ID question for creationists

Gemster writes:

quote:

---

The best common response to this dilemna is probably that if God were make us without any capacity to disobey then we would be no more than robots programmed to tow the line.

---

Not at all. He could have made them with the knowledge of right and wrong and taught them how to follow their natural instincts to be good.Besides, Adam and Eve didn't sin by eating of the Tree of Knowledge. To sin requires a knowledge of good and evil and a deliberte intent to do evil. Since they hadn't eaten from the Tree yet when they ate from the Tree, they didn't know anything about good or evil and thus could not possibly be deliberate in their action to eat from it.

quote:

---

The ability to choose right or wrong, means that when we choose to love or worship it is genuine and not just a programmed response like instincts in the animal kingdom.

---

But Adam and Eve didn't have that ability.They hadn't eaten from the Tree yet.

quote:

---

he made us in his own image, with conscience and reason and creativity.

---

But Adam and Eve weren't.They hadn't eaten from the tree, yet.They were, indeed, robots. They had no ability to comprehend what they were doing, why they were doing it, nor the consequences of their actions.It was only after they ate from the Tree that they could do that.Adam and Eve were punished because they became autonomous.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Gemster responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not at all. He could have made them with the knowledge of right and wrong and taught them how to follow their natural instincts to be good.

---

​

if someone has a natural instinct to do good it is a robot

---

Why?People hunger and follow their natural instincts to eat. Is that "being a robot"? People have sexual desires and follow their natural instincts to give and receive sexual pleasure. Is that "being a robot"?Why does having a sense of right and wrong and naturally liking the good part "being a robot"? Be specific.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Adam and Eve were punished because they became autonomous.

---

​

True, and because they disobeyed the command of God.

---

But they couldn't have because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Disobedience requires comprehension of the orders you are given. Since Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree yet, how could they possibly understand what god was saying? It isn't that they were stupid...it's that they were innocent. What possible reason could they have for obeying what god said? Especially when someone else comes along and tells you that he's lied to you (which he has)?

quote:

---

The diabolical stategy of Satan

---

Satan? When did Satan enter into it? Satan wasn't in the garden of Eden. It was just the serpent. And he told the truth. And he didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. All he did was say that god's claim that they would die a physical death before the sun set should they eat of the tree was incorrect. Rather, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

So the mysterious tree poses the question as to why God put it there in the first place if it was not to be allowed for food or another useful purpose.

---

Precisely. Why would any competent person put something that he knows is off-limits in front of an innocent who doesn't know any better? If you have a precious Mhing vase you want to keep in pristine condition, do you put it on a wobbly pedestal in front of a toddler? Do you really think the toddler is going to understand "Don't touch"? And when you find the vase knocked over and destroyed, do you really blame the child for doing what children are expected to do or do you blame yourself for being stupid enough to put such a delicate object where an innocent could get at it?

quote:

---

At best, we can only speculate on that one.

---

But we can use logic to determine the consequences of it. God told a pair of innocents who were incapable of understand what he was talking about not to do something, they did it anyway as was to be expected, and then threw a hissy fit so wide in its fury that it splashed onto other innocent creatures like the serpent.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It was just the serpent. And he told the truth. And he didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. All he did was say that god's claim that they would die a physical death before the sun set should they eat of the tree was incorrect. Rather, they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

​

I am in near complete disagreement with you on this interpretation.

​

While Adam and Eve were innocent, God did tell the truth and the snake surely lied.

---

How? God said, and I quote:Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.And that's it. That's all god said with regard to what the consequences would be should Adam and Eve ate of the tree. And the language used is indicative that it would be a physical death, not a spiritual one, and that it would be before the sun set that day, not some sort of "god's days are 1,000 years long and indeed, Adam lived to nearly 1,000 and thus died 'that day' using 'god time.'"Now, the serpent said, and I quote:Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:3:5: 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.And that's it.Now, let's examine what actually happened.Did Adam and Eve die a physical death on the very day they ate from the Tree? No:Genesis 5:3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:5:4: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:It seems Adam lived to be 930.Did their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil? Yes:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:So the question is: Who told the truth?That would be the serpent.Who lied?That would be god.Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. He asks Eve if god said that that they could eat from every tree and Eve responds they could eat from every tree except the Tree of Knowledge and then (and where she got this idea from, we don't know since it is never discussed), she says that even touching it would cause them to die.And the serpent's only comment at that point is that no, it would not cause death but merely to become as gods, knowing good and evil.That's it.Where do we find anything in this story that indicates that what the serpent said wasn't true? Even god says the exact same thing that the serpent said: They became "as gods, knowing good and evil."

