? Intentional or not? Are they then to be punished, providing that heaven is "childlike" in its innocence?

Which brings up, can innocence sin?

Hmmm. What about Eve? Yes, children should be punished for their sin. But perhaps "punish" is not the best term. I like the term "discipline". Children should receive whatever they need to teach them the difference between right and wrong. It may not even be something painful, but then again it might involve just a bit of pain afterall. Discipline is the very thing that Eve received, and continued to receive from God until the day she passed on.

Remember this one thing, good Slipster: punishment, from God, is never a bad thing...it compels us toward righteousness. Whether God rewards us or disciplines us, all is the same, because it's all intended to develop our character.

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Sorry I don't agree with your effort.

Then show some proof of how your assertion is correct.

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 11:13 AM
I think about you a lot more than you realize, GP, and pray for you as well.

Only God knows your heart; not me. But I know this: God loves you, and one day you will witness His love and mercy firsthand, and it will overpower your doubting mind.

Thank you for your kind words. :)

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 11:15 AM
Then show some proof of how your assertion is correct.

I already have, to what degree I can based on the recorded evidence. It's up to you to agree or disagree. ;)

Dionysus
June 10th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Remember this one thing, good Slipster: punishment, from God, is never a bad thing...it compels us toward righteousness. Whether God rewards us or disciplines us, all is the same, because it's all intended to develop our character.

I can't imagine the those who died in the flood showed a marked improvement in character, but the survivors tightened up no doubt!

Symantix
June 10th, 2004, 11:24 AM
I can't imagine the those who died in the flood showed a marked improvement in character, but the survivors tightened up no doubt! Ah, but you are assuming that their life is over. I am certain of the contrary. ;)

Slipnish
June 10th, 2004, 12:39 PM
Yes, children should be punished for their sin. But perhaps "punish" is not the best term. I like the term "discipline". Children should receive whatever they need to teach them the difference between right and wrong. It may not even be something painful, but then again it might involve just a bit of pain afterall. Discipline is the very thing that Eve received, and continued to receive from God until the day she passed on.

Okay Sym, I can follow you to an extent, however (you knew that was coming didn't you? :D ) would you punish a child, or discipline if you prefer, a child for doing something wrong, even though they honestly didn't know it was wrong?

Is it fair to punish your children's children for their sin?

All of mankind was punished for one person's mistakes.

If the Garden was paradise on earth, and Adam and Eve have no concept of sin, death, or anything really negative, and as is told, God says, "don't eat that or you will die" how are they honestly supposed to understand what a consequence even is, much less understand the horrifying repercussions of their actions for all of the generations as yet unborn?

For an allknowing God, who knew this would happen anyway, why set it up? What is the point of tricking innocents into allowing sin into the world?

Why the Pandora's Box scenario?

Remember this one thing, good Slipster: punishment, from God, is never a bad thing...it compels us toward righteousness. Whether God rewards us or disciplines us, all is the same, because it's all intended to develop our character.[/QUOTE]

Symantix
June 10th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Well, Slip, a child doesn't have any concept of what a consequence is either, until you show it to them.

And, yes, I would discipline my child for something that they unknowingly did wrong. If I had not told them not to do it, the first disciplinary measure would be to say "No, no. Don't do that." If they did it again, the next disciplinary measure would probably be to spat their hand. If the behavior continued, since I have a finite mind, I'm not sure what I would do, but I would try to understand what it is that they need in order to learn right from wrong.

One thing that I believe that is important, and even the first step, in understanding right from wrong, is obedience. Eve did not disobey unknowingly; she had been told by her creator not to do it. In the same way, we may tell our young ones not to do something; just because we do not spend the time to explain to them why they can't do it, does not mean that they have a right to do it anyway. The sin was not the actual eating of the fruit; it was disobeying God.

As for punishing multiple generations; that happens by default. God isn't condemning people right and left just because their parents were sinners. Rather, because their parents are sinners, they were raised in that environment, so they become sinners. As a result, since they are sinners, God punishes them.

