whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 04:10:49 AM

Title: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 04:10:49 AM
From the Book of Genesis:

God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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"

Eve said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: 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. "


This comes up a lot with theists, and we quickly reach the point where we are told that the specific words used show that Yahweh was talking about a spiritual death, or an end to the eternal life they were having.  And I've always accepted that.

But the other day I looked at it again, and Eve is quite clearly convinced that Yahweh meant the "instant death" version, because it is that version of death that the serpent is responding to.  Whether the serpent knew the truth or not is irrelevant - what matters is that it seems clear that Eve was convinced that Yahweh meant "eat, and keel over dead".

And that is the thing that gives me pause, because if his creation was unclear about what was going to happen, where should the blame lie?  Absolutely, 100%, with the omniscient creator, who decided what message he was going to impart.  If he wanted Adam and Eve to be totally clear about the tree, then it was entirely in his power to do it.  He had all the knowledge and ability to make them totally clear about what the tree was all about - yet he did not do so.

So to me, the correct translation of what Yahweh meant when he said "death" is beside the point.  The point is that the message that he managed to transmit to his creation was wrong.  He makes himself unclear, and there are terrible consequences.....a lesson that he seems to have learned nothing from for the next few thousand years.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Nick on September 23, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
God unclear?  How can that be?  I guess it is good that we have religious leaders to tell us what He really meant. :o
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 23, 2013, 07:31:34 AM
From the Book of Genesis:

God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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"

Eve said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: 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. "


This comes up a lot with theists, and we quickly reach the point where we are told that the specific words used show that Yahweh was talking about a spiritual death, or an end to the eternal life they were having.  And I've always accepted that.

But the other day I looked at it again, and Eve is quite clearly convinced that Yahweh meant the "instant death" version, because it is that version of death that the serpent is responding to.  Whether the serpent knew the truth or not is irrelevant - what matters is that it seems clear that Eve was convinced that Yahweh meant "eat, and keel over dead".

And that is the thing that gives me pause, because if his creation was unclear about what was going to happen, where should the blame lie?  Absolutely, 100%, with the omniscient creator, who decided what message he was going to impart.  If he wanted Adam and Eve to be totally clear about the tree, then it was entirely in his power to do it.  He had all the knowledge and ability to make them totally clear about what the tree was all about - yet he did not do so.

So to me, the correct translation of what Yahweh meant when he said "death" is beside the point.  The point is that the message that he managed to transmit to his creation was wrong.  He makes himself unclear, and there are terrible consequences.....a lesson that he seems to have learned nothing from for the next few thousand years.


The story does not make sense in so many ways, God (creator of you and the universe) tells you something you listen (at least you do if you understand).  Of course naivete could play in there,  Adam and Eve were as children who did not know what death was, nor know what lying was because both did not exist so they had no frame of reference.   If I gave my kid a gun at 2 and told them it was deadly, should I blame them if they shoot their leg off?  Do they understand what dangerous is?

Can we agree it would have been difficult for adam and eve to understand gods statement.

1) There was no death, so adam and eve would have had difficulty understanding
2) there was no evil in the garden of eden (well except for the snake)
3) Adam and Eve hand not experienced lying so they were easily fooled


Quote
"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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"

I believe that it would have read more like this to adam and eve.


Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and SOMETHING, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely SOMETHING

Now had god said something more like this. 


Instead he said in essence (in a very passive way), Hey adam and eve I wouldn't do that or something will happen.



Finally if Sin did not exist in Eden, how did the snake lie to Adam and Eve?


Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 07:42:24 AM
From the Book of Genesis:

God said: "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
The serpent said "Ye shall not surely die"


Perhaps another crucial point: neither Adam nor Eve would at this point have experienced "lying".  One being has told them one thing, another has told them something different.  They would have no concept that some beings would tell a falsehood.

On the other hand, they have previous experience that Yahweh makes mistakes

So Eve would already have experience that - twice - Yahweh had done something that proved to be incorrect.  So when the snake said "Yahweh got it wrong about the tree", she would be far more likely to think "ah, another mistake by god that is now being corrected" than "this snake is lying....whatever lying is".

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree.  He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes.  Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid.  So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: jetson on September 23, 2013, 07:55:45 AM

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree.  He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes.  Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid.  So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually.  But, the thing that comes to mind with the OP, is that there are multiple instances where a literal verbiage is twisted by apologists to mean something different than it seems.  The phrase "surely die" is found more than once in the Bible, but only in the story of the original sin is it used to indicate a"spiritual death."

The "entire world" was flooded in the flood story, but many old earth creationists insist that the flood was regional, since they are at least intelligent enough to recognize the extreme lack of evidence that the entire planet was covered with water.

The number of "days" it took to create the world is another example where, for pure convenience, days really meant "time periods, or epochs", instead of actual 24 hour days, like the rest of the Bible.

I could go on, but it gets boring after a while.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on September 23, 2013, 08:07:30 AM
Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree.  He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes.  Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid.  So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually. 

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.

Debatable.  If I say "don't touch that wire, you will die", which are you most likely to take as my reasoning?

Certainly from my perspective, I would have said it was the latter.  Remember also that EVERYTHING else Yahweh was said and done to the couple was from that latter perspective - of trying to make things nice as possible for them.  Authoritarian obedience hasn't really got a look in.  So again, given Yahweh's propensity for mistakes, I still think it was entirely reasonable for them to think "oh, well that's okay then", and never give "disobeying" a thought.