quote:

---

I believe the best interpretation is that the tree of knowledge was the tree of false knowledge (which is that of good and evil).

---

So? The serpent doesn't say whether or not this tree is of "true" knowledge of "false" knowledge. It simply says that they would "become as gods, knowing good and evil."And that's precisely what god says...they have "become as one of us, knowing good and evil."So where did the serpent lie?

quote:

---

To remain innocent in life, as well as not judging God's creation they had to remain free from such stupid (and subjective) ideas of OBJECTIVE right and wrong. That is why God told them not to eat of that tree or they would die.

---

But they didn't die.God said they would die and the language used was that they would die a physical death and that this would happen before the sun set on the day they died.That didn't happen.

quote:

---

The serpent merely tricked Eve emotionally with the idea that all things which can be called knowledge is real and good

---

Where? Where does the serpent say this? The serpent says nothing about knowledge being real and good. The serpent does not tell Eve to eat from the tree. The serpent simply corrects god about the consequences of eating from the tree.

quote:

---

and intellectually by twisting what "to die" meant (showing quite well that equivocation can lead to a lot of bad consequences).

---

Not at all. The langauge that god uses in Genesis 2 and that Eve uses in Genesis 3 indicate that the death was a physical one.And they didn't die when they ate from the tree, in direct contradiction to what god said and what Eve thought.You're right, equivocation can lead to a lot of bad consequences, but god didn't equivocate.He lied.There's a difference.

quote:

---

When they "ate" the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, God was proven right and they did die.

---

No, they didn't. Eve lived long enough to give birth to Cain and Abel at least. Adam lived to 930.The language god uses can only mean a physical death. The phrasing gets used elsewhere in the Bible and it gets translated as a physical death. What makes this passage different from all the rest?

quote:

---

No longer did they live in a paradise

---

But that isn't dying. That's eviction.

quote:

---

I realize my interpretation is an allegorical one and not literal

---

But it isn't even allegorical. If I were to say, "If you eat this, your heart will explode into a thousand bits, bursting through your chest to make a pretty stain upon the wall, and you shall exsanguinate before your very eyes," how is that an "allegory" and not a direct statement?Indeed, I understand the idea of knowledge being a loss of innocence, but nothing in what god says makes it indicative that that's what god meant. When he finds out that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, he panics that they might eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:What would be the point of this if it were an allegory?

quote:

---

It's much deeper in meaning anyway.

---

That doesn't mean it's justifiable.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

I mean, it's scientific fact that women are significantly more proficient at recognizing facial emotional states by sight. I imagine that extends towards all body language, and would render women considerably better-equipped to suss out subterfuge.

---

Um, without discussing the validity of such a claim (whether emotional states are a reliable indicator of subterfuge), wouldn't the important thing be what one would do with this information?Why is it that so many women stay with men who do them ill? How many times have we heard the story of the woman who walks in on her man in flagrante delicto, he says that it wasn't him, that it isn't what it looks like, etc., etc., and she buys it?Personally, I don't think either sex has it better when it comes to resisting beguilement. A good manipulator will know how to do it despite any blocks you put up.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it that so many women stay with men who do them ill? How many times have we heard the story of the woman who walks in on her man in flagrante delicto, he says that it wasn't him, that it isn't what it looks like, etc., etc., and she buys it?

---

​

How many times have I heard it? Zero. Not only do I not know any women that have fallen for that, I don't know any that would.

​

Maybe I just live in a funny corner of the world, or something, but in my experience, women are aware, and men are oblivious.