This doesn't occur nearly as much in the present age, because we are no longer under the law, but we are under the grace, i.e. the wretched agony that Jesus suffered on our behalf when He died on the cross and rose again. When this message is spread abroad, and the good news showers God's creation with the love and justice for which it was intended, it delivers people from the sinful ways of their ancestors. Sometimes other messages are put forth which have disguised themselves as the message of love and peace, but they are really messages of condemnation and judgement, which do nothing but worsen the poor condition of the human soul. Their is only one message of love, peace, and mercy, and it delivers the soul from the bondage of error and judgement.

I know that some here will not appreciate this, but I am compelled to say it nonetheless...Thanks be to God for His enduring mercy.

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Hmmm. What about Eve?

Eve was not a child. She was a thinking, feeling woman. It seems that people assume she was like Brook Shields in the Blue Lagoon completely naive and unaware of the world around her. (I did not just just reference that horrible movie, did I??)

She was aware of "good and bad." She knew what a "sin" was, she was just not aware of the consequences of sin.

But sinning, she had to deal with the consequences of sin.

In the same way a child deals with natural consequences of choosing wrongly, Adam and Eve, and every person and child, gains awareness off choosing unwisely. A toddler will watch Daddy climb a ladder. Daddy might slip and fall and the toddler thinks "Ouchy for Daddy." One child might only need that warning to not the climb the ladder. Another child will be climbing that ladder the second Daddy turns his back.

Without a guiding hand, that child will fall and learn, "OUCHY for me. Don't climb ladders."

As adults, we have more ability to discern what we are capable of doing and incapable of doing. Adam and Eve knew the concept of good and bad, and therefore knew there were consequences. But like that child who climbs the ladder regardless of watching the experience, they needed to experience the sin itself to gain full awareness of the consequences.

HappyLady
June 10th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Okay GP, you said that you presented your evidence.

Let's see here.


Being that neither Adam nor Eve had been exposed to prefabrication, they had no concept or understanding of what it was or the ability to recognize the harm done by it.

Do you have Biblical support that they had not been exposed to prefabrication?


They could only interpret what they were told and analyze it based on the observable evidence and the most recent information. Eve had no reason to doubt what the serpent told her

And your support for this is?


This was not an act of ill-intent or malice, nor was it a conscious attempt to put herself separate from God. It was a learning experience in which she pro-actively took the lead role utilizing the mind and curious nature given to her by almighty God.

With this, I agree. That doesn't mean she didn't sin.


They were both psychological sponges gathering and interpreting data as best as they could whenever and from wherever or whomever it was received. At no point were they commanded to listen to God exclusively nor were they ever advised to be wary of conflicting information.

There is really no support either way regarding this, so both views, yours included would be bogus.


They were innocents deceived in a scenario that was fully preventable by the God who, in a remarkable display of disregard and irresponsibility, allowed this thing to happen through inaction. In this story the fault lies with God, not man and certainly not our daring scientist.

Again, you're saying this like living a life here on Earth is a criminal sentence. The story is simply symbolic of our existence on Earth, and how, in our quest for knowledge and wisdom, sin is a part of the package.

Slipnish
June 10th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Eve was not a child. She was a thinking, feeling woman. It seems that people assume she was like Brook Shields in the Blue Lagoon completely naive and unaware of the world around her. (I did not just just reference that horrible movie, did I??)

SNIP

As adults, we have more ability to discern what we are capable of doing and incapable of doing. Adam and Eve knew the concept of good and bad, and therefore knew there were consequences. But like that child who climbs the ladder regardless of watching the experience, they needed to experience the sin itself to gain full awareness of the consequences.

I am with GP on this one. I just don't get the sense that Eve was aware of bad things. They were in PARADISE, remember? No death, no want, no need. God had not revealed himself as a punishing figure either. Only, don't do that. That does not give you any indication of the possible result.

We that have children all know that they like to push limits. Its how they arrive at their own sense of independence. So...

Why give them the heave ho, for one little thing?

It just seems fairly unfair to take total innocence, let it loose, know it is about to be lost, and then punish it anyway.

I would more in tune with you HL and Sym, if there were any indication of God as the Vice Principal in the text.

I just don't see it.

Apokalupsis
June 10th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Not so, based on what I have already posted.
Yes it is. You are saying it's ok to put up an unsupported argument and expect a refutation from the negative position. And this is simply not true, not in any debate circle, professional or otherwise.