Whether Yahweh's intention was to be commanding isn't the point - as an omnimax deity, if that WAS his intention, it should have been crystal clear.  Indeed, I'd go so far as so say that he specifically muddied the waters.  Had he said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" - Full Stop - then it would have been completely clear it was a COMMAND.  By adding the (debatable) codicil to it, Yahweh opened the door for the serpent's lawyering.....something an omnimax god should surely have taken into account.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 23, 2013, 08:12:29 AM

Final point: Yahweh never FORBADE them from eating of the tree.  He said "if you eat it, you will die" - which is a crucial difference, especially when considering Yahweh's history of mistakes.  Yahweh warned of consequences, he did not forbid.  So when the snake "revealed" Yahweh's error, there was no element of disobeying in Eve's response, simply a realisation that another one of Yahweh's errors had been revealed.

The more I consider this little tale, the more it becomes clear how ALL the blame lies squarely at Yahweh's feet.

Even today I am not exactly sure what a spiritual death is.  I understand spiritual and death as words but I have no reference for what spiritual life looks like.  It is pretty much as difficult for me to imagine time not existing before the universe formed.

I think the "thou shalt not" in precedence is a forbidding, actually.  But, the thing that comes to mind with the OP, is that there are multiple instances where a literal verbiage is twisted by apologists to mean something different than it seems.  The phrase "surely die" is found more than once in the Bible, but only in the story of the original sin is it used to indicate a"spiritual death."
[/quote]

Again with no frame of reference, this is like the parents of a spoiled child who decide one day to enforce a new rule on their kid.  There is a learning curve required to let them understand the consequences.  Very few childrens guides recommending killing your kid for mistakes but rather through positive reinforcement allow the kids to see the value in obedience.

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 23, 2013, 08:28:04 AM
A and E clearly needed a Biblical apologist on hand to explain spiritual death (and death as well) to them. They had no clue they were naked, so expecting them to comprehend a nuanced threat from a bumbling court jester of a deity was a bit of a stretch.  Even YHWH confirmed their ignorance - "Who told you you were naked?"  I wish we had a few more of his quotes:
    "What's wrong with a sheep as a mate?"
    "That, Adam, is a penis - I added that since you whined about needing a mate."
    "I know you all aren't hungry and have no need for food, but you have to eat - it's important for the story later."
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Fiji on September 23, 2013, 08:56:15 AM
Two things,
one ... the whole scenario is one great big catch 22 ... God tells them to not do X ... but to know that not listening to god is bad, they'd need knowledge of good and evil, which they can only get by doing the X they weren't supposed to in the first place.

two ... being naked is BAAAAAAAD ... they gain knowledge of good and evil and instantly realise this. So ... why did god let them run around naked, if it's so bad? Does he get his jollies from seeing humans naked? Is that what the omnipresence is for?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 23, 2013, 10:46:28 AM
Gee, the story seems to have some holes in it. As Neopagan pointed out, A&E lacked access to modern theological thinking, so they had no one to advise them on the specifics of the banned tree or to explain the long-term consequences. Because not only did they not know about lying, nor death, but they also lacked any realistic concept of time. And as epidemic said, they had no way of understanding how being bad (not understood) would permanently alter the state of human affairs. Nor were they given the complete story. Had god said "Hey, if you eat from that tree, I'll eventually have to drown most of the planet, rape a virgin and have myself a kid that I'll then have to kill, then wait around a few more thousand or tens of thousands of years or whatever to send him down again and save the planet, and it would just be easier if you would not eat from the tree that I so carelessly put there."

At which point, A&E could ask a few questions, like "What is lying, what is death, what is eventually, what's a planet, what is drown, what is rape, what's a virgin, what's a kid, what is killing, what are thousands, what are years, what is saving and what does careless mean?"

The dude took the time to sit down with Adam and name all the animals, but he couldn't spend ten more minutes with the innocent couple to explain things a bit more clearly? He couldn't have couched the problem in a more meaningful way. Like taking them to the edge of the garden and showing them the desert or whatever was beyond (they got cast into something, so I'm guessing it was a little less desirable) and said "Do as I command and you will get to stay in this beautiful place with that tempting tree forever. Eat from the tree, and you have to go live out there where it is dry and there are few trees to eat from and stuff. I am testing you, and I have no tolerance for failure. Even though I'm infinite, I have a tiny mind and no imagination, so you guys are kind of up sh*t creek without a paddle, a concept you'll never need to have explained if you just stay away from that tree. And by the way, there is a serpent crawling around the garden that talks and he'll try to convince you otherwise, but don't listen to him. If you do, out you go, and I'll have to write a big long book full of silly stories and inconsistencies that will fuel thousands of years of warfare, and I'll have to do it without a word processor because its too early for that."

"And by the way, kids, I know you'll fail because I'm omnipotent and I didn't take any preventative measures when I designed and built you two from mud and bone. A tiny adjustment to genes here and there and both of you would be completely complaint. But that would be too responsible of me." sayeth the lord.

Little tip to theists: Silly stories should be a dead giveaway. Its all fake.




Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 23, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
Want one way to tell Adam wasn't built with any critical thinking skills and should get a pass for supposedly wanting to snub his nose at the creator?  When YHWH told him - "See that tree over there, don't eat any of it or you'll surely die," he might have asked almighty omnimax "why the frack did you put such a thing in paradise, dude?"  (Assuming YHWH had explained death LOL)
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Aaron123 on September 23, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
Something I've always wondered about the story; how much "free will" did Adam have?  Not only did god talk to him directly (apparently, a big no-no, according to the free will arguement), but Adam was created as a full-grown adult (evidently), and automatically knew how to walk, talk, listen to and interpret commands, name all the animals, and had his own sets of values (he felt there was nothing wrong with being naked).  A newborn would not know how to do all those things, so presumably, he (and Eve) came with some amount of "pre-programming".

Doesn't seem right to accuse Adam and Eve of sinning if they were just following faulty programming.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 23, 2013, 02:06:10 PM
Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents?  They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax.  No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Aaron123 on September 23, 2013, 02:27:33 PM
Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents?  They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax.  No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...

Don't forget the first official puinshment for the first official murder.

