flaw in genesis 3

[Humanistheart]

Sort of like the parent who purposely mixes white clothes with red ones while doing his child's laundry so that the child would be more inclined to do it himself.

I somehow don't think Humanistheart is going to like the approach here, though.

Indeed, you're starting to know me, lol.

 

[Humanistheart]

They were unable to take responsibility for what they did. In my eyes, that's a very severe personal sin, one of the worst you can do to yourself; it's a form of self-deception.

If you were God, what would you have done? Be as detailed as you possibly can be.

I wouldn't have created a sentient species to do my bidding to begin with. And I certainly wouldn't punish adam and eve's descendants for their mistakes. Think about it. If your dad went out and shot someone should we give you the death penatly? Hardly ethical. Beyond that I'm not sure. Never thought about it really, it's an interesting question.

You might also want to consider your definition of sin. If sin was actually something unethical it would be one thing, but sin is anything god doesn't like, regaurdless of weather it's wrong or right. The ancient isrealites not completing genocide was considered a sin by god in the hebrew bible, and they were punished for it, which gives you an idea of what kind of being this particular god character is. He's not a good being, so who is he to judge others? If I was in god's position as your hypothetical question poses, I'd have to keep in mind my particural morals might not be the right ones, as the abrahamic god's certainly aren't.

 

[greentwiga]

You condemn from a small amount of knowledge. Wanting to understand the passage, I read up on other ancient religions. There is much known about these fertility religions. One type was forcing women into temple prostitution. Another was murdering people and pouring their blood out onto the ground get gain fertility for the soil. Even today, people still do milder forms of fertility worship. A group in India, this year, is forcing their daughters to plow the ground naked to try to shame the gods into sending the rain. Though this is more innocent, murder is not. Breaking the covenant. (marriage, social, God's) is what "evil" means. God wanted to stop the prostitution and murders. Read "The Golden Bough" to get a more detailed description of what used to happen. (Adonis, Attis, Isis chapters are good.)

 

[Riverwolf]

You just basically discribed a midrash, so... your agreeing with me?

Upon futher reflection on the definition given of Midrash, I can recognize how Genesis may fit into it.

HOWEVER, I will not make the claim that Genesis is, in fact, midrash instead of a transcribed fireside story until I have more information.

 

[Riverwolf]

I wouldn't have created a sentient species to do my bidding to begin with.

That's not what I meant. I meant God, not a king with the ability to create life.

And I certainly wouldn't punish adam and eve's descendants for their mistakes. Think about it. If your dad went out and shot someone should we give you the death penatly? Hardly ethical.

I agree. But if my dad were to spend all our money on superfluous things, future generations would suffer the effects.

...okay, that may not be the best metaphor, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.

You might also want to consider your definition of sin. If sin was actually something unethical it would be one thing, but sin is anything god doesn't like, regaurdless of weather it's wrong or right. The ancient isrealites not completing genocide was considered a sin by god in the hebrew bible, and they were punished for it, which gives you an idea of what kind of being this particular god character is. He's not a good being, so who is he to judge others? If I was in god's position as your hypothetical question poses, I'd have to keep in mind my particural morals might not be the right ones, as the abrahamic god's certainly aren't.

Or rather, the ancient Hebrews painting of him. Reading the Torah, I can say that the ancient Hebrews, at least the ones in charge of books like Numbers and Joshua, saw God as the supreme King.

Your view of God in the Torah was not lost on early Christians; may I suggest you do some research on a man named Marcion? (I think that's how his name is spelled.) If you don't already know who he is, I'll give you something to wet your appetite for knowledge: he was the first one to ever compile Christian writings into one Bible, and his list was VERY different than the one we have now.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Q: HOW DID EVE SEE THE TREE IF HER EYES WERE CLOSED?

You know how curious girls are...she peeked. it's also the first documented case of x-ray vision...long before Superman.

 

[Humanistheart]

That's not what I meant. I meant God, not a king with the ability to create life.

I never said anything about a king, I was reffering to god as well. But a king with the ability to create life would be an apt comparison for god. You yourself make that very comparison in the ladder portion of your post, quoted below.

Or rather, the ancient Hebrews painting of him. Reading the Torah, I can say that the ancient Hebrews, at least the ones in charge of books like Numbers and Joshua, saw God as the supreme King.

Your view of God in the Torah was not lost on early Christians; may I suggest you do some research on a man named Marcion? (I think that's how his name is spelled.) If you don't already know who he is, I'll give you something to wet your appetite for knowledge: he was the first one to ever compile Christian writings into one Bible, and his list was VERY different than the one we have now.

I'm confused. Is this bit meant to contradict what I had said or provide further information for it?

 

[Riverwolf]

I never said anything about a king, I was reffering to god as well. But a king with the ability to create life would be an apt comparison for god. You yourself make that very comparison in the ladder portion of your post, quoted below.