I submit that God, the parent of his creations, allowed the following:

His human creations to be ignorant of the concept of lies and deceit
How do you know? What support do you have for this? Do you believe that every word spoken between God, Adam, and Eve are to be recorded? In what other book of history, are dialogs completely recorded? Is the Bible a book of dialog? Or is it meant to be something else?



His most powerful creation and most prominant enemy, Satan, to operate unchecked among st his ignorant creations
Not true. Satan is very much "checked". He has no reign over Earth...everything he does, is subject to God. He is severely restricted and comes nowhere close to having the same authority or power that God has.



This to me indicates either carelessness, ineptitude, lack of concern or outright stupidity.
To me, the argument displays a lack of knowledge about the relationship between God and Satan, and God's control over Satan. ;)



I don't. I differentiating this one.
...so it's only this one instance, and you have no objective, measurable way to differentiate morality, and you admit to biasely applying this standard? I would hope that such matters could be looked at from a point of a bit more objectivity. I think you entire argument now fails, as a result of your admitted approach here.

All of your other points, hang on your biased application and standard. Until that is resolved, there is no point in discussing much else, as ANY response will always be "faulty" when looking through such biased glasses.

It's one thing to reject something because it doesn't stand up to the standard you set for all things to be tested...it's quite another to reject something based on inconsistency and no test of of the standard. One is objective, the other, extremely faulty and highly illogical. I would imagine that this is a popular approach about a great number things that critics object to.

Slipnish
September 23rd, 2004, 09:06 AM
Apok: I don't have to refute anything that isn't a supported argument. It isn't a cogent argument until it is supported to be true and valid.

[quote]You mean other than the fact that she had previously heard from at least 2 beings she knew and had a relationship with, that she wasn't to eat from the tree and yet she did because she believed a apparent stranger who had done nothing to earn trust in any way? Yes...I suppose you could be correct there in light of that "argument". ;)

You can't support that either Apok. All we know is that Eve heard the story from someone. When God created man, he told Adam not to eat of the tree, but we have no reference to support God telling Eve any such thing. Perhaps she was told by Adam, who in no way can confer the authority of God. (Unless you are a Southern Baptist. :lol: )

<blockquote>Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "</blockquote>

Now to peruse another matter, would God have been wrong had Adam and Eve eaten of the other tree? Had they eaten from the second tree, would they then NOT have died as God said, but lived forever? Is this an omnipotent God? How can you support that in light of this phrase:

<blockquote>Genesis3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."</blockquote>


You mean other than God creating them, their world, Adam and Eve acknowledging him to do as such and having a submissive relationship with God? No...outside of that, I cannot. ;)

But only Adam seems to have such a relationship with God. The rest is speculation.



Do you trust everything you are told by the US government? After all, it is an established authority, therefore, according to your logic, you must believe and do everything it says right?

Which seems to support the argument that Adam and Eve should have the right to test the field without getting burned...



Wait, you are suggesting that it is reasonable to believe here for this story, that God created the world, created Adam and Eve, God told them what they could and could not do, He had a relationship with them, they fully understood this, and despite this, it is unreasonable for them to have believed that God was in a position of authority over them? C'mon now, I think you are stretching. ;)

Not a stretch as your synopsis is based on the supposition that Eve also had that relationship, despite the fact that it isn't upheld by scripture.


Even after they ate, they were submissive to Him. They knew. Also, knowing God's nature throughout the rest of the Bible, it's reasonable to believe that like the rest of his followers, they were aware of God's sovereignity.

I would like to remind you of your own quote: "I don't have to refute anything that isn't a supported argument. It isn't a cogent argument until it is supported to be true and valid." ;)



Very well. Then you believe it is reasonable for you to believe a complete stranger to tell you something that is a direct opposite of what your friends, family, or even personal experience has told you and you believed.

But like a child if you have no experience to differentiate between them, one "truth" is as equally valid as any other.