"You shall be a fugitive and a vagabond... and no one shall be allowed to kill you!  Also, you shall get a hot wife, and establish a city, and your decendents shall do all sorts of awesome things!"

Yep... a little messed up.


On a more serious note, after Cain killed Abel, he goes "every one that findeth me shall slay me".  So... Adam and Eve would've killed their own son?  :o   
They're the only other people around at this point, so that passage should read "if mom and dad findeth me, they shall slay me".  They sure got bloodthirsty so fast!
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 23, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
They're the only other people around at this point, so that passage should read "if mom and dad findeth me, they shall slay me".  They sure got bloodthirsty so fast!

Never thought about it but as the first official death in the world, I would think it would have been an interesting thought process that went through mom and dads head.  I would think it would have taken some time to deal with the death to even understand what it really meant.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 23, 2013, 03:06:23 PM
A and E were 130 when they had the replacement son (Seth), so not a whole lot of years to be cranking out tons of people for the new earth...   Assuming no daughters, Eve was the only game in town for poor old Cain to father his city. 

It gets more and more crazy when you think about any of the details (oh, never mind - goddidit!)
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Zankuu on September 23, 2013, 04:25:18 PM
A and E were 130 when they had the replacement son (Seth), so not a whole lot of years to be cranking out tons of people for the new earth...

I'm unsure of Eve's date of death as I don't think it's mentioned in the Bible or any non-canonical scripture, but Adam lived til the rip old age of 930. Assuming she lived for several hundred years like he did then that would be quite a lot of time for reproduction.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 23, 2013, 05:50:01 PM
This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Nick on September 23, 2013, 06:04:04 PM
This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.
Like hotdogs?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 23, 2013, 06:06:21 PM
This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.
Like hotdogs?
mmmmmm lips and assholes
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Betelnut on September 23, 2013, 06:46:32 PM
Plus, don't forget, Eve wasn't even created when God tells Adam about the tree.  So she got her information from Adam.  Come on--why the heck should she give a rat's ass about what HE says?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: jynnan tonnix on September 23, 2013, 06:49:58 PM
This may sound like a stupid question but were A&E vegetarians? If they were meat eaters they would have understood what "death" was. Unless God just served up the steak,burgers,lambchops without them knowing they were animals.

I was always under the impression that they were vegetarians before the fall (as were all the animals which later became carnivorous). I suppose once they saw the lions start eating the gazelles, maybe they decided to try meat as well. Except they tended more toward the slower things, like cows.

Makes one wonder why god would have created all those lions, tigers and bears with big ol' canine teeth if they were supposed to subsist on grass and berries, though. I think A&E did them a big favor when they ate that apple.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Zankuu on September 23, 2013, 08:14:22 PM
I was always under the impression that they were vegetarians before the fall (as were all the animals which later became carnivorous). I suppose once they saw the lions start eating the gazelles, maybe they decided to try meat as well. Except they tended more toward the slower things, like cows.

Makes one wonder why god would have created all those lions, tigers and bears with big ol' canine teeth if they were supposed to subsist on grass and berries, though. I think A&E did them a big favor when they ate that apple.

In Genesis it mentions somewhere that God gave A&E bushes and trees to munch on, and to the animals he gave the plants. So I think you're right about the vegan diet in Eden. As for those sharp carnivorous fangs, well, they'll be used for wheat and oats in heaven according to Isaiah 65:25:

New Heavens and a New Earth
...
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox
,
    and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.


Completely changing the dietary needs of a lion, reconstructing internal organs for processing strictly plants, and not to mention its neurological wiring and natural predatory behavior- you just can't beat that Yahweh Magic™!
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Nick on September 23, 2013, 09:15:43 PM
Yet curing amputees is still too hard for Him.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Aaron123 on September 24, 2013, 01:11:19 AM
Never thought about it but as the first official death in the world, I would think it would have been an interesting thought process that went through mom and dads head.  I would think it would have taken some time to deal with the death to even understand what it really meant.

Whatever the case, god agreed with Cain's thought that mum and daddy would kill him ("the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him").  I have to wonder, what kind of disciplinarians were Adam and Eve?  Those guys were the world's first parents.  I wonder if they were strict and harsh, considering Cain is quick to think that they'll kill him for what he did. (granted, it is an extreme case, but it's all we have to work with) You'd think the bible would say something about what kind of parents they were.   All we get is that they taught their kids to be farmers, and... that's it.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Chilly on September 24, 2013, 05:24:35 AM
God was testing them
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on September 24, 2013, 06:40:45 AM
Could you imagine what these two dunces would have been like as parents?  They didn't have a baseline of experience to go on other than the piss-poor info from the omnimax.  No wonder Cain killed his brother - he'd heard stories about magic fruit and as a farmer he wasn't buying the whole burned goat is a sweet aroma story...

But let's also not forget Yahweh's part in the first murder. 

Cain and Abel are doing their best from their understanding.  Cain was brought up and specialised as a farmer, Abel specialised as a shepherd - presumably so that the family could have a varied "meat & 2 veg" diet.  Chances are that Cain feels he is doing the slightly more important job - after all, as Zankuu says, originally they all ate veggies in the garden, so Cain thinks he's more in tune with what Yahweh thinks is good.

So, they both offer some of their goods up to Yahweh.  And what does Yahweh do?  He says to Cain "I don't respect your offering.  Don't get angry with me, its YOUR fault for being such a sinful failure you can't get your act together". 

Sure: Cain wielded the rock, or the stick.  But in any court today we'd certainly be considering charges against the being who egged him on and called him useless.  Especially when that being knows exactly how Cain would be likely to react to such harsh words.

Side point: Yahweh is often held up to us as an example of a "good parent" by Christians.  So tell me, fellows with more than one child, if one of your children does a lot better than the other, which is the BETTER parenting, from the options below?

