|
Author
|
Topic: The first 3 chapters of Genesis
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 90 of 307 (349557)
09-16-2006 6:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-15-2006 3:12 PM
|
|
clarification
Jar and others in another thread claim that the traditional interpretation--that God punishes Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (we can shorten this to KGE) is incorrect. god certain does punish adam and eve. you can argue about whether it's consequences of their actions or not, but it's essentially punishment. the issue is whether god punishes us with some abstract sense of "original sin" from the moment of birth. that idea is largely unsupported by the text, especially the jewish segment of it. that god withdraws the tree of life from adam and eve -- and that this action affects the rest of, as do the other punishments -- is uncontested. of course their punishment affects us, their decendents. if it did not, there would be no point in telling the story. indeed, the things they are actually punished with (work, physical and emotional pain, patriarchal society, and death) do affect us.
They say that Adam and Eve are being sent away from Eden so that they won't eat from the Tree of Life, not because they did eat from the KGE, from the section you didn't quote:
quote:
Gen 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: Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
seems pretty clear to me. god sends them away to keep them from eating from the tree of life. the other punishments {other than death} are irrelevant to whether or not man lives in the garden. {certainly, not eating from the tree of life is part of the punishment} it also indicates that man is probably not immortal prior to this.
and this being sent away does not consititute punishment. well, it's part of the "death" punishment. if adam can eat from the tree of life, he won't die. Edited by arachnophilia, : added brackets
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 3:12 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 91 of 307 (349558)
09-16-2006 6:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by RickJB
09-16-2006 6:27 AM
|
|
the fall
However, I can see how the the "fall" concept would arise. One can argue that we were ALL punished because we live in the world that resulted from their disobediance. This idea, however, does not appear to have been made explicit in the text. it's implicit, to a degree. it's the nature that we all somehow changed fundamentally (in ways other than the explicit punishments described) or that we are all born with sin on our heads that is totally without textual merit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by RickJB, posted 09-16-2006 6:27 AM | | RickJB has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 124 of 307 (349682)
09-16-2006 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
09-16-2006 11:17 AM
|
|
Re: Reding, Writing & Reality
There seems to be something approaching a fear of the plain words here, as if they might say exactly what everybody doesn't want them to say. Amusing actually. could you elaborate on what you mean? i don't see any fear of what the text actually says (except perhaps on the part of fundamentalists, which i find highly ironic). then again, i'm also one of the few people that gets accused of being "over literal" by literalists.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 11:17 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: No Law
Where does the A&E story imply a character stain? The punishment was for A&E. yes and no. their punishments (pain in childbirth, patriarchal society, agriculture, etc) clearly affected the authors of genesis, and even us today to some degree. but i see no character shift, other than the increased awareness of adam and eve.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by purpledawn, posted 09-17-2006 5:22 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 153 of 307 (349822)
09-17-2006 5:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 141 by iano
09-17-2006 1:07 PM
|
|
not so omniscient now
It was a forgone conclusion that I would sin. Not so Adam. are you saying that god legitimately didn't know whether or not adam would sin?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 141 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 1:07 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 6:06 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 157 of 307 (349833)
09-17-2006 6:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by iano
09-17-2006 6:06 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
wow this jumped into semantics territory awful fast. i should have known better.
God knew they would sin. But to leap from his knowing something to it being a foregone conclusion is not necessary to take either god knows it will happen or he does not. if knows it's going to happen, then it will. god's pre-knowledge is about as close to "foregone" as you can get. or are you saying that god says something will happen, and it might not in reality? do your posts always come back to basic position that "god lies?"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 6:06 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 6:27 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 159 of 307 (349835)
09-17-2006 6:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by iano
09-17-2006 6:27 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
Preparing the grounds of your rebuttal as usual. Fling mud from the outset. One of these days you'll show rather than fling - but I would not hold my breath on that one. it's hardly the "outset" or "flinging mud." every point i've debated with you, you've defended by twisting the meanings of things, and making false distinctions. your entire argument strategy is semantics. and this one is no different.
Are you familiar with the concept of timeless eternity? so god knows adam will sin then? Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 6:27 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:13 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 161 of 307 (349841)
09-17-2006 7:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
09-17-2006 7:13 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
Perhaps, but this site is about arguing your assertions, not asserting them. I can't remember the argument made - only the assertions. the prosecution rests.
That is the fallacy called answering a question with a question i think that's a new one, ian. and even so, it's exactly what you did, not me. i asked you a yes or no question in message 153, "are you saying that god legitimately didn't know whether or not adam would sin?" when you dodged it, i asked in message 157, "or are you saying that god says something will happen, and it might not in reality?" you answer with "Are you familiar with the concept of timeless eternity?" you answered my question with a question. i'm just asking the same question until you actually answer it. Edited by arachnophilia, : message link broken?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 162 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:35 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 163 of 307 (349844)
09-17-2006 7:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
09-17-2006 7:35 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
The prosectution asserts it is the prosectution. But lets leave history to history okay? the prosecution is the party in the trial that makes assertions, iano. and seriously, keep proving my point.
Yeah. But I spotted the problem first no, you didn't. i pointed out that you were dodging my question, a very simple "yes or no" question, from the get-go.
The reason I asked the question was that yes/no is not the way to address things if you had a notion as to timeless eternity. If you had a notion as to that then you would not frame the question in the fashion you did. Timeless eternity permits Gods knowing without it having to be so. so god knows something will happen, and it doesn't?
Its not like timeless eternity is not a concept that hasn't been around a while now. and semantics to disguise poorly thought-out arguments isn't exactly new either.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:35 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 165 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:48 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 166 of 307 (349847)
09-17-2006 7:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
09-17-2006 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
So I can be the prosecution too - with all the benefits your accrue to yourself then? no. i'm accusing you of dodging the point by using semantics.
So you aren't familiar with the concept of timeless eternity then. Your insisting on yes/no indicates as such. One can force the question into yes/no but only by ones own forcing. Ones ignoring of a well known concept. so the concept of god is illogical?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 7:48 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 168 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 8:02 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 170 of 307 (349855)
09-17-2006 8:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by iano
09-17-2006 8:00 PM
|
|
Re: Personification
But its desire is heroin. Is that desire a 'thing'? yes, heroin is a thing.
How would one locate it? contact your local drug dealer. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 8:00 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 307 (349857)
09-17-2006 8:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by iano
09-17-2006 8:02 PM
|
|
Re: not so omniscient now
Showing is alway better. yes, it is. i wish you would start showing actual logic, and stop playing word games.
Clearly we are not yet in a position to begin re-dialoging. clearly. good day.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by iano, posted 09-17-2006 8:02 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 178 of 307 (350218)
09-19-2006 8:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by ramoss
09-19-2006 8:50 AM
|
|
Re: No Law
That is yet another indication of the non-Jewish roots of Paul. In the view of the Jewish faith, sin, as well as rightousness, is an action. personally, even in my time as a fundamentalist christian, i wasn't aware of any other usage. i think somebody is misreading something here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by ramoss, posted 09-19-2006 8:50 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2