Wonderful Heaven

[Enigma'07]

Gee all of ten people (nice round number that happens to correspond to the number of fingers and toes we have) were saved (and this is the KEY) FROM God!

there were not even ten righteous people and that is why God destroyed it. If there were ten righteous, God would have spared the entire city.

Again god the Killer NOT God the Merciful.

It is not God the killer, but God the Just. It is no differant than carring out the death sentence to some one that deserves it.

Mercy would be not killing people for living their life in a way God didn’t like

I believe you are confused about what mercy and justice are. Mercy is a person refrains from delivering what is deserved to another person. Justice is when punishment is given. A person is convicted of a murder. Mercy would be to let them walk out of the courtroom with no punishment at all. Justice would be giving them jail time or the death penalty. God told people how they should live and what the consequinces are for not doing so.

 

[§outh§tar]

That's the point. It's called shooting fish in a barrel.

Could you explain that? I'm not from around here and don't know what that expression means.

How did Adam know what "you will surely die" means? Nothing's died yet. This was the beginning of death.

If He didn't know what it meant, God wouldn't have told him. And if He didn't know what it meant afterwards, he would have asked God. Biblically, God does not/has never/will never ill equip. Do you know of any scenarios in the Bible where He ill-equipped a servant?

I'm going to digress here a moment. The garden of eden myth is an upside down version of the myth of the original death in almost every ancient myth system throughout the world. In the original, the first death was brought about by murder (Cain and abel, strangely reversed in order from the original as you will soon see). There was a murder among the early peoples who had never known death or struggle or even food for that matter; they had no need of food they were immortal basically. Anyway, someone murdered someone and immediately afterwards was filled with shame for having done it. He tried to hide his deed by burying the head (usually it's a decapitation). From this buried head a plant grew, usually the main staple of the region. So, death and life from the same source. For, after that time children were born and people died. See any resemblance? It's all topsy-turvy isn't it? Now, why would they do that, I wonder? It's also interesting to note that the serpent was believed to be the husband of the goddess figure of early religions. The serpent was seen as a symbol of wisdom and knowledge. Now, this basic pattern has been found in culture after culture all throughout the world. Before you say it's god or satan in action, there is a line of travel that it took. The early migrations of the early humans carried this myth with them everywhere and it transformed here and there along the way. But the archetypes remained.

I suppose it's all mythology then..

Now, back to topic,



The hell you say, if you're talking about someone who has no idea of the functioning of this "wiring" which you even apply with the toy analogy, then it would most definitely be an issue of right and wrong, on the person who knows of the wiring and is deliberately placing this child in a situation where he's going to electrocute himself. So, right and wrong would apply to God in this case and coincidentally enough, he is the one who had the knowledge already. Again, it's a deliberate ploy to set his will in action. Part of which will is to place the blame upon poor Adam and Eve and the serpent. All of whom only did exactly what god willed them to do.

A deliberate ploy, eh? Do you forget that Adam was created as a boy? He was created a man, so don't assume he had the mental faculties of a boy. How is it a deliberate ploy if Adam ate of the tree by his own desires? Anyway, Eve ate of the fruit first, she knew it was wrong to eat of the fruit, but then gave it to Adam anyway. What kind of woman would do such a thing?

Anyway, what you are saying is that God had a responsibility to shield us from ourselves. I don't see any reason an Almighty Creator would have that responsibility because if you claim that He already knew Adam was going to eat of the fruit, then He would have given Adam the ability to resist temptation as well. Hence our ability to "resist" temptation.

I wouldn't. For one thing, the god we're dealing with in this myth has very little to do with the god of christianity no matter what they claim. The christian god is tricky as well though.

How is tricky a bad thing?

For another, no one ever said that God had to be fair. Southstar is attempting to defend god, but in truth God needs no defending as is made so clear in all the attempts in the bible to blame god. God is excellent at sidestepping and diverting the issue, but that's entirely in his venue.

I would say that it condemns god as tricky and cruel.

God only wants what's best for us.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

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."