---

I think you need to get out more, then.Ricky Lake has had god knows how many episodes about it and there was even a popular song about it, It Wasn't Me, by Shaggy. Hell, even Eden's Crush from Pop Stars had a song about it also titled, "It Wasn't Me" (though in their version, the song is about how they're not that gullible.) Do you not remember the plethora of books about it such as Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them?Do we really need to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument?

quote:

---

Maybe you're right, and there's no reason to suggest that either sex is more easily beguiled - but if we were to suggest it, it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that it's the women that are more easily fooled.

---

I agree that on the face of things, it would be ludicrous to suggest that one sex is more easily fooled. Instead, it would seem that it would be easier to fool one sex in one way while it would be easier to fool the other sex another way.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rei responds to me:

quote:

---

Oh, come on. "It wasn't me" (the song) is obviously designed to be a parody of men who try and get out of things with that line.

---

I know. But think about it: Why would anybody try that if it didn't work?Do all women fall for it? Of course not. But the fact remains is that there are women who, for whatever reason, will somehow come to believe that they didn't catch him, that it was somebody else.

quote:

---

Have you listened to the song? The woman has pictures of him, heard him, watched him the whole time, etc.

---

I looked it up to make sure I had the artist correct. Yes, I know.But did you listen to the rest of it? She sticks with him because he's good in bed:

quote:

---

And I'm surprised that you, of all people, would try and use a talk show as evidence.

---

It was a simple counter to crashfrog's insistence of not knowing anybody who would be that gullible. All it takes to counter a claim of none is to show one. There was an entire industry built up around the concept of "men are pigs and women are too gullible and meek to show them the door." I, too, don't personally know anybody who would be that silly, but I do know they're out there.

quote:

---

Last, to toss a twist in: In your argument, Rrhain, you argue that perhaps it's easier to trick one sex in one way, and the other sex in another way. What do you think is it that could cause such an effect?

---

Cultural and biological effects make males and females respond differently.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But it isn't even allegorical. If I were to say, "If you eat this, your heart will explode into a thousand bits, bursting through your chest to make a pretty stain upon the wall, and you shall exsanguinate before your very eyes," how is that an "allegory" and not a direct statement?

---

​

This is a terrible terrible argument. God did not say this at all.

​

He said "on that day you shall surely die."

---

My point is that the way in which god said it was just as clear as my statement. The wording used by god is used elsewhere in the Bible and it always means a physical death. The wording used by god is used elsewhere in the Bible and it means a literal, 24-hour day.So what is so special about this one passage that it can somehow mean something other than a physical death by the end of the literal, 24-hour day?True, the passage does not describe how Adam would die from eating of the Tree, but it is quite clear that Adam was going to die and not just be a huge disappointment with god removing favor.

quote:

---

You have done nothing to counter my read, except by saying "ain't so."

---

No, I have pointed out that none of the phrasings used in the text indicate allegory. Even if we take the point of view that the entire story of Adam and Eve isn't to be taken literally, that Adam is the first man, that Eve isn't the "mother of all," etc., it still doesn't make any sense. Even allegories need to maintain internal consistency and in the language used in the tale, Adam was told that by the time the sun set, his body would no longer be alive.

quote:

---

I think it is a consistent and plausible read that God did not mean "your heart will explode etc etc."

---

But that's the direct connotation of what god said. He didn't say something vague and nebulous like "a terrible fate." He said that Adam would die. Not a spriritual death, not a death of trust, but an actual, physical death.

quote:

---

That is HIS area and he made them to be as they are. Once they become "like Gods" they judge who they are and what he has done, and end any possibility for happiness.

---

God isn't happy?

quote:

---

Eve not only overstates God's proclamation that it is mere touch that will kill her, but falls for the fallacious belief that to become like Gods in knowing good and evil is a good thing

---

Where does the text say that?

quote:

---

And why does God suddenly fear that they might eat of the tree of life and live forever? Does this not make sense given the allegorical tale I outlined?