Therefore, the next person you meet who tells you Christianity is true, you will accept it according to your own logic. ;)

Not so. Depends on the likelyhood of GP being innocent. Let's say the percentage revolves around Satan cornering the market on Snowshoes in hell... :P

Dionysus
September 23rd, 2004, 10:53 AM
I haven't seen this thread in a while but since Slippy was kind enough to bring it to light I'll give 'er another go. ;)


...so it's only this one instance, and you have no objective, measurable way to differentiate morality, and you admit to biasely applying this standard? I would hope that such matters could be looked at from a point of a bit more objectivity. I think you entire argument now fails, as a result of your admitted approach here.

Of course,you are correct. So in answer to your question, I diffentiate morality based on societal norms, whether or not actions bring about harm and fair treatment of one's fellow man. (though it is to be expected that, as with any person, there are some exceptions to this standard)

As far as the est of my argument is concerned, I believe that if read literally it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Eve was simply on experimenting and that God punished her for this.

Note again that:

There is no recorded interaction between God and Eve until God punishes her.

Having never been exposed or introduced to the concept of prefabrication, it is not unreasonable to conclude that she would act on the most current infomation available to her.

In the event of conflicting information, it is not unreasonable to conclude that she would test the most current information to discover the reason for the conflict.

Sin is described as, "transgression of the law of God".

Since Eve apparently failed to understand Godís authority, there are two possible reasons:

1. God didnít make it clear (assuming He spoke with her at some point)
2. Adam didnít make it clear (assuming he relayed God's message)

To me the failing lies with God since, being omnipotent, he could have instilled this understanding of his authority in her mind. However, thereís nothing in scripture to suggest that this happened; itís assumed that he did. I disagree based on that assumption.

FruitandNut
September 25th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Disobeying God out of curiosity doesn't make one a scientist, it makes one a foolish, sinful human.


I, for a long time, have felt that the story of Adam and Eve is in the main a parable for the time that 'man became man', that time of full cognition and selfconsciousness and the awareness of the consciousness of others. In evolutionary terms, the time when evolution moved on one branch of the higher primates to the stage of humanity. Eve, the representative of the female of the species has got to be on a hiding to nothing in Jewish Patriarchal society. There is of course the story of Lileth, who appears more the equal of Adam. I am more inclined to see Original Sin, as the original sinful potential of man - the importance of the story being 'word for word' literally true is lost on me, I see the meaning and message that it conveys to me 150,000 and some, years later as being of primary importance.

I suppose as far as fundimentalists are concerned, I am doomed for Hell.

chadn737
September 25th, 2004, 08:43 AM
I, for a long time, have felt that the story of Adam and Eve is in the main a parable for the time that 'man became man', that time of full cognition and selfconsciousness and the awareness of the consciousness of others. In evolutionary terms, the time when evolution moved on one branch of the higher primates to the stage of humanity. Eve, the representative of the female of the species has got to be on a hiding to nothing in Jewish Patriarchal society. There is of course the story of Lileth, who appears more the equal of Adam. I am more inclined to see Origional Sin, as the origional sinful potential of man - the importance of the story being 'word for word' literally true is lost on me, I see the meaning and message that it conveys to me 150,000 and some, years later as being of primary importance.

I suppose as far as fundimentalists are concerned, I am doomed for Hell.

I know of one physicist and writer that believes something very similar. He proposed that Adam was the first human with a "soul."

Fyshhed
September 25th, 2004, 09:34 AM
If one looks at the whole Adam and Eve story objectively, (that is, not assuming God was justified in the end) then it is really no surprise that Eve (who, it can be argued, was never specifically told not to eat from the tree...) may have done nothing wrong.
However, God was angered.... I thought he wasn't proud or arrogant! He doesn't seem to treat defiance with forgiveness or compassion.
Just look at the Lucifer story.
Then again, if angels are imperfect, then why did God make them as such?
If he's omniscient, why was he angry when he KNEW these people would screw up ahead of time? Why does he repeatedly act in spite of the people on Earth in the OT?
If he's omnipotent, why did he need Moses and the Jews to do all the work "with help" instead of just doing it himself, or just plain planting them in the promised land?
Why have Noah build an Ark instead of God just picking up all the animals himself and doing a quick instant reboot?
The list goes on...
My conclusion? The problem lies not with God's flawed creations. It lies with God's unrealistic expectations of creatures less perfect than himself, and his own failure to recognize that, because they cannot be him, they cannot be perfect like him.
In this sense he is a fool. Or he does not exist. I choose the latter ;)