Do you see the operative phrase here? It is "you must not". God offered him a choice. Eat from the tree, and "you will surely die".

How would Adam know that disobeying God’s command was bad BEFORE he had eaten from the tree that gave that knowledge?

How would Adam know what “surely die” meant since he was the first man and had never seen anything die or had any experience of death?

Even if Adam understood what was meant by death how would he know that it was bad BEFORE he had eaten from the tree that gave him that knowledge?

Perhaps had God explained to Adam that if he ate from the tree then he would condemn the billions of his descendents to pain and misery and death, possibly the greatest evil imaginable? However, how would Adam have known that any of this would have been bad or evil BEFORE he had eaten from the tree?

The only way that Adam could have appropriately evaluated the choice he had been given would be for him to understand the full implications of good and evil and he didn’t have any of that knowledge BEFORE he ate from the tree.

In short he was entirely ill-equipped and unprepared to make an informed choice. He was simply tricked and there is no way you can avoid that.

Try again; your toy story did not apply.

Kat

 

[Enigma'07]

God told him he "shall not" do it so therefore, Adom knew he shouldn't have.

 

[SpyMoose]

Without the faculty to judge consequences, why should he have not done it?

 

[invert_nexus]

A deliberate ploy, eh? Do you forget that Adam was created as a boy? He was created a man, so don't assume he had the mental faculties of a boy. How is it a deliberate ploy if Adam ate of the tree by his own desires? Anyway, Eve ate of the fruit first, she knew it was wrong to eat of the fruit, but then gave it to Adam anyway. What kind of woman would do such a thing?

He was created as an innocent. He had no knowledge of the things which make a man a man. It was a deliberate ploy, because God knew that the serpent would capitilize upon God's commandment not to eat from the tree to attempt to subvert god's will. Good point about Eve; but from the state of the earlier myth, what does this say about those who reshaped the myth into the Eden myth?

Anyway, what you are saying is that God had a responsibility to shield us from ourselves. I don't see any reason an Almighty Creator would have that responsibility because if you claim that He already knew Adam was going to eat of the fruit, then He would have given Adam the ability to resist temptation as well. Hence our ability to "resist" temptation.

No, I'm not saying it's god's responsibility to shield us. It's about god's intentions. As to "he would have given Adam the ability to resist temptation..." Well, in a roundabout cruel way he did. By having him eat of the tree of knowledge and learn about good and evil and the consequences thereof. There could have been better ways to do so, is what I'm saying. His actions paint him as needlessly cruel and sly.

How is tricky a bad thing?

Well, it all depends on how the tricks are carried out. There are several variants of the trickster god in various religions and beliefs. One end of the spectrum would be Loki, who tricks in a cruel and needless manner. The other end of the spectrum is the coyote in native American myths, who tricks to teach. Now, God could be said to have aspects of both of these diverse ends of the spectrum, but from my reading he is closer to the former than the latter.

God only wants what's best for us.

Perhaps, but there are better ways to go about it. I believe that there is some merit to my thoughts of god actually trying to achieve the opposite of what the bible states. Instead of trying to fuse man into an unthinking dogmatic creature, he seeks to command man to perform this way while secretly desiring that they do the opposite. We free-thinkers may just end up in heaven while the dogmaticists burn in the fiery pit of hell. It would certainly fit his pattern.

 

[invert_nexus]

Perhaps, to add to the trickster analogy, Loki will deny his tricks. Part of his trickery is to imply that no trick occurred. The coyote will reveal himself at the end after the lesson has been learned and allow you the opportunity to connect the trick to teaching. This way, you may even learn further from the trick and apply it to teaching others.

 

[Enigma'07]

Wasn't Loki the guy that tied his balls to a goat?

 

[invert_nexus]

I haven't heard that particular tale, but I wouldn't be surprised. It would be more like Loki to tie YOUR balls to a goat.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

How would Adam know that disobeying God’s command was bad BEFORE he had eaten from the tree that gave that knowledge?