---

No, it makes it even more indicative that it's supposed to be taken literally.

quote:

---

It is a statement that once men accept the false knowledge of good and evil, and so become the morose judges of all creation and each other

---

Again, god isn't happy?That makes no sense.

quote:

---

as well as having a deeper meaning for humans (than God is jealous of man's potential to gain his power).

---

But the god of the Old Testament is a jealous god. Over and over and over again, he displays his wrath, overreacts to the tiniest slight, deliberately hardens peoples hearts so that he can have a justification for destroying them, even goes so far as to torture people in order to prove a point to someone else in the celestial hierarchy. The god of the Old Testament is not a nice person.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ricky Lake has had god knows how many episodes about it and there was even a popular song about it, It Wasn't Me, by Shaggy.

---

​

Yes, I'm familiar with it. The thing was I thought it was a stupid song because I couldn't imagine a single woman I knew falling for a lie as stupid as "it wasn't me."

---

And yet, they do.Look, I'm not saying that this is some sort of universal. But the fact of the matter is that there is enough of a reality to it that it has entered the popular culture as a reference.

quote:

---

As for talk shows, I don't see that it's largely the women who get fooled.

---

Where did I even hint at that? Methinks you are confusing my direct statement that I think it's the case that neither men nor women are "more likely to be beguiled" with the claim by buzsaw.Please remember to whom you are speaking and what was actually said. I am not buzsaw.

quote:

---

Half the time they're fooling the man (sleeping with a midget, etc).

---

And the other half of the time, they're being fooled by the men.Where on earth does this silly idea that one sex is "more gullible" come from?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you not remember the plethora of books about it such as Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them?

---

​

I could of course counter with the vast number of books and movies about female beguilers.

---

Where did I deny any such?You seem to have confused me with buzsaw.Tell me that you're not so sensitive to issues regarding relations between the sexes that you've fallen for the "man=bad/women=good" idiocy.You're absolutely right: Women beguile men.But by the exact same token, men beguile women.On Alan Colmes radio show not too long ago, a female caller was talking about the California gubernatorial race. She made reference to the 1988 election when people were spouting the lunacy that women would vote for Quayle because he's attractive. And while she said that such an idea is ludicrous, she admitted that she was leaning toward Arnold Schwarzenegger precisely because he's attractive...and that she was shocked to find that happening in herself.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do we really need to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument?

---

​

No, we really don't. After all I've never tried to pass my own experiences off as indicative of any kind of universal.

---

Did you or did you not say the following in Message 18: It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.

quote:

---

I just felt it noteworthy that Buz lives in a place where one can toss off "women are more easily beguiled" without flinching.

---

As do I.What I was responding to was your immediate counter that it's actually the men who are more easily beguiled. After all, did you or did you not state in Message 13: My response was directly related at that statement: The idea that women are less easily beguiled doesn't hold water. They might be better able to identify subterfuge in certain areas, but that is a far cry from the generalization you were making.

quote:

---

The truth, most likely, is that both sexes probably have an equal track record at being decieved, and as you say, a studied manipulator will be able to beguile you no matter your sex.

---

So where's the argument?

quote:

---

(Damn you to hell, Rrhain - you got that stupid song stuck in my head!)

---

Sorry. I'd suggest the theme to the Smurfs, but I don't think that'd help.... ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know. But think about it: Why would anybody try that if it didn't work?

---

​

Because men are stupid.

---

And...? Keep going. You're not finished yet. Some men do it because they're stupid enough to think that they'll get away with and some men do it because....?

quote:

---

Talk shows are usually fake, dude.

---

Every single one? If you'll recall, it wasn't just a single instance. It was a common thread. Talk shows (and not just the tabloid ones like Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer but the more "respectable" ones like Oprah and Dr. Phil, too), magazine articles, entire books about women who stick with horrible men and actually defend them.

quote:

---

Anyway, I'd point out my claim was "I don't know anybody so gullible". You haven't pointed out anyone that I know, so you've hardly rebutted my claim, no?

---

Your claim was much more than that, crashfrog. Even to this post, you're still clinging to the notion that there aren't any women that silly to fall for it.

quote:

---

This is much akin to using the word "sodomite" to prove that the men of Sodom were all gay.