How I view God is very different from how the Hebrews viewed God; besides, much of what is written in the Torah about God's "attributes" are poetic license and figurative language.

God isn't a Celestial King who created life for the sole purpose of serving him, IMHO.

God just is.

I'm confused. Is this bit meant to contradict what I had said or provide further information for it?

To let you know that you aren't the first to scorn the legalistic and vengeful descriptions of God of the OT.

And just so you're aware of my own opinions, I do to. I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that God ordered the Hebrews to commit genocide and then punished them for not doing a good enough job; these are parts of the Torah which I also scorn. I was disgusted by the book of Joshua.

 

[Humanistheart]

How I view God is very different from how the Hebrews viewed God; besides, much of what is written in the Torah about God's "attributes" are poetic license and figurative language.

God isn't a Celestial King who created life for the sole purpose of serving him, IMHO.

God just is. .

You asked me what I'd do differently. I don't see how your statments are relevant to my responce. IMHO? I'm not familiar with your short hand here.


To let you know that you aren't the first to scorn the legalistic and vengeful descriptions of God of the OT.

And just so you're aware of my own opinions, I do to. I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that God ordered the Hebrews to commit genocide and then punished them for not doing a good enough job; these are parts of the Torah which I also scorn. I was disgusted by the book of Joshua.[/quote]

I'm glad to here these tails turn your stomoach as well. It's certianly your right to believe as you want, but this is cherry picking the bible. If you only take the part you like then your no longer talking about the same god. Which is, again, your right. No gods exist of course, but for the purpose of discussing the abrahamic god I would think it prodent to discuss him from the texts available, in this case primarily the bible. Thus what I based my what would you do differently answers, on the horrid god discribed in the bible.

 

[Riverwolf]

You asked me what I'd do differently. I don't see how your statments are relevant to my responce. IMHO? I'm not familiar with your short hand here.

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.
It's used quite a bit here; I'm surprised you haven't seen it.

I'm glad to here these tails turn your stomoach as well. It's certianly your right to believe as you want, but this is cherry picking the bible. If you only take the part you like then your no longer talking about the same god. Which is, again, your right.

What you need to understand is that the Bible is not a single book, and it was NEVER a single book, not even when it was the Torah: even that is a compilation of different sources, scholars theorize.

Therefore cherry-picking the Bible is VERY appropriate, when it is based on both the context of the story, and the source it comes from.

No gods exist of course,

I wouldn't put "of course" there, because until we can define what the gods are, we cannot say whether or not they exist absolutely.

We can, however, say that the gods don't exist exactly as they are described in ancient legends.

but for the purpose of discussing the abrahamic god I would think it prodent to discuss him from the texts available, in this case primarily the bible.

The Abrahamic God isn't limited to the Bible, you know.

Thus what I based my what would you do differently answers, on the horrid god discribed in the bible.

Which one? E or P's Elohim, or J or D's YHWH? The God of Israel or the God of Judea?

In order to understand more fully the God of the Tanakh, you have to read FAR deeper than the text, and that takes multiple translations (preferable scholarly ones), commentaries from various sources (believing and non-believing alike, and again, preferably scholarly), and comparing and contrasting the different stories.

You ALSO have to take history into account. It is appropriate to assume that we don't have an accurate historical narrative in the Bible, as we can't keep our own history straight after 50 years. However, that hasn't stopped scholars and archaeologists from piecing together some sort of coherent history for Palestine.


Now, of course, here I'm just talking about Old Testament. I haven't touched much upon the New Testament, for the simple reason that I haven't read much on that one yet, so my background knowledge of it is still limited and therefore useless in a debate.

 

[Humanistheart]

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.
It's used quite a bit here; I'm surprised you haven't seen it..

I've seen if a few places, I figured it meant something like .lol'. Thank you for explaining.

What you need to understand is that the Bible is not a single book, and it was NEVER a single book, not even when it was the Torah: even that is a compilation of different sources, scholars theorize..

Never said it was per say, but tell me, which book from the bible or other abrahamic sources then dipicts god as less than horrid?

Therefore cherry-picking the Bible is VERY appropriate, when it is based on both the context of the story, and the source it comes from.



I wouldn't put "of course" there, because until we can define what the gods are, we cannot say whether or not they exist absolutely.

We can, however, say that the gods don't exist exactly as they are described in ancient legends..[/quote]

Fair enough, we'll say then that not god spocken of or believed in exists.

The Abrahamic God isn't limited to the Bible, you know. .

Limited to the minds that dreamt him up then. Throw the torah and the quaran in there if you like.

You ALSO have to take history into account. It is appropriate to assume that we don't have an accurate historical narrative in the Bible, as we can't keep our own history straight after 50 years. However, that hasn't stopped scholars and archaeologists from piecing together some sort of coherent history for Palestine..

Of course the bible's not accurate historically.