Did you even read my post? There was nothing "bad" about it. God gave Adam a choice and he in turn made a decision. That is ENTIRELY different from God saying "don't do it", in which case you can say it was "bad".

Perhaps had God explained to Adam that if he ate from the tree then he would condemn the billions of his descendents to pain and misery and death, possibly the greatest evil imaginable? However, how would Adam have known that any of this would have been bad or evil BEFORE he had eaten from the tree?

That's because "billions of his descendents" weren't there to make the choice. God gave that specific choice to two people, not billions. Again, it was not "bad" or "evil". He made the choice and he lived with the consequences.

Another scenario:
Your mother says "You must not skip school. If you do you will have a hard life". You do skip school and therefore you have a hard life, and consequently your children suffer. Are you going to blame your mother? Are you going to accuse her of neglecting to warn you of the consequences of your children? Do you see that there is nothing "evil" about the consequence because you were given a choice?

Try again; your toy story did not apply.

Kat

I didn't put any toy story in there.

invert_nexus
You should answer this too so I don't have to type the same thing twice.

 

[heart]

It is not God the killer, but God the Just. It is no differant than carring out the death sentence to some one that deserves it.

It is my opinion that babies do not "deserve" to be killed- especially in such brutal ways as the Biblical god commanded. That's just sick and twisted-

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

Did you even read my post? There was nothing "bad" about it. God gave Adam a choice and he in turn made a decision. That is ENTIRELY different from God saying "don't do it", in which case you can say it was "bad".

I think you need to read your own post again. So let me quote your quote from the bible -

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."

The two highlighted clauses very distinctly indicate commands, these are not offering choices, and specifically refute exactly what you are trying to claim. By choosing to eat from the tree Adam was disobeying God’s command. In Christian mythology this is known as the original sin, i.e. it was very bad. This is not disputed and is an essential tenet of Christianity, and I see no point you trying to refute it.

My entire point in this line of debate is that Adam was incapable of knowing that to sin (disobey God) was bad since he had yet to obtain that knowledge. It is a very simple and clear paradox.

So to punish Adam, essentially because of his ignorance, and his billions of descendents was grossly unfair.

But feel free to continue to squirm.

I didn't put any toy story in there.

I refer you to your post that says –

“Someone tells you you may play with any toy in the room, but you must not play with the wiring. If you do so, you will surely die.”

Kat

 

[okinrus]

Suppose you are within a relationship with your best friend, and your best friend says "whatever you do, you must do this" Now you don't know whether "this" is good or bad, but out of the love of your friend you do so.

 

[Katazia]

okinrus,

Suppose you are within a relationship with your best friend, and your best friend says "whatever you do, you must do this" Now you don't know whether "this" is good or bad, but out of the love of your friend you do so.

And you would do this because you possess the knowledge of good and evil and deliberately chose a loving action, an informed decision.

Adam had no way to judge either way, good or bad, because he did not possess the appropriate knowledge to make such an informed decision.

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

Clarification

SouthStar,

I think you need to read your own post again. So let me quote your quote from the bible -

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."

The two highlighted clauses very distinctly indicate commands, these are not offering choices, and specifically refute exactly what you are trying to claim. By choosing to eat from the tree Adam was disobeying God’s command. In Christian mythology this is known as the original sin, i.e. it was very bad. This is not disputed and is an essential tenet of Christianity, and I see no point you trying to refute it.

My entire point in this line of debate is that Adam was incapable of knowing that to sin (disobey God) was bad since he had yet to obtain that knowledge. It is a very simple and clear paradox.

So to punish Adam, essentially because of his ignorance, and his billions of descendents was grossly unfair.

But feel free to continue to squirm.

I refer you to your post that says –

“Someone tells you you may play with any toy in the room, but you must not play with the wiring. If you do so, you will surely die.”

Kat

You of all people is telling me to go along with what the majority says?


Do NOT look at the word "command". Imagine if the word "said" had been substituted in the translation, your argument would have fallen apart. If you want to analyze what God said, you should obviously be examining His Word and not the "interpreted" action. The way I see it, there are many similar verbs that could have been substituted.