---

You mean like you're claim that the only reason men try to lie to women is because the men are stupid?

quote:

---

Talk shows are indicative only of our perceptions of society, not society itself.

---

For the umpteenth time, I am not saying that this is some universal. You seem to have me confused with buzsaw. I've asked you once to remember to whom you are speaking.I agree that talk shows are not the best place to find a representative sample of the general populace. However, talk shows do actually show specific examples. The idea that you can fool a woman is not something out of left field.

quote:

---

I agree that some people hold the perception that women are universally more gullible.

---

What makes you think I am one of them?And while we're on it, why do you seem to be saying that it's the other way around...that men are universally more gullible?

quote:

---

That they hold the perception is no indication that they are, in fact, more gullible.

---

Agreed.What makes you think I have any other opinion?Now, why do you seem to be making the inverse claim...that men are more gullible?

quote:

---

I'd have to see some stats. That would remove all doubt, don't you think?

---

Indeed.Where are your stats that men are more gullible?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.

---

​

I would have hoped that my repeated use of "in my experience", etc. would have made clear that I expected my statements to be taken in the context of my own experience.

---

It was the immediate following the claim of "in my experience" with universal extrapolations to the rest of the world as if your experience has any sort of validity in being a representative sample that completely nullfied any meaning.If a person makes a generalization, you can't just toss "in my experience" to the end of it and pretend that a generalization wasn't made.Yes, crash, you said "in my experience." But you didn't mean that you weren't generalizing but only speaking of your own experience. Instead, you generalized and insinuated that your experience was sufficiently balanced to be applicable to the population at large.That's why I directly asked you if we had to have the "anecdote is not evidence" argument. You said we didn't...so why are we having it?

quote:

---

Perhaps you could point to the specific phrase where I implied that because it was true in my experience, it must be true for everybody.

---

I did.Did you or did you not say the following in Message 18:How many times have I heard it? Zero. Not only do I not know any women that have fallen for that, I don't know any that would.
Maybe I just live in a funny corner of the world, or something, but in my experience, women are aware, and men are oblivious. I swear this is almost universal among people I'm close enough to know. It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

My response was directly related at that statement: The idea that women are less easily beguiled doesn't hold water. They might be better able to identify subterfuge in certain areas, but that is a far cry from the generalization you were making.

---

​

Well, it was just speculation. I didn't realize you were directly trying to counter that speculation.

---

Why didnt you realize that? Didn't you read my original post? Here it is in its entirety since you seem to have missed it the first time (Message 17): You directly said that women aren't as easily beguiled as men, crash. I responded not by questioning the claim that recognizing emotional states is a valid method of detecting subterfuge but rather questioning whether or not the effect is borne out and showed that there seems to be quite a lot of hoodwinking by men going on at the expense of women.Now do you see why I get so frustrated with you, crash? You didn't even read my post and now you're confusing my argument with buzsaw's.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

We agree that this is a stupid idea. What more is there to talk about?

---

The part where you said men are more gullible than women.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where are your stats that men are more gullible?

---

​

I have none. Never said I did.

---

But you did indicate that you suspect men are more gullible.Did you or did you not say in Message 13: What is that if not a direct indication that you're pushing for the claim that men are more gullible than women?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I do not view the Bible as the work of God. I view the Bible as the work of men. Much more than that, it seems that the disjointed and inconsistent passages are actually cobbled together "fables" and "myths" from earlier sources.

---

Irrelevant. Whether or not the story in Genesis is supposed to be fiction or non-fiction, it needs to maintain internal consistency. The words used by the character given the name of "god" to the character given the name of "Adam" were used in such a way that if "Adam" were to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.Even in the parables of Jesus, which are obviously not supposed to be taken literally, they maintain an internal consistency. If I am going to tell you a story where a physical death is going to stand for a spiritual death, then the character in the story needs to actually die a physical death in order to maintain the internal structure. If my story involves the firing of a gun into someone's heart and it shatters and that gun is a metaphor for the hateful words of betrayal that invade a lover's emotions causing his "heart to break," then that gun needs to fire and the bullet needs to enter the heart in order for the story to maintain logic. Otherwise, the listener has every right to say, "But you said that so-and-so was going to get shot and he didn't."

quote:

---

This leads me to believe you don't have to worry about any one passage fitting directly in with "all the rest" of the material.