1) "You are so stupid and uselsss - why can't you be more like your brother?"
2) "Well done for your effort, I can see you tried hard.  Maybe next time you might want to try this instead, to make your sacrifice even better?"
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 24, 2013, 06:46:27 AM
God was testing them

Welcome Chilly

The test would be fine if he qualified as a good teacher. In the story, as told, he was pretty bad at that. Adam was essentially a first grader with the fate of all mankind on his shoulders, and he got one lesson, one sentence long. Then he gets a girlfriend, which was probably distracting, then she failed his test, and here we are today, still dealing with the consequences.

If it really happened, it would be ridiculous. That people today believe the story is sad. It gives too many a reason for being bad, and too many that believe the story accept it as a legitimate reason for human failings, rather than trying to understand our biologically and socially evolved psychology.

It is a lie that creates many a sad truth. That is not a good thing.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 24, 2013, 09:18:37 AM
I have to wonder, what kind of disciplinarians were Adam and Eve?  Those guys were the world's first parents.  I wonder if they were strict and harsh, considering Cain is quick to think that they'll kill him for what he did. (granted, it is an extreme case, but it's all we have to work with)

In answer to your question (bolded mine) - I'd say they were just like YHWH... they flew off the handle at the slightest "offense" against them and instantly thought of severely punishing their progeny or even killing them... Exactly what they had witnessed in the fabled garden.  Monkey see, monkey do.

StarStuff has this on his "quotes" thread, and I now have it on a post it note on my monitor: "Why would anyone turn to god for advice on child rearing? He drowned all his own."
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
StarStuff has this on her "quotes" thread, ...

His.  StarStuff is a man, baby.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/amf85/TERA/Forum/thats-a-man-baby-austin-powers.jpg (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/amf85/TERA/Forum/thats-a-man-baby-austin-powers.jpg)

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 24, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
oops... my bad - I will fix that.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Hatter23 on September 24, 2013, 01:06:07 PM
God was testing them

No knowledge of right or wrong
No knowledge of Death

Yeah. I testing you right now. Tell me the number/color/animal/rock/or imaginary comcept I am thinking of and in which language you are unfamiliar with I am thinking of it in.

Too bad, I already know you are going to fail at this test. Then I am going to blame your relatives.

Have them beg me for forgiveness for you failing such a wonderful test.





Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: rev45 on September 24, 2013, 01:35:15 PM
God was testing them
Testing them for what?  Obedience?  How long were they to be tested?  What would have happened if they passed the test assuming that the test ended at some point?  Why did god see fit to condemn all of humanity because these two failed his test?  Making humanity suffer the consequences because of two people's mistake seems quite harsh and batshit insane.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Jonny-UK on September 24, 2013, 01:35:47 PM
So keeping things simple-
God creates everything, god knows everything that has/is/will happen.
God creates the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, the tree, the apple etc.
God then must already know every possible variable and outcome for the situation.
God then gets annoyed when the outcome he already knew actually happens.
Many years later he sends himself to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to somehow balance the books.
Just does not seem to add up.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 01:37:18 PM
God was testing them

Maybe.  But I don't think so.

Usually tests are a measure of learning, achievement or skill.  What was being tested there?  And after a test you get to review the results so you can do better.  In what way did that happen?   

If this really was a test, why were the consequences permanent?  Why did the fruit actually change them?  Why not just say an ordinary tree was The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for test purposes?  Did it really need to be the TKGE? 

And why were they punished for failing the test?  Does anyone test their kids by placing a cookie jar in the middle of the living room, tell them not to eat cookies and then ground them for life when they do?  You'd have to be some kind of lunatic to do that.

And why did yhwh not just undo the effects and have a "teaching moment"?  He's omnipotent, right?  He could have gotten the sin out just by willing it.[1]  He could have sat down with Eve and her slow witted mate and explained what they did wrong.  "Sorry, you two.  You are not ready to have moral judgment.  I should not have let the snake in here, but I really need you guys to listen to me.  We'll work on that for a while.  Until then, I'll just keep that Tree some place you can't reach. Got it?  Okay.  Now, go play."

The whole thing is crazy whether you take it literally or figuratively. 

An alternative explanation is yhwh was actually evil and wanted his new people to not have moral judgment, ever.  He actually had evil things in store, and if they gained moral judgment, they would not go along with his villainous plans.  If that is so - and that makes a heck of a lot more sense to me - then the snake saved them and Eve is a courageous, smart hero. 

 
 1. ...or could he?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 24, 2013, 02:23:50 PM
The concept of a God test is somewhat absurd. 

Adam and Eve were apparently programmed from their creation with knowledge.  They did not go through the normal rearing process.  In essence they were programmed from the moment of their creation.  Of course this may well imply that they had all the knowledge needed to understand what death was, what lying was, and so on.

But I do take exeption to the concept of God giving a test.  God gave a verbal input and got exactly the response he expected.  The test implies you have some doubt as to the outcome.  I think a more appropriate statement would be that god programmed and then used Adam and Eve to achieve the exact results he expected.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 24, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
"Sorry, you two.  You are not ready to have moral judgment.  I should not have let the snake in here, but I really need you guys to listen to me.  We'll work on that for a while.  Until then, I'll just keep that Tree some place you can't reach. Got it?  Okay.  Now, go play shag."

^^^ Here - I fixed that for you...  ;D that would have kept them out of trouble with that tree for a good while.  I'm assuming he had not given them their respective nasty parts at that point, otherwise, they would not have been playing with talking snakes...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: nogodsforme on September 24, 2013, 05:03:19 PM
That's right. The story makes it sound like before they ate the fruit, A and E were playing naked volleyball or hide-and-seek in the garden like innocent, if overlarge, children on a field trip. Smooth and sex organ-less as Barbie and Ken. And white, if medieval painters are to be believed; however, they do not appear to have suffered from sunburn.

