God screwed Adam and Eve

[Riverwolf]

That is an odd thing to say. I've read the bible and don't believe I am cruel and immoral. If people read it and go on being good its not because of the bible, it's dispite it.

Yet I've gained much from the Bible, and I do not consider myself cruel, though whether or not I'm moral is not for me to decide.

There's still murder and rape in the western world as well as other places. By your logic there must be nothing wrong about murder and rape because they 'withstood the test of time'.

You're applying this kind of logic to something wholly unrelated. Literature and acts are not the same thing, and the same mode of thinking should not be applied to them.

The logic I demonstrated ONLY refers to the Tanakh, and nothing else. If I were talking about murder and rape, I would have mentioned murder and rape.

Besides, you haven't really demonstrated at all how the Tanakh promotes these things; you just say it does because of what you see on the surface and based on modern western culture. (Which couldn't be more inappropriate.) You've forgotten to look at the subsequent culture, and the Jewish version of the Golden Rule, which was somehow (though I'm not sure how just yet) used as a summery of the Torah.

Surely the Rabbi who said it read the Torah every day, and knew its contents inside out; yet he still managed to come to this conclusion that its main message is: "That which is detestable to you, do not do to others." I do not see it just yet, but I haven't really studied the Torah, so I will not say that it's not there.

 

[Watchmen]

The problem with this is that as far as I can tell no one was being disrespectful before. No one had cursed at you, or twisted your words, but you read posts you couldn't defend against and decided to call them disrespectful. It's hard to take your word that this simply wont happen again.

Still, trying to put that asside, you can start the debate over or continue from the last point. Either way, assuming you don't curse again in which case you might just be the 2nd person to be put on ignore, I will continue to debate and debunk your claims. What opening argument would you care to use?

Can you please point me to a post # that you would like me to start from (the post with your last argument)? Thanks.

 

[Humanistheart]

Can you please point me to a post # that you would like me to start from (the post with your last argument)? Thanks.

Thank you for asking, but after thinking it over I realized I hardly remmember or debate on this. I think your original idea of starting fresh was in fact the best suggestion, my aplogies for not seeing that earlier. So if you have a point you wish to start from we can go from there, or I can make an assertion again based on the OP.

Also since you'll obviously be discussing this from an lds perspect (and while I should know this from my time in your church) is there a different written book to this story in your dogma or just a different interpretation?

 

[Humanistheart]

Yet I've gained much from the Bible, and I do not consider myself cruel, though whether or not I'm moral is not for me to decide.



You're applying this kind of logic to something wholly unrelated. Literature and acts are not the same thing, and the same mode of thinking should not be applied to them.

The logic I demonstrated ONLY refers to the Tanakh, and nothing else. If I were talking about murder and rape, I would have mentioned murder and rape.

Besides, you haven't really demonstrated at all how the Tanakh promotes these things; you just say it does because of what you see on the surface and based on modern western culture. (Which couldn't be more inappropriate.) You've forgotten to look at the subsequent culture, and the Jewish version of the Golden Rule, which was somehow (though I'm not sure how just yet) used as a summery of the Torah.

Surely the Rabbi who said it read the Torah every day, and knew its contents inside out; yet he still managed to come to this conclusion that its main message is: "That which is detestable to you, do not do to others." I do not see it just yet, but I haven't really studied the Torah, so I will not say that it's not there.

Could you ellaborate on what you mean by basing these conclusions on a western culture? I think you've said something to that in effect before.

 

[Watchmen]

Thank you for asking, but after thinking it over I realized I hardly remmember or debate on this. I think your original idea of starting fresh was in fact the best suggestion, my aplogies for not seeing that earlier. So if you have a point you wish to start from we can go from there, or I can make an assertion again based on the OP.

Also since you'll obviously be discussing this from an lds perspect (and while I should know this from my time in your church) is there a different written book to this story in your dogma or just a different interpretation?

I would say my perspective is informed by the LDS temple ceremony known as the endowment.

Please feel free to making an assertion based on the OP. Thanks.

 

[Humanistheart]

In Genisis god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Treee of Knowledge of good and evil. He then gets mad when they do and kicks them out of the garden,why?

1) How were they suppose to know that eating from the tree would get them kicked out? how were they suppose to know that it was wrong to?