---

You have to. A story needs to maintain internal consistency or it becomes rambling.

quote:

---

Hell, even if you did, biblical enthusiasts are often pointing out that things were different after the Fall, so maybe he became more honest with his threats after his first one failed to stop man.

---

So god tried to kill Adam and failed? Or is it really the case that god made an empty threat...that god actively lied to Adam?

quote:

---

Why should this not be the case with the Fall?

---

Becuse the story of the fall needs to be consistent with itself. In the story of the fall, god tells Adam that if he eats of the Tree of Knowledge, he will die by the time the sun set. Adam does eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but he doesn't die.Even if we assume that it's all metaphorical, that it's a discussion about the relationship between god and humans, the loss of innocence, and all that stuff you're talking about, the fact of the matter is that the story says Adam was supposed to die if he ate of the tree and he didn't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, god isn't happy?

​

That makes no sense.

---

​

What the ??????? Are you serious?

---

Yes.You said that knowledge brings sorrow. To quote you: Ergo, if Adam and Eve were to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, they would become unhappy and could never regain happiness..."ignorance is bliss" and all that.Well, god has that knowledge. So by your logic, god can never be happy. God understands good and evil, thus god has no possibility for happiness.Are you saying that god isn't happy?That makes no sense.

quote:

---

God getting pissed about things man does and being judged by him makes no sense?

---

You're being disingenuous.

quote:

---

Then again, you aren't addressing what I said.

---

Incorrect. I am addressing precisely what you said: If you gain knowledge of good and evil, you "end any possibility of happiness."Well, god has knowledge of good and evil. This means that god has no "possibility of happiness."Thus, god is unhappy.Sure, god can be upset/disappointed over what happened to Adam and Eve, but that is transitory. I'm talking about the long term, and I think you are, too.

quote:

---

And what would be more terrible than a creature in that imperfect position--- yet judges everything rather than accepting what life brings as if he was perfect--- than for that same creature to live forever?

---

You mean like god? God was trying to save them from being like him by forbidding them to eat from the tree? He knew that if they became like him, they would become miserable like him and thus, he hoped to save them from the same mistake he made?If so, then why the hell did he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden where Adam and Eve could get at it?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rei writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A story needs to maintain internal consistency or it becomes rambling

---

​

Oh, not necessarily. It could be a postmodern genesis account.

---

Isn't the definition of postmodern: A rambling spew of nonsense? ------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whether or not the story in Genesis is supposed to be fiction or non-fiction, it needs to maintain internal consistency.

---

​

It does.

---

No, it doesn't.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A story needs to maintain internal consistency or it becomes rambling.

---

​

If your problem is with consistency beyond the bounds of that specific tale, then what can I say?

---

No, the problem is with consistency within the confines of the tale, itself.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Become rambling? The Bible IS rambling.

---

Then it is rambling literally from one sentence to the next. And if you look at the story of Noah, you find that it rambles even within a single sentence.That's fine, but that doesn't get it off the hook.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So god tried to kill Adam and failed? Or is it really the case that god made an empty threat...that god actively lied to Adam?

---

​

The fact that you asked this indicates you are not understanding me.

---

That's why I'm asking it.You are claiming that Genesis 2 and 3 are an internally consistent story.Well, it says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So how do we maintain consistency? God said Adam would die and he didn't. Why didn't he die? Was it because god was lying? Making an empty threat? Or is the story simply inconsistent?

quote:

---

MY THEORY doesn't require an answer to any of the above.

