God is cruel

Me personally, I don't think it is necessarilly 'fair'. I'm almost positive it isn't 'just' eitherIt is, however, exactly how actions and reactions appear to work in real life.So, for example, if a mother catches some type of lethal sexually transmitted disease and passes it on to their child within their womb, is the child in any way responsible for the disease they have acquired?Or, if the mother catches some type of lethal sexually transmitted disease from her cheating husband, is the mother in any way responsible for the disease they have acquired?Or, if the father catches some kind of lethal sexually transmitted disease from a tainted blood donation, is the father in any way responsible for the disease they have acquired?Me personally, I don't think the people in any of these cases are deserving a disease in any way. And I certainly don't think what happened to any of them is fair by any means. It's certainly not just by any definition that I can fathom either.It is, however, exactly what happens in real life when we make mistakes and pass those mistakes onto our ancestors.In a sense, our ancestors are paying the price for our mistakes-- not because they are guilty, but becase we are. The fact that it is not fair is, in my opinion, an extremely overlooked yet important element within the account of humankind's shameful disgrace before God in the garden: the Mystery of Iniquity.I'll note that many Christians, such as myself, do not believe that humanity is born by default damned to hell. In fact, I'm often repulsed by this concept whenever I read it.However, if one notes that God may have willingly allowed humanity to choose their own destiny, it seems highly likely that his willingness inevitably leads to the possibility of other's actions causing things to go wrong for very innocent people, people not deserving the wrongs they've received.Any causal glance at the evening news will fairly well demonstrate. . .everyday. . .all around the world. . .this exact kind of iniquity in real life-- and this fairly well captures my own view of original sin.As far as I can tell, the orignal sin has very little to do with what's considered fair. More importantly, the original sin seems to be pointing out exactly what's considered not fair-- and it asks us how we will respond when faced with these kinds of challenges in life.Maybe I'm wrong. But as the Scriptures themselves say, "A tree is known by its fruit."This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-13-2006 11:38 PM

I don't understand this statement jar.Are you saying nothing at all went wrong?

But that's not true jar.They start off naked and unashamed. They finish clothed and ashamed.
They start in God's deep presence. They finish in God's distant presense.
They start with potential for the tree of life-- and are told not to eat from the other tree.
They finish by eating from the other tree-- and are cut off from the tree of life.While I agree that people are not 'damned to hell' because of this, I also find it just as hard to acccept that nothing went wrong either.edit: spellingThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-13-2006 11:48 PM

It seems to me that the only time people are ashamed is when they think they've done something wrong. Then what is this? If nothing was done wrong, why would God banish him if he had done something good? I see.Is it safe to say that you already feel that you've proved your point? No. Actually, you don't have to say that at all. You can just as easilly say that we screwed up when that something went wrong. Actually, I think we gained the ability to experience evil-- which is different from knowledge. I suspect we already had some concept of good and evil in our heads before we reached out. In fact, it seems we had to have had at least some knowledge of evil beforehand-- or else we couldn't even understand God telling us not to do it in the first place. We apparently are no different than sheep and cattle jar. In fact, when looking at the slaughter, suffering and destruction caused by humanity throughout world history, I'm almost certain that the sheep and cattle would've been better off without us.But, just to clarify, are you saying that the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as doing a good thing when partaking in the tree they apparently weren't supposed to partake in?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-14-2006 12:38 AM

Admittedly, it is a complicated question. It seems as though questions like this have been around for a long time too. But that's not true. They knew to obey God before they partook in the tree. God told them so. Likewise, they apparently knew what the end result was going to be before they partook in the tree. God apparently told them that too.This is the point I'm trying to bring out: even if one doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, many do nonetheless admit that Adam and Eve must have had some knowledge of both good and evil before they partook in the other tree.For example: Here we see a fairly clear example of Eve deciding something was good before she partook in the tree.For many people, the decision to disobey was actually the manifestation of bringing that prior academic knowledge of evil into the realm of direct experience. In other words, just like people know that murdering was wrong long before Moses passed out the 10 Commandments, it seems very likely that Adam and Eve knew what evil was before they partook in the tree-- and at least one portion of the Scriptural account does indeed indicate this. I think being able to obey GOD is indeed a good thing. But I don't think their participation in the other tree was what enabled them to obey God. No. Actually, I don't think it does.I'm almost sure that animals of the higher orders also have some primitive concept of good and evil. Certainly the rare instances of animals risking their lives to save their masters, or their own pups, indicates some basic knowledge of this. Traits of self-sacrifice can be found in various forms all throughout the animal kingdom, even to the point of insects giving over their own bodies for food for their young.Even the book of Ecclesiastes seems to indicate that both man and animals share the same spirit and go to the same place if I recall correctly. And, oddly enough, when Jonah was called by God with the task of preaching to Ninevah, everyone from the king to the paupers put on sackcloth and ashes. But that wasn't all. We are also told that even the animals were made to wear sackcloth and ashes. Provided one could clearly demonstrate that humans are indeed better than animals. While I admit that we certainly have a vaster knowledge than the animals intellectually speaking, I remain unconvinced on this point in regards to better human behavior. It seems rather tragic to admit this, but, on the whole, it seems to me that the animals are in some ways morally superior and may even have more faith in God than we do.