Then they eat the fruit and whambo! Porn-star-sized parts appear and after banging themselves into exhaustion, they rush to hide their nakedness under some leaf clothes like embarrassed adolescents.[1]

Later that night as they contemplate their fall and the resulting eternal damnation of their entire species, Eve was heard to ask Adam, "Do these leaves make my butt look big?"
 1. Later, the medieval painters will drape Eve's hair modestly over her boobies and arrange helpful vines to cover Little Adam.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 24, 2013, 07:05:00 PM
^^^ I suspect Adam's first sin was to answer that question.

Hence dooming men to a similar fate for generation after generation.

I always used what I still think is a clever response. "I'm not going to play that game. But please promise not to sit on me?"

It never worked. I guess there was a flaw in my thinking...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 25, 2013, 09:49:10 AM
Another thing I have never understood... why did A and E suddenly care they were naked?  Were they afraid a dinosaur would see them?  That's why I think their magic naughty bits "grew" after they ate the fruit... suddenly, they had something different they thought god did not know about. 
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: jynnan tonnix on September 25, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
The thing about that which has always puzzled me is that why, if being naked is a sin (or, at least, something to be seen as shameful), why would Yahweh have created them that way to begin with? Is it only when you are seen by someone other than your mate? Did they sew the fig leaves together to keep Yahweh from seeing them, or to cover themselves from each other also? And, come to that, if Yahweh is omniscient and omnipresent (though he didn't seem to be back in those days anyway, but that's a whole other issue), where is the shame in his seeing you naked either, given that you are bound to be in that state at least occasionally?

The "naughty bits", we can assume must have been there, at least visually, unless A&E did not have functioning digestive systems either...Maybe it was just Adam's that "grew"  ;)

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Dante on September 25, 2013, 10:31:37 AM
The thing about that which has always puzzled me is that why, if being naked is a sin (or, at least, something to be seen as shameful), why would Yahweh have created them that way to begin with?

Maybe that's why the xians claim we are all "born into sin". Simply because their god forgot/neglected to give us clothing in the womb.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 25, 2013, 10:50:32 AM
The "naughty bits", we can assume must have been there, at least visually, unless A&E did not have functioning digestive systems either...Maybe it was just Adam's that "grew"  ;)

Why would they have originally needed functioning digestive systems? What comes out of the body was vile to YHWH... so why would any of those things be incuded originally?  Besides, they did not even need to eat, since they were not going to die or even be hungry... yet somehow Eve fell for some fruit and a snake (visual pun there somewhere)?

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 25, 2013, 01:25:01 PM
Another thing I have never understood... why did A and E suddenly care they were naked?

That was a narrative device to show they gained moral knowledge.  After eating the forbidden fruit, they could tell right from wrong.  And thus, were ashamed of their uncovered bodies. 

Being naked is seen as immoral in the OT.  After the flood, when Noah gets liquored up and passes out butt naked, his sons have to cover him up walking backward, lest they glimpse his buns.  Other places this is demonstrated too.  And it is why jews to this day use a sheet with a hole in it to have sex.[1]

Which begs the question, why would a good god create them that way?  Further evidence yhwh was an evil deity...

 
 1. I know they don't.  I just find it hilarous that anyone would believe that.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: nogodsforme on September 25, 2013, 02:49:35 PM
Just had to check out the sheet thing. I think I heard this growing up in black communities where people believed it was practiced by Orthodox Jews. And it is not true. Evidently Jewish sex is supposed to be pretty hot. Who knew? http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 25, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Which begs the question, why would a good god create them that way?  Further evidence yhwh was an evil deity...

Yes, many a begged question in all that... I also like dipshit YHWH asking, "Who told you you were naked?"
My guess would be the gazelles or those pesky unicorns. 
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: jdawg70 on September 25, 2013, 03:14:45 PM
Yes, many a begged question in all that... I also like dipshit YHWH asking, "Who told you you were naked?"
My guess would be the gazelles or those pesky unicorns.
Leave the unicorns out of this.  It was clearly the cud-chewing rabbits.

Wascally wabbits.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 25, 2013, 03:26:03 PM
ok, it was the four legged insects...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Jag on September 25, 2013, 04:23:04 PM
I also like dipshit YHWH asking, "Who told you you were naked?"

This is a good one too - wish I'd remembered it, as it would have been handy on several occasions. I would have said that he was asking if one of the other gods (the ones he was consulting about these creatures he was making in their image a few days earlier) had ratted him out. I gotta admit though, I like your answer better, and will use it if the opportunity presents itself. Thanks!
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Hatter23 on September 25, 2013, 05:17:28 PM
I also like dipshit YHWH asking, "Who told you you were naked?"

This is a good one too - wish I'd remembered it, as it would have been handy on several occasions. I would have said that he was asking if one of the other gods (the ones he was consulting about these creatures he was making in their image a few days earlier) had ratted him out. I gotta admit though, I like your answer better, and will use it if the opportunity presents itself. Thanks!

It has been likened to a parent asking a child about misbehavior, even though they full well know the child is at fault, so that's a non starter.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 25, 2013, 07:34:01 PM
An omniscient being should not have to play such paltry word games. How about, "You two get your asses out here...you fucked up! And let me tell you about poison ivy (what you call fig leaves)!!"
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2013, 07:57:36 AM
Evidently Jewish sex is supposed to be pretty hot.

Yeah, sure.  And they are the Chosen People, and their god is the greatest ever, and they built the pyramids... 
Their self agrandizing knows no limits. 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-flvJz0z5EHM/UJBRNpq-E2I/AAAAAAAADZ0/1-Pued61WfY/s320/jews.jpg)
Studs.