---

Your claim is that the story is internally consistent.That is shown to be false by inspection. It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

MY THEORY of what the allegorical tale might be--- based on OTHER SCHOLARLY THEORIES which state the Bible is a series of accumulated tales---

---

Irrelevant.Whether or not the Bible was written by a single author or multiple authors, the story needs to be internally consistent.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

I offered the above explanations as something more literal interepreters might take his words to be and why they differed in how he used such words later on.

---

But every time those words are used, they are taken to mean a physical death and a literal, 24-hour day.What's so special about this one time?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Even if we assume that it's all metaphorical, that it's a discussion about the relationship between god and humans, the loss of innocence, and all that stuff you're talking about, the fact of the matter is that the story says Adam was supposed to die if he ate of the tree and he didn't.

---

​

You continue to impress your read onto my own. My read says nothing about the relationship between god and humans, or any real sense of innocence (except in an eastern sense).

---

Don't be disingenuous.It doesn't matter one whit what the "point" of the story is. It could be a highly stylised recipe for chocolate chip cookies for all we know. The point remains that whatever it is, it needs to maintain consistency.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Adam was told if he ate the fruit he would surely die. He sure as hell did according to the allegory.

---

No, he didn't.He was told that if he ate the fruit, he would surely die that very day. And not a spiritual death, either, but an honest-to-goodness physical death.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.Since the words used in the passage are used elsewhere in the Bible and are always used to mean a physical death, what's so special about this one time?It's just like Genesis 19 and "bring them out so that we may know them." The word "yadda" is used hundreds of times elsewhere in the Bible in the exact same way as used in Genesis 19 and it never gets translated as meaning sex. So what on earth makes this one time so special?

quote:

---

DEATH can mean an end to life as he knows it, or as it was supposed to be.

---

But that isn't what god said. He said Adam would die a physical death. As Monty Python might say:"'E's passed on! This human is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PERSON!!"That didn't happen.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Paradise was turned into hell for him as soon as he began to judge.

---

Irrelevant. God told Adam he would die a physical death.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

When God found out he made it even more concrete.

---

Where? Where does god say, "And when I said that you would die a physical death, I really meant that you'd live for nearly another 1,000 years"?You're absolutely right that god tells Adam that his punishment for eating of the Tree of Knowledge is expulsion from the garden, toil of the ground in order to feed himself and his family, etc., etc.But that isn't what god said at the beginning. He originally told Adam that he would screw the pooch upon eating from the tree.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Or in an allegorical sense some things flowed naturally from that act... a separation of people from happiness and greater pain in what is their natural condition.

---

But that isn't what god originally said.Instead, it says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, god has that knowledge. So by your logic, god can never be happy. God understands good and evil, thus god has no possibility for happiness.

---

​

This is proof you are refusing to read my posts.

---

Incorrect. It is proof of the exact opposite.If you didn't mean what you wrote, then say something different.Did you or did you not say: How can this mean anything except a direct statement that knowledge of good and evil "ends any possibility for happiness"?And since god has that knowledge, why doesn't it apply to god?

quote:

---

I laid out quite plainly that while a GOD would have such knowledge, he also has ALL KNOWLEDGE and ALL POWER TO CHANGE THINGS.

---

What does this have to do with anything?Besides, it contradicts the text of the Bible. The only thing separating Adam and Eve from being exactly like god is immortality to be gained from the Tree of Life. That's why god panics and kicks them out.

quote:

---

In "eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge" humans gained only the ability to JUDGE.

---

So? The only thing left is immortality.And even so, it is irrelevant to the original statement of god. He didn't say that if Adam ate from the tree, he'd become despondant over his ability to judge. He said he'd die.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

They gained no ability to know the workings of the world like WHY things have to be the way they are.

---

Yes, they did. That's what knowing good and evil is about. That was god's big mistake: He created a being with a will but an incapacity to understand why. If they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they would understand why.

quote:

---

Thus their judgements will be made from very limited perspectives.

---

Then they wouldn't be as god.But the Bible says they were as god.So they had the same perspective. It's the only way to have knowledge of good and evil.

quote:

---

It is more than simply "ignorance is bliss", but it's similar. Some things are better left unknown when it only raises more questions you'll never have answers to, and issues you'll never be able to affect.