chadn737
September 25th, 2004, 09:54 AM
If he's omniscient, why was he angry when he KNEW these people would screw up ahead of time? Why does he repeatedly act in spite of the people on Earth in the OT?
If he's omnipotent, why did he need Moses and the Jews to do all the work "with help" instead of just doing it himself, or just plain planting them in the promised land?
My conclusion? The problem lies not with God's flawed creations. It lies with God's unrealistic expectations of creatures less perfect than himself, and his own failure to recognize that, because they cannot be him, they cannot be perfect like him.
In this sense he is a fool. Or he does not exist. I choose the latter

However, God was angered.... I thought he wasn't proud or arrogant! He doesn't seem to treat defiance with forgiveness or compassion.

I honestly do not what you people expect? This attitude is like that of a spoiled child, allowed to have things their way all their live and when finally somebody says no they wonder how the world can be so injust and wrong.

God, despite his perfection, continually puts up with our mistakes. God could have simply killed Adam for his sin, but instead he deals out the punishment and lets hime live. Not only does he let hime live, but he is also continued to care for his creation. Otherwise why would he fashion garments for this man, why would he still participate in his life and the lifes of his children?

When Cain killed his brother, God punished him, but he stilled allowed him life. Further more he even protected him from any who would harm him.

Time after time people would disobey God, and while God may punish them, he would also forgive them and continue to love them.

So much in fact does God love us that he sent Jesus to die for our sins. Despite our sinful nature he loves us so much that he is willing to give everything for us.

To say God does not show compassion is complete ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.

Fyshhed
September 25th, 2004, 10:01 AM
I honestly do not what you people expect? This attitude is like that of a spoiled child, allowed to have things their way all their live and when finally somebody says no they wonder how the world can be so injust and wrong.
Is that so? I thought starting every argument with the assumption "God is not wrong no matter what" was more like a spoiled child argument.


God, despite his perfection, continually puts up with our mistakes.
You believe he made us. If he made us imperfect, "putting up" with our mistakes is either a byproduct of his failure to make us perfect, or a result of (being omnipotent) deliberately making us so we would screw up.

God could have simply killed Adam for his sin, but instead he deals out the punishment and lets hime live. Not only does he let hime live, but he is also continued to care for his creation. Otherwise why would he fashion garments for this man, why would he still participate in his life and the lifes of his children?

When Cain killed his brother, God punished him, but he stilled allowed him life. Further more he even protected him from any who would harm him.
Why punish them in the first place if he KNOWS they are by nature going to fail to be perfect? It is not their fault that they are incapable of being just like God. So why does he expect them to be?



Time after time people would disobey God, and while God may punish them, he would also forgive them and continue to love them. I thought people frowned on flip-flopping.


So much in fact does God love us that he sent Jesus to die for our sins. Despite our sinful nature he loves us so much that he is willing to give everything for us.
If anything, I would see this as God stepping in and saying "Whoops. I guess I was wrong about expecting you to be perfect."
This says something for perfection on his part ;)


To say God does not show compassion is complete ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.
To say God is absolutely compassionate is completely ignorant of the Bible and Christianity.

chadn737
September 25th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Is that so? I thought starting every argument with the assumption "God is not wrong no matter what" was more like a spoiled child argument.

I am struggling to even understand this.


You believe he made us. If he made us imperfect, "putting up" with our mistakes is either a byproduct of his failure to make us perfect, or a result of (being omnipotent) deliberately making us so we would screw up.

I believe he made us with the ability to choose.


Why punish them in the first place if he KNOWS they are by nature going to fail to be perfect? It is not their fault that they are incapable of being just like God. So why does he expect them to be?


I thought people frowned on flip-flopping.


If anything, I would see this as God stepping in and saying "Whoops. I guess I was wrong about expecting you to be perfect."
This says something for perfection on his part

Time and time again the Bible compares God to a father. Parents both love and discipline their children, they forgive them, but must also show them the wrong of their ways. A good parent also allows a child to grow and make decisions for themselves while having expectations for their children.

There is no contradiction in Gods attitude towards us, nothing that is incomprehensible in his actions, except to those so hell bent against the idea of God that they refuse to acknowledge this.