Here is an example:
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.' "

Do you see how your argument fails now? Eve tells the serpent what God said, not what God 'commanded'. I don't know why the word 'command' was used in the former text since the Words themselves don't indicate that it was a command.

EDIT: Sorry reread it and decided to clarify

 

[okinrus]

Ok, the I the point you are making is not that Adam knew eating the fruit was good or evil, but whether Adam knew disobeying God was good or evil.

And you would do this because you possess the knowledge of good and evil and deliberately chose a loving action, an informed decision.

Adam was created good, a loving creature with friendship with God. Adam's choice to disobey God could be considered to be a choice to go against his very created nature.

 

[invert_nexus]

That's the point. It's called shooting fish in a barrel.

Could you explain that? I'm not from around here and don't know what that expression means.

It means there is no contest involved. Shooting a fish in a barrel is the easiest thing in the world. Set 'em up, knock 'em down.

 

[Katazia]

Okinrus,

Ok, the point you are making is not that Adam knew eating the fruit was good or evil, but whether Adam knew disobeying God was good or evil.

Yes indeed. The definition of “sin” is disobedience of God. So by disobeying God Adam and Eve committed the first sins. However, it seems grossly unfair to be punished if you have no way of knowing that your actions are sinful.

Adam was created good, a loving creature with friendship with God. Adam's choice to disobey God could be considered to be a choice to go against his very created nature.

That really doesn’t quite work. God clearly created Adam with the ability for good and bad, but as the myth goes, with freewill to choose between them.

So no Adam didn’t go against his created nature since his created nature included both good and bad.

The problem I see is that he didn’t have enough information about his nature that would enable him to make informed use of his freewill. Before he had the knowledge of good and evil everything would have appeared neutral, to disobey God or not to disobey would have been equally weighted and no way to tell the difference. Now given a good looking piece of fruit and the serpent saying it was Ok then he was in a no win situation. His eating of the fruit looks inevitable, and then God sprang his trap and kicked him out.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

You of all people is telling me to go along with what the majority says?

Sorry I don’t know what you mean here.

Do NOT look at the word "command". Imagine if the word "said" had been substituted in the translation, your argument would have fallen apart. If you want to analyze what God said, you should obviously be examining His Word and not the "interpreted" action. The way I see it, there are many similar verbs that could have been substituted.

Here is an example:
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.' "

Do you see how your argument fails now? Eve tells the serpent what God said, not what God 'commanded'. I don't know why the word 'command' was used in the former text since the Words themselves don't indicate that it was a command.

I do not see you have any point here and you sound very desperate. The bible clearly says God commanded the man and very deliberately said “do not eat from that tree or else”. How the hell can that not be interpreted as a direct command? Whatever verb you want to substitute doesn’t matter – the bible is crystal clear that God is telling Adam not to do something. And to do that something is to disobey a direct command from God and that is the very definition of sin – and that is very bad, but Adam didn’t know that to sin was a bad thing BEFORE he ate the fruit.

Do you understand yet?

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

Sorry I don’t know what you mean here.

Telling me that the rest of Christianity says so, therefore I must believe it.

I do not see you have any point here and you sound very desperate. The bible clearly says God commanded the man and very deliberately said “do not eat from that tree or else”. How the hell can that not be interpreted as a direct command? Whatever verb you want to substitute doesn’t matter – the bible is crystal clear that God is telling Adam not to do something. And to do that something is to disobey a direct command from God and that is the very definition of sin – and that is very bad, but Adam didn’t know that to sin was a bad thing BEFORE he ate the fruit.

Do you understand yet?

Kat

I sound desperate?

Read this:
"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."

That does not sound like a command at all, and I hope the various scenarios I supplied will be ample for you to understand that.

Now add:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man,

Now you are basing your whole argument on the word "commanded", since without it the text is NOT a command given to Adam and Eve.

------------

Basically a summary of what I said, but you somehow missed it so I'm writing it again in layman's for ya.