2) If god opened up the possibility of "free will" with this act, why didn't he just make humans like that from the beginning?

Someone told me oncer that it wasn't "wrong" for them to eat the fruit, but because they didn't listen to god, they were kicked out. If it wasn't wrong, why were they kicked out?

The title of this thread is of course 'god screwed adam and eve'. I must agree that this story lends to that assertion. For example, he punishes the serpeant for it's involvment in this, as it and all it's descendants would eat dust and be trampled on. Is it ethical to punish children not yet concieved because your mad at their parents? I dare say it it not.

Not only this, but there is no indication that other animals besides humans and serpeants were involved with this. So why then did most species females gain birthing pains for eve's mistake? What is the moral message here? It's okay to punish other's for one person's 'mistakes'.*

Another issue, if he is all knowing then he knew this would happen before anything was created. Why create beings and a world that would lead to this very action and then get angry when it occurs when he knew full well it would happen just as it did. It's like creating a computer game with an inevitable conclusion and then getting mad at the game for how things play out.

Also, given that adam and eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit, how then did they do an unethical act? They're being punished for something they couldn't understand is wrong. Do you beat a 2 year old for breaking an expensive vase? I should hope not. Do you beat him in 10 years when he can understand what's going on? Again, I should hope not.

*(Although for wolf's sake, I soppose one could take this as an apt anology of today's world, in which human actions are driving other species to extinction, but this of course couldn't have been known to the writters of these books).

 

[Riverwolf]

Could you ellaborate on what you mean by basing these conclusions on a western culture? I think you've said something to that in effect before.

Okeydokey.

Before I do so, however, I'll let you know that I agree with most of, if not all of, your ethics. However, I try not to use terms like "good" and "bad" when they are interchangeable depending on who you talk to.

Anyway, I think modern western culture was where the human rights movement began; certainly in our culture we try to treat all human beings as equals.

However, one thing that exists in America, especially, is the urge to spread our ideals to others, as we see "other" cultures as bad, and therefore inferior. I understand where this kind of thought comes from, but it really does more harm than good. (It promotes imperialism, for example.) That is nothing new; cultures have had that forever.

Now, when this kind of thinking is used in actual human rights violations in the modern world, I won't really have much of a problem. (I'll only have a problem if we try to force our views onto another culture; that's an act of imperialism, which in a way is a violation of human rights in itself.) However, I will have a problem with using modern human rights thinking to criticize something that happened aeons ago, such as events that the stories of the Bible may or may not have been based on. (I do mean aeons, by the way; Hitler and the Nazis, for example, aren't exempt as they're less than a century ago; neither are the early American settlers for forcing the Native Americans out of their homes, as they still feel the effects to this day; the early Catholic church is also not exempt from the Witch-burnings, as this is still fresh on peoples' minds; however, I do not hold the modern Catholic church responsible.)

I also have a problem with using such thinking to criticize literature; after all, Moby Dick is a story about whaling; does that make it any less of a masterpiece? Lord of the Flies is full of inhumane acts committed by those kids; is it any less literary gold? (Though I'll never read it again, mind you.)

 

[Riverwolf]

(Although for wolf's sake, I soppose one could take this as an apt anology of today's world, in which humans actions are driving other species to extinction, but this of course couldn't have been known to the writters of these books).

I don't have time to respond to the rest of your points, but I must say: I'd never thought of it like this. But you're right; that can't possibly be what's being talked about for the very reason you've mentioned.

 

[Humanistheart]

Okeydokey.

Before I do so, however, I'll let you know that I agree with most of, if not all of, your ethics. However, I try not to use terms like "good" and "bad" when they are interchangeable depending on who you talk to.

I think we do tend to agree more often than not, and sometimes seem to be saying the same thing, which is why I'm a bit confused that we're differing so on this thread.

Anyway, I think modern western culture was where the human rights movement began; certainly in our culture we try to treat all human beings as equals.

In a way I think that's true, and in another, concerning the US I think it's not. America, the country that continued black slavery long after it was banned in europe, where women and african americans only relatively recently recieved equal rights (well, okay, in women's cases they've actually surpassed men in legal rights) and where homosexuals still do not have equal rights.