You're not suggesting they didn't know what death was? Certainly they would have seen this happening in the animals and plants around them-- they would have understood this was 'bad' if it happened to them.Besides that, I've already pointed to a passage of Scripture where Eve concluded something was 'good' before she partook in the other tree-- which seems to indicate that they knew this basic knowledge already.In addition to this, the Scriptures apparently do not indicate that humanity is better than the animals-- because they often point to the animals as understanding God better than humans do.I've already pointed to many examples of this in the Scriptures. But I suppose one could point out that even Baalam's ass saw the angel of the Lord before Balaam did.The only exception to this positive characterization of animals innately knowing God, as far as I can determine, is the story of the serpent itself in the Genesis account.But, then again, I don't think the serpent in the Genesis account was merely a snake. The symbolism pointing to pagan religious beliefs involving serpentine idolatry seems overwhelming to me.Don't get me wrong. I can understand what you're saying. But the general concensus of the Scriptures seems to contradict the claim that Adam and Eve's participation in the tree is what raised them above the animals.According to the Scriptures, at least in the small portions that discuss this idea, apparently the animals know God better than we do. Their behaviors are morally superior too-- because, unlike humanity, they apparently don't generally question God's will.I mean if you believe that the Scriptures are teaching that their participation in the other tree is what raised them above the animals, you're certainly entiled to your beleifs. I'm just pointing out that, oddly enough, this concept of humanity being better than the animals, morally speaking, seems to be strangely absent from the Scriptures themselves.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-14-2006 02:11 AM

There's actually an interesting unorthodox Mormon article which kind of relates to your thoughts here. It actually suggests that before Adam and Eve, people were in a dream-like state.

Nice bait and switch.You've also thrown in the standard "begging the question" logical fallacy at the same time.Kudos to you Creavolution.

How literal are you going to get here?The Scriptures are silent on many topics. Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't exist until the time it's mentioned. Furthermore, if God is giving them a warning that they will die, it seems to be a safe assumption that they understood somehow, in some way, what death was. I'm talking about the perceived morality of the animals in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not silent on this matter-- and they make it clear that they know God. I suppose that one could start with Genesis 1:25 which says... And then move along to Job... You seem to be confusing the God-given authority of humanity as perceived within the Scriptures with the perception of the innocence of the animals when contrasted against rebellious humans within the Scriptures.I'm talking about the later. Not the former. That's exactly what I'm not arguing with. There's no doubt that humanity appears to be the most exalted of God's creations. The point that I'm arguing, however, is the point that Adam and Eve's participation in the tree did not enable them to surpass the animal's in regards to doing God's will.Nature itself, whether the behavior of animals or the weather for example, is often overwhelmingly portrayed as being in conformance with God's will. Even Balaam's ass perceived the Angel of the God before Balaam did. God had to actually enable the ass to speak in order to get Balaam to notice something which should have been obvious.Humanity, as portrayed in the Scriptures, does not appear to conform to the pattern of obedience and innocence often depicted in regards to the animals God made. We seem to be somewhat unique in this regard. Is this to say that humanity is depicted as more being more selfish than animals in the Scriptures? That's not what the Scriptures seem to portray. That's not true.The concept of the serpent being something more than a serpent is a nearly universal theme found throughout a tremendous range divers cultures. We don't need a time travelling device to see this either--because we have more than an abundant supply of ancient historical records to verify what they believed back then.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-14-2006 01:15 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-14-2006 01:16 PM

Because God apparently gave this in the sense of a warning not to do it or else something dire would happen. In order for what you're suggesting to be true, one would have to almost rephrase this passage entirely. In other words, why bother warning them at all is this was ultimately good?While I agree that God can bring good out of evil, I would be very cautious about claiming that they did a good thing that ultimately brought about a good end result.In fact, if it was a good thing, then why didn't he just say something to effect of 'Well done faithful friend. Now enter with us into paradise' when they partook of it? I thought you wanted to 'stick to one point for a moment'?Besides that, the story GOD told them was either the truth, or a far more obvious point that there is absolutely no possibility they couldn't understand. I disagree with the empathy part.It seems to me that empathy can be greatly enhanced by the scope of one's intellect. So, if the animals were more intelligent than humans, it seems probable that they could also be far more empathic than humans too. No it's not.There are plenty of primitive non-lethal symbiotic relationships known amongst the various species around the world. If one added to these species the same level 'intellectual' understanding that humans had, they would most likely put humanity to shame in regards to compassion.Furthermore, many problems in life directly result from our inability to fairly intellectually understand the world from other's perspectives. In a sense, they are simply unaware of the struggles that others are going through.I guess it seems to me that it's a matter of indifference in contrast to ignorance. If animals possessed as much intellect as humans did, I suspect that the concept of a 'veterinarian' wouldn't be such a uniquely human idea. I'm not altogether convinced there aren't primitive 'veterinarian' ideas amongst the animals anyway. In fact, if animals possessed as much intellect as humans did, I suspect that the concept of a 'humanitarian' would instead become a equally animalistic concept.

Yes. Bait and switch.Here's the bait... ...and here's the switch... Actually. No. We don't have to accept any such thing.Care to explain why it can only be the conclusion you're putting forth?And, by the way, here's the example of when you were begging the question... See?But, just to be fair, no.We worship in his Spirit.