Seriously, though.  What would be their basis for comparison?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2013, 08:01:23 AM
Yes, many a begged question in all that... I also like dipshit YHWH asking, "Who told you you were naked?"

the answer I get is that yhwh was talking down to them, like a parent to his children.  Because right before that, yhwh cannot even find them and has to ask, "where the heck are you guys?" But of course yhwh already knew, because we have to presuppose that people always thought yhwh was GOD and was omnimax, so this is just yhwh dealing with children.  and then he kills them.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on September 26, 2013, 08:27:43 AM
Another thing I have never understood... why did A and E suddenly care they were naked?

That was a narrative device to show they gained moral knowledge.  After eating the forbidden fruit, they could tell right from wrong.  And thus, were ashamed of their uncovered bodies. 

Which means Yahweh, the only moral being in the universe at that point, was looking at their naked bodies and knowing it was wrong, but unable to help himself.

Maybe that was why he set up the deliberate fail - so they'd go put some clothes on so he wouldn't have to look at them.  Mind you, he then kicked them out of the house and drew the curtains to be left alone with his bank of memories..... :o
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 26, 2013, 08:52:39 AM
And it is why jews to this day use a sheet with a hole in it to have sex.[1]
 1. I know they don't.  I just find it hilarous that anyone would believe that.

Wait, you are saying Jews only have sex via the sheethole?   :laugh:
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2013, 08:59:48 AM
Wait, you are saying Jews only have sex via the sheethole?   :laugh:

Nah.  I'm just making fun of an obviously untrue rumor.  Of course they don't do that.  They actually use a quilt.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 26, 2013, 09:02:59 AM
Wait, you are saying Jews only have sex via the sheethole?   :laugh:

Nah.  I'm just making fun of an obviously untrue rumor.  Of course they don't do that.  They actually use a quilt.

Whew... I thought for a moment there they would be ceremonially unlean. Quiltholes are much cleaner than sheetholes.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: nogodsforme on September 26, 2013, 02:48:13 PM
Evidently Jewish sex is supposed to be pretty hot.

Yeah, sure.  And they are the Chosen People, and their god is the greatest ever, and they built the pyramids... 
Their self agrandizing knows no limits. 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-flvJz0z5EHM/UJBRNpq-E2I/AAAAAAAADZ0/1-Pued61WfY/s320/jews.jpg)
Studs.

Seriously, though.  What would be their basis for comparison?

All the shiksas and schwartzas they fool around with before they marry the nice Jewish spouse?

Muslims say that Islamic sex is pretty hot, too. I am sure that it can be-- but again, what is the basis for comparison? We had a Muslim guy here a few years back who argued that Muslim women feel pleasure without the need for any external organs. So you might as well have the genitalia removed before marriage....

There are circumcised men who say that it doesn't bother them that they had something snipped off. Does make you wonder why god stuck all these parts on that he just would require people to cut off later.  &) :(
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 26, 2013, 06:00:51 PM
Does make you wonder why god stuck all these parts on that he just would require people to cut off later.  &) :(

Like the left side of the brain?[1]
 1. for any interloping fundies, that would be the side of your noggin'  that deals with logic...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: dloubet on September 27, 2013, 01:34:06 AM
I have a question: was there death in the garden before the fall? If not, then everything was immortal. So those theists claiming the god warned of a spiritual death completely ignore that the fall also included a real physical death, which couldn't happen until the fruit was eaten. That's kind of a big omission by the god, no? It could have told them that, "Oh, by the way, if you eat of the fruit you'll also get old, decrepit, and stop breathing, and then rot, and so will everything else."
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Fiji on September 27, 2013, 03:59:14 AM
I have come across Christians who say that, no, there was no death, cause, see, the predators were all vegetarian.
Which is nice and all except ... plants live too, don't they.
Soooo, from the plants' point of view, the garden was a great massacre and things actually improved after the fall.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Hatter23 on September 27, 2013, 06:51:11 AM
I have come across Christians who say that, no, there was no death, cause, see, the predators were all vegetarian.
Which is nice and all except ... plants live too, don't they.
Soooo, from the plants' point of view, the garden was a great massacre and things actually improved after the fall.

Oh and what about the bacteria that have to die in order for the soil to have the right nutrient level for the plants? IIRC that's part of biology, right?

And since God Invented the rainbow after the flood, wasn't the sun rather harsh when the atmosphere had no light refraction?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 27, 2013, 07:53:58 AM
I have a question: was there death in the garden before the fall? If not, then everything was immortal. So those theists claiming the god warned of a spiritual death completely ignore that the fall also included a real physical death, which couldn't happen until the fruit was eaten. That's kind of a big omission by the god, no? It could have told them that, "Oh, by the way, if you eat of the fruit you'll also get old, decrepit, and stop breathing, and then rot, and so will everything else."

I have been thinking about this and I am not sure we can decide either way.  Adam and Eve were both created with full knowledge.  They were programmed with a lifetime of understanding.  Did that pre-programming include the nuances of death, aging, suffering?  I don't know!

We do know that it was deficient in nudity,  it apparently was a new feeling that being nude could be embarrasing.  Of course looking at people today,  I don't see how they could have been embarrased by nudity.  I believe that is a learned behavior.  Tribes in africa let their junk hang out because it is culturally acceptable.  Adam and Eve were the culture at the time I find it hard to believe they would have suddenly been embarrased by it.  I don't believe there is a natural human tendency toward embarrasment over nudity that is a learned behavior and far from universal.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 27, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
I would like to see how god went about killing an animal, skinning it, drying the hide and sewing up some garments for them.  Supposedly, he had to show them this process and have them sit quietly in their fig leaves while taking notes on their iPad.

Note: As a believer, I thought this was an early Christ reference... blood being shed for man's sin.  Now, I just call BS.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: epidemic on September 27, 2013, 02:03:35 PM
I would like to see how god went about killing an animal, skinning it, drying the hide and sewing up some garments for them.  Supposedly, he had to show them this process and have them sit quietly in their fig leaves while taking notes on their iPad.