To say God is absolutely compassionate is completely ignorant of the Bible and Christianity.

Nobody claims God is absolutely compassionate, that must be your own interpretation. God continually gives his creation chances and forgiveness, but every Christian knows that his patience has a limit.

Fyshhed
September 25th, 2004, 10:28 AM
I am struggling to even understand this. Then you are officially incapable of real debate on religious topics :)


I believe he made us with the ability to choose.
Then why get mad when we choose something he doesn't like if he allows us the option?


Time and time again the Bible compares God to a father. Parents both love and discipline their children, they forgive them, but must also show them the wrong of their ways. A good parent also allows a child to grow and make decisions for themselves while having expectations for their children.
Good parents don't smite entire civilizations or flood entire planets.


There is no contradiction in Gods attitude towards us, nothing that is incomprehensible in his actions, except to those so hell bent against the idea of God that they refuse to acknowledge this.
There is no contradiction in God's attitudes to those so heaven-bent that they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of difference. ;)




Nobody claims God is absolutely compassionate, that must be your own interpretation. God continually gives his creation chances and forgiveness, but every Christian knows that his patience has a limit.
Do they? I beg to differ. He cannot be perfect if he has limits of any kind.

chadn737
September 25th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Then you are officially incapable of real debate on religious topics

Perhaps if you could explain a connection in that one sentence I would, but there isnt one.


Then why get mad when we choose something he doesn't like if he allows us the option?

Is expecting someone capable of thought and self control to do the right thing irrational?


Do they? I beg to differ. He cannot be perfect if he has limits of any kind.

On the contrary, having certain limits is essential to perfection. Unlimited compassion becomes a fault.

A parent that exhibits unlimited compassion and forgiveness without demonstrating any discipline, is a faulty and ineffective parent.

Fyshhed
September 25th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Perhaps if you could explain a connection in that one sentence I would, but there isnt one.
Allow me to explain then, since clearly the thought of objectivity does not come to those who have already discarded it.
You have decided for yourself that everything God does or did is the right decision. This stems from your belief in God and your decision not to believe otherwise (The barbed-hook element of Christianity). You interpret the suggestion that God made any kind of mistake as mankind being "immature and childish" in that they expect things to go their way and not God's. Correct me if I am wrong. You are unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that God is flawed and/or has made mistakes or even might not exist.

Now if God created man with free will, he understands full well the consequences of his own action. This implies that he KNOWS ahead of time that some, many, or all of his creations will do things he does not approve of. He knew this ahead of time.
Then he proceeds to punish his creations for exercising this free will.
Just because it does not please him. If a person in society acts like this, we call it various things like "arrogant, manipulative, proud, controlling..."
But it's ok for God, because you've already decided above all else that he's perfect.

Is expecting someone capable of thought and self control to do the right thing irrational?
Is creating them with the ability to choose differently, and then punishing them for exercising this ability moral? (Of course, everything God does is moral!!)

On the contrary, having certain limits is essential to perfection. Unlimited compassion becomes a fault.

A parent that exhibits unlimited compassion and forgiveness without demonstrating any discipline, is a faulty and ineffective parent.
A parent that kills and damns the child for not being exactly like the parent is a faulty and ineffective parent. Call me on this if I'm wrong, but a mature and grown child often makes a point of trying to correct the errors of their own parenting based on the mistakes their parents made. Daddy doesn't kill us for raising our kids differently.

FruitandNut
September 25th, 2004, 01:21 PM
May I put a plea in yet again not to read the Old Testiment smiting and flooding too literally. A lot of it is 'picture language' and metaphor.

Dionysus
September 25th, 2004, 01:24 PM
I wholly agree. I was targeting those who may hold the Genesis account as a literal dictation of actual events. ;)

Fyshhed
September 25th, 2004, 02:39 PM
May I put a plea in yet again not to read the Old Testiment smiting and flooding too literally. A lot of it is 'picture language' and metaphor.
So is Adam and Eve ;)

FruitandNut
September 27th, 2004, 01:47 AM
Very probably, I 'see' it as a parable that does convey meaning and message for those who know the language.
First find the 'Rosette/Rosetta Stone'.