God’s glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God’s second command to accomplish the first

I cannot get the P M to work.
Can I ask you to initiate a contact. I have a question.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Think of perfect nothingness like a glass of absolutely pure water cooled to below 0 degrees C. It only takes a tiny speck of dust to act as a nucleus and then it all solidifies at once. Nothingness is too perfect to persist, it is unstable, and must break down into things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Instinct.

What would make a female cat, who knows nothing of biology or obstetrics, think it was a good idea to bite through a kitten's umbilical cord?

Instinct.

What would make a baby, who knows nothing of nutrition or the process of digestion, stick a piece of apple in his mouth?

Instinct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The hymen is not a chastity belt. Sometimes its breakage during the first intercourse isn't even noticed. Sometimes it's broken even earlier through masturbation. There's no reason to think that Eve's loss of virginity was any different from any other woman's - and no reason to think she knew what was happening.

 

And so did you. You keep insisting that Adam and Eve knew about good and evil when the story plainly says that they didn't. I quoted where God Himself said that they became more like him in knowing good and evil.

 

Sorry about that; you can send a pm now, if you like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

EXCELLENT explanation; thank you.

Billvon rocks. That's all I wanted to say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I grew up learning it somewhat this way too; it is commonly taught this way in the Catholic Church.
Their innocence was lost once they decided to become "like gods," by eating of the tree.
The problem here, whether literal or not, is that sex between these two should never have been considered "evil."
I do think you explained it well from a moral standpoint, of what was intended here.

Growing up, it was used as a moral teaching not so much about sex, but about the consequences of disobeying God.

I understand that part of it, but it seems like an odd tale to simply illustrate the importance of understanding the sovereignty of God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry for the delay. I missed this post.

Not at all. The fundamental difference with the Garden of Eden narrative is that people argue that it's true; that it really happened! This invites a particular sort of critical analysis that people don't usually apply to works of fiction.

How the recognition of this fundamental difference has eluded you is a little perplexing. And it's important too, because it contextualizes the whole discussion. You can't just say "your analysis of the story is incorrect because the story says so, or because it doesn't actually say this, or that". You have to defend its truth value, because that is what is essentially being challenged. And then you have to defend the arguments you put forth to make sense of it in the same way.

You're really not listening to me at all.

Once again, I simply chose to explore the usefulness of some of your real world references in making sense of the narrative. Particularly, the ones involving animals.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I am not actually throwing in with the main thrust of GIA's argument. I was simply addressing some of the arguments you used to refute him.

 

So if man was to work by instinct alone in Eden, what was God screwing with our instincts for by demanding that we remain as stupid as bricks and why did he decide to murder A & E when they decided not to remain stupid and without knowledge of damned near everything?

Regards
DL

 

Except that Eve could not has her hymen broken as that has good and evil implications and she could not know of anything that involved good and evil.

Regards
DL

 

You have it backwards.

The whole premise of the O P is that they were completely innocent till after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

Pay attention my friend.

Regards
DL

 

If the analysis of the story is incorrect, its truth value is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Holden Caulfield has wings or not. If Greatest I am claims he does, I don't have to prove he doesn't. I only have to point out that the story doesn't say he does, so you can't legitimately claim he does.

 

If having her hymen broken has good and evil implications (and I don't think it really does) that doesn't mean that Eve knew about the good and evil implications. It's possible for good and evil implications to exist without everybody knowing what those good and evil implications are. That is, yet again yet again yet again, what the story is about.

 

That's what I've been saying all along. Why are you arguing with me?

 

Can you tell what a grape tastes like without knowing what grapes are?

Neither could A & E.

Regards
DL

 

I tried to respond to your two notes but could not. Short version ---- go to it Girl and link me up.
Your post might go here or the political forum depending on your wording and focus.

Regards
DL

 

You say that while saying they had knowledge of issues that have good and evil aspects.

Regards
DL

 

The taste of a grape has nothing to do with knowing good and evil. But yes, of course you can tell what food tastes like without knowing what food it is.

 

What I keep saying is that they could do things without knowing the good and evil aspects of those things. A child can fire a gun without knowing the good and evil aspects. The fact that there are good and evil aspects is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't know what they are.

How many examples do you need before you can understand that simple concept?

 

Nice twist on words.
Go play elsewhere. It is becoming apparent and I have no more time for your garbage.

Regards
DL

 

This is nonsense.

If the story is purported to be true, then it's truth value is relevant from the outset. We no longer examine it as a work of fiction, we compare it to what we can divine from reality.

But more importantly I've explained to you at least twice now that what I was actually taking issue with in this thread was the nature of some of your own references to reality to make sense of the story. But since you seem intent on not discussing them further, or simply admitting that they were perhaps somewhat problematic, I guess we're done here.