---

But they had all the answers. They were as god. The only way to know good and evil is to have the full vision. Otherwise, you are only guessing.And the text does not say that they would become capable of guessing. It says they would gain knowledge.

quote:

---

Your question that God would be unhappy in the longterm? Since he became enraged a little over a week into the creation of the world, then his first attempt to regain happiness was to drown all life, and his next attempt to regain happiness (as predicted in the Bible) will be to wipe out almost all life in order to start a new kingdom on earth, I'd say God has some longterm anger management issues.

---

So you're agreeing that it is impossible for god to be happy. After all, as you say, he has "all knowledge" and thus, he would know that Adam and Eve were destined to screw up, that he'd get pissed over it, etc.

quote:

---

He says he is an angry and jealous God (oh yeah except those "consistent" parts which claim he isn't).

---

Irrelevant. We're not talking about those parts. We're only discussing Genesis 2-3 and whether or not there is internal consistency between god telling Adam he would die a physical death before the sun set on the day he ate from the Tree of Knowledge and the stubborn refusal of Adam to do just that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, then why the hell did he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden where Adam and Eve could get at it?

---

​

It's a FREAKING ALLEGORY!!!!!

---

But it makes no sense! Even as an allegory, it is inconsistent.It says that if Adam were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, he would die a physical death before the sun set.He didn't.So either god lied or the story is inconsistent.

quote:

---

This is like reading Aesop's fables and asking why a Fox wanted to eat grapes because no Fox would want that. It just doesn't make sense.

---

Incorrect. The fox talks, so why can't it want to eat grapes?Problems in the story would be if we started off saying it was a fox trying to get at a bunch of grapes and by the time we got to the end of the story, we have the butterfly muttering that it didn't want the plums to begin with.Excuse me? I thought we established that the main character was a fox who wanted grapes. What on earth is this butterfly and plum stuff?I'm reminded of my reaction to the various Nightmare on Elm Street movies. I always wondered what would happen if Freddy ever tried to enter one of my dreams because they never maintain any consistency for more than two seconds. For example, I had a dream where my college friends and I were going to go from our dorm to my friend's bank, so we took our bikes and drove down the driveway from my house in Las Vegas (weren't we at the dorm? And weren't we in California?) and walked up (weren't we on our bikes?) to my bank (weren't we going to my friend's bank) and then rode back (weren't we walking?) passing some oleander trees (they weren't there on the way up.) So I told my friends that those apples (weren't they oleander trees?) were delicious and we should pick some, so I went home and opened up the water softener and reached into the crisper of the refrigerator (wasn't it a water softener) to get a paper bag filled with cherries. I brought the plastic bag (wasn't it paper?) of plums (weren't they cherries?) back to my friends and we ate the grapes (weren't they plums?) in order to make room for the oranges (weren't they apples?) they were picking.Even if we assign metaphorical meaning to the issue of picking fruit, the fact remains that there is no consistency in this narrative. Nothing remains stable from one moment to the next. If we're trying to say that the apples are symbolic of something, what use is that when there aren't any apples two seconds after we mention them? And it isn't like anything changed. When I came back to find them picking oranges, they had always been picking oranges. When I reached into the water softener, it had always been the refrigerator. When we left the dorms, we had always been at my old house in Vegas.

quote:

---

But let's put that major point aside and let me turn it around on you, why on earth would he put the tree of knowledge in there anyway if he didn't want Adam or Eve to eat from it?

---

Dunno. The Bible doesn't say.

quote:

---

And why did he make them capable of desiring or able to eat from it if in fact he did not want them to?

---

Dunno. The Bible doesn't say.

quote:

---

THAT makes no sense either.

---

But it doesn't make sense because it doesn't say anything about why those actions took place. Let's not equivocate on "makes no sense." There is a difference between wondering why god would do something that is seemingly cruel but not getting any information as to the motivation for that action and having a direct contradiction.

quote:

---

The only one I can think of is it didn't happen. It's an allegory, a fable.

---

You mean "The Bible doesn't say" isn't good enough?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!