Note: As a believer, I thought this was an early Christ reference... blood being shed for man's sin.  Now, I just call BS.

Well I don't expect God lead a seminar on animal hide curing and butchering.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 27, 2013, 02:07:46 PM
Well I don't expect God lead a seminar on animal hide curing and butchering.

Why wouldn't he? A and E obviously did not know how to do it - they went for itchy fig leaves.  And YHWH was damn picky about how you go about slaughtering livestock to eat or even roast for his olfactory amusement... 
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Betelnut on September 27, 2013, 08:22:32 PM
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with an 11 year-old the other day.  (The son of my daughter's tutor.)  He showed me a picture he had drawn of Adam and Eve (he goes to a Catholic school).  A&E were clothed in, what looked like, modern clothes.  I asked, "Where did they get the clothes?"

The kid said that he would probably get in trouble for drawing them naked.  I asked how A&E would know how to plant cotton, spin it, etc.  Then I said, "It sort of starts falling apart doesn't it?  Once that doubt creeps in..."  This other kid was there listening and he gave me a wide-eyed look.  I wonder if an adult had EVER questioned these myths in their presence before.

Fun, fun, fun.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Chilly on September 29, 2013, 07:15:44 AM
still they disobeyed God. So what if they don't know what it means you still should follow his instructions anyways. anyways the Bible was created by man so there could be some false things
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Hatter23 on September 29, 2013, 12:19:44 PM
still they disobeyed God. So what if they don't know what it means you still should follow his instructions anyways. anyways the Bible was created by man so there could be some false things

false? You mean like there is a god, and he had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to avert his own wrath for his creations not living up to his standards like he knew they weren't going to?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Foxy Freedom on September 29, 2013, 12:34:44 PM
Chilly, 

I guess one of those false things you mentioned is Eve being created from a rib. The people who wrote this kind of thing didn't know much about anything.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 30, 2013, 10:11:10 AM
I have a question: was there death in the garden before the fall?

tough question.  There was a Tree of Life, apparently nearby the Tree of Moral Knowledge.  If they ate from it, yhwh said it would make Eve and her slow witted mate immortal. 

It is possible they were already mortal and the fruit of the tree rejuvenated them pre-fall and death came from losing access to it.  Or, the tree would reverse yhwh's curse post-fall.  Either way, yhwh was so terrified by that prospect, that he put angels with flaming swords in front of it to guard it from them.[1]

But in the end, the bible just does not say.  So any speculation is just that.




Adam and Eve were both created with full knowledge.  They were programmed with a lifetime of understanding.

That is non-scriptural speculation.  And full knowledge of what?  Obviously not differentical calculus, germ theory or applied solid state physics.  They had to have been programed with some arbitrarily chosen level of technology.  Was it pre- or post- agricultural revolution? 



 
 1. gen 3:22-24
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on September 30, 2013, 10:11:40 AM
still they disobeyed God. So what if they don't know what it means you still should follow his instructions anyways.

why?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Mrjason on September 30, 2013, 10:16:39 AM
still they disobeyed God. So what if they don't know what it means you still should follow his instructions anyways.

why?

Good question, they couldn't possibly have known that disobeying was wrong as they had no knowledge of good and evil
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: William on September 30, 2013, 10:17:37 AM
I guess one of those false things you mentioned is Eve being created from a rib. The people who wrote this kind of thing didn't know much about anything.

All my girls are very ticklish  ;)
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Willie on September 30, 2013, 08:55:44 PM
I would like to see how god went about killing an animal, skinning it, drying the hide and sewing up some garments for them.  Supposedly, he had to show them this process and have them sit quietly in their fig leaves while taking notes on their iPad.

No need for that. Clothing grew on trees back then. But after the fall, the cottonwood trees lost their natural ability to spin and weave. I have two of them in my yard that indeed do not spin or weave, but merely drop unspun, unwoven, fuzz all over the yard. Not even so much as a sock, shoelace, or skein of thread amongst the mess. Hard physical evidence that my tale is true.

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on September 30, 2013, 11:32:51 PM
^^^ I have a lace bark elm... so, that's where lace comes from?  No wonder the spousal unit always has lace doilies lying around (they make lousy tissues).
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Chilly on October 01, 2013, 07:37:46 AM
Just asking how did you know they did not know what bad and what is good
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on October 01, 2013, 07:38:58 AM
Just asking how did you know they did not know what bad and what is good

Because until they ate the fruit, they did NOT know good from evil.  That's kind of the point of the fable...
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Mrjason on October 01, 2013, 07:40:51 AM
Anfauglir beat me to it  :P
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Anfauglir on October 01, 2013, 07:50:48 AM
To quote from the book itself:

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.

3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Couldn't be plainer.  Before they ate, they did not know good from evil - things just were.  It was only after they ate, that they could make a decision as to whether eating was a good or a bad thing - but of course THEN it was too late.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Mrjason on October 01, 2013, 07:58:19 AM
To quote from the book itself:

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.

3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Couldn't be plainer.  Before they ate, they did not know good from evil - things just were.  It was only after they ate, that they could make a decision as to whether eating was a good or a bad thing - but of course THEN it was too late.

It is odd isn't it.
I equate it to specifically and emphatically telling your kid "do not put this fork in that electrical socket. Why? Just don't" then handing them the fork pointing at the socket a couple of times before walking away
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on October 01, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Just asking how did you know they did not know what bad and what is good

To support Anfauglir, because he's totally right, that was the whole point of them realising they were naked.

When yhwh created them:
"Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."  gen 2:25

After they ate the fruit from the Tree of Moral Knowledge:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."  gen 3:7

"He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”  gen 3:10

Recognizing their nudity and feeling shame is a device used to show how they were changed by eating the fruit.


Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on October 01, 2013, 08:30:44 AM
It is odd isn't it.
I equate it to specifically and emphatically telling your kid "do not put this fork in that electrical socket. Why? Just don't" then handing them the fork pointing at the socket a couple of times before walking away

I don't think it is.  I think it is worse than that.  I think it is more like telling your kid to not read that science book or he will die.  And then leaving him in the room with a science teacher who opens the book and hands it to your kid.  And then kicking the kid out of the house forever when you find out.  And not having anything to do with his kids.  And then one day you have another kid.  And you have him killed so you can forgive your first kid's grandchildren. 

Crazy people have too much sway with the rest of us.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 01, 2013, 08:52:24 AM
Recognizing their nudity and feeling shame is a device used to show how they were changed by eating the fruit.

Think about it: If A&E hadn't sinned, we'd all be walking around naked and it would look like we were on a porn set. But we wouldn't know it, because we would be too pure. I'm trying to figure out which of those two things would be worse...

On the bright side, nobody would have invented either guns or child support.

Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on October 01, 2013, 08:53:02 AM
I had an eerily similar conversation with a pastor a couple days ago.  He knew my atheistic stance and went so far as to say he "really respected me for taking a difficult stance." Furthermore, when we spoke briefly of the Genesis story, he essesntially said he had rejected all the "tall tales in the Bible and could only hang his hat on Jesus" (really, he said that - I wanted to ask, "On what, a nail?") and the resurrection.  I was really confused, and I asked how he could logically reject the "tall tales" but cling to perhaps the tallest of them all - that a guy had died, been resurrected and somehow took on your sins - and disappeared....
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Fiji on October 01, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
^^ interresting ... So, in his mind, Jesus died for the sins we don't have since there never was an original sin.
erm ... what?  :o
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on October 01, 2013, 09:44:25 AM
^^ interresting ... So, in his mind, Jesus died for the sins we don't have since there never was an original sin.
erm ... what?  :o

Exactly... there are not a lot of pieces you can subtract from the house of cards until it all starts to tumble over.  I was in the unique position, as a formerly closeted atheist, of having a pastor tell me things in confidence he did not want his flock to hear (and asked I not discuss it with church folk).  And no... he wasn't naked.   :laugh:
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on October 01, 2013, 11:39:25 AM
I had an eerily similar conversation with a pastor a couple days ago.  He knew my atheistic stance and went so far as to say he "really respected me for taking a difficult stance." Furthermore, when we spoke briefly of the Genesis story, he essesntially said he had rejected all the "tall tales in the Bible and could only hang his hat on Jesus" (really, he said that - I wanted to ask, "On what, a nail?") and the resurrection.  I was really confused, and I asked how he could logically reject the "tall tales" but cling to perhaps the tallest of them all - that a guy had died, been resurrected and somehow took on your sins - and disappeared....

There was a member here long ago named DTE.[1]  He was a trained theologian who became an atheist and was pure awesome.  He coined the term "SPAG".  He also made a brilliant post about how xians must take the OT literally, because jesus H did.

Jesus H depends on Eve and her slow witted mate.  jesus H depends on Noah and his floating zoo.  jesus H depends on all that being literally true.   I'd link to the old forum, where it was posted, but that is now inaccessable.  I think I have it saved on a word doc.  If I do, I'll post it and link it here.


edit: DTE: No Noah? No Christ (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25542.msg571877.html#msg571877)
 1. real name: Vince Skolny, I think
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on October 01, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
Screw,

Thanks for the link.  It summarizes what has been going through my head since chatting with the pastor (not the pastor of the church I used to attend, but one of the underlackeys).  We are going to meet again for coffeee, at his request, since he claimed we had a lot in common in our views and should talk more (?!?!).  He promised not to try to convert me, or reconvert me... and I promised not to believe anything he said based on goddidit, magic, or words in a book.  What a deal.  I fully intend to dive into how he cannot believe some of the foundational tall tales, yet believe the jeezus stuff.  I suspect someone will be tossed out of Starbucks before the night is done.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: screwtape on October 01, 2013, 12:59:48 PM
but one of the underlackeys

acceptable terms are minion, acolyte, flunky, or toady.

Sounds like fun.  This guy might be an atheist putting out feelers.  It is funny how similar this is to closet-gay hook-ups.  Did you first meet him at a highway rest stop?
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on October 01, 2013, 01:00:57 PM
^^^ bingo, he had a really wide stance
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: Hatter23 on October 01, 2013, 01:11:08 PM
Screw,

Thanks for the link.  It summarizes what has been going through my head since chatting with the pastor (not the pastor of the church I used to attend, but one of the underlackeys).  We are going to meet again for coffeee, at his request, since he claimed we had a lot in common in our views and should talk more (?!?!).  He promised not to try to convert me, or reconvert me... and I promised not to believe anything he said based on goddidit, magic, or words in a book.  What a deal.  I fully intend to dive into how he cannot believe some of the foundational tall tales, yet believe the jeezus stuff.  I suspect someone will be tossed out of Starbucks before the night is done.

See that bolded part....they say that. They often don't mean that.
Title: Re: A Thought about Genesis
Post by: neopagan on October 01, 2013, 01:17:43 PM
Screw,

Thanks for the link.  It summarizes what has been going through my head since chatting with the pastor (not the pastor of the church I used to attend, but one of the underlackeys).  We are going to meet again for coffeee, at his request, since he claimed we had a lot in common in our views and should talk more (?!?!).  He promised not to try to convert me, or reconvert me... and I promised not to believe anything he said based on goddidit, magic, or words in a book.  What a deal.  I fully intend to dive into how he cannot believe some of the foundational tall tales, yet believe the jeezus stuff.  I suspect someone will be tossed out of Starbucks before the night is done.

See that bolded part....they say that. They often don't mean that.

If that $hit happened, I told him I'd be outta there faster than a barista at an anti-face piercing rally