(I do mean aeons, by the way; Hitler and the Nazis, for example, aren't exempt as they're less than a century ago; neither are the early American settlers for forcing the Native Americans out of their homes, as they still feel the effects to this day; the early Catholic church is also not exempt from the Witch-burnings, as this is still fresh on peoples' minds; however, I do not hold the modern Catholic church responsible.)

A concept that prevents anyone from taking any resposibility. A catholic can do whatever they wish and not worry because in a century or two people will just write it off to a different time.

I also have a problem with using such thinking to criticize literature; after all, Moby Dick is a story about whaling; does that make it any less of a masterpiece? Lord of the Flies is full of inhumane acts committed by those kids; is it any less literary gold? (Though I'll never read it again, mind you.)

Niether would I. I agree with you as the literary value of the pieces you mention, and many other's like it. However, while there are still masses of people who believe the stories of the bible, it will have a duality to it. It is literature, specifically fiction, but it's also religious texts. If we were to evaluate these stories purely on a literary bases you and I would be more insinc on this thread. But as there are people who use these as a guidline for life, and as an ethical bases, I feel my previous assertions are more relevant.

Oh, and incidently I thought of another random comparison (related to the first I made) that could be said of the story for people of today. While I feel it's unethical to punish future generations for the 'sins' of others (as I feel god does in this story) there are consequences of a natural order. For example, if we drive the tiger and other species extinct or destroy our planet with polution, fair or not, our descendants will be the one's to suffer. Of course, that's not a conscious effort to hurt them, and the biblical example implies.

 

[lockyfan]

The title of this thread is of course 'god screwed adam and eve'. I must agree that this story lends to that assertion. For example, he punishes the serpeant for it's involvment in this, as it and all it's descendants would eat dust and be trampled on. Is it ethical to punish children not yet concieved because your mad at their parents? I dare say it it not.

He is actually punishing the "original serpent, known as satan and devil" not the phyiscal snake of hte grass. Genisis 3:15 is the first prophecy. The woman is the woman pictured in revelation that is having birth pains, this is Jehovahs heavenly organisation. Jesus is the seed. Satan is the seroent and his seed is anyone who follows him.

This prophesy is half fulfilled and is awaiting the "bruising in hte head" of satan by Jesus Christ.

Not only this, but there is no indication that other animals besides humans and serpeants were involved with this. So why then did most species females gain birthing pains for eve's mistake? What is the moral message here? It's okay to punish other's for one person's 'mistakes'.*

They have pain but not to the exent that human women have pain. As even jesus was "brought forth as with labour pains"(prov 8:24) but human females have the pain as like heridtory disease, which is what sin and death is too. Which Jesus has died on the torture stake for us.

Another issue, if he is all knowing then he knew this would happen before anything was created. Why create beings and a world that would lead to this very action and then get angry when it occurs when he knew full well it would happen just as it did. It's like creating a computer game with an inevitable conclusion and then getting mad at the game for how things play out.

He knew satans heart condition. knew he would try something, and gave Adam and Eve the choice to choose. they chose wrong! but now we have to wait, as it is not just humans who were being tested but the angels were too. now they are not, but htey help us and are eagerly awaiting the day just as Jehovah is that He himself has set forth as the day that the wickedness on this earth will end.

Also, given that adam and eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit, how then did they do an unethical act? They're being punished for something they couldn't understand is wrong. Do you beat a 2 year old for breaking an expensive vase? I should hope not. Do you beat him in 10 years when he can understand what's going on? Again, I should hope not.

So if you told someone "if you do this and you will get this consequence" and that person does it? do you still not giveo ut the consequence or do you give in and say, ok on more try?
God told them. Eat from that tree and you WILL die. Even a 2 year old knows that when you say no, you mean it. Or at least they should know.

Same thing here, whether they knew the difference or not, Eve still knew she wasnt to eat of the tree. She didnt look at hte tree as something she could touch. Then Satan made it sound as though it was something desirable to have and she then saw it as desirable.

*(Although for wolf's sake, I soppose one could take this as an apt anology of today's world, in which human actions are driving other species to extinction, but this of course couldn't have been known to the writters of these books).

God will bring to ruin those ruining hte earth" rev 11:18

 

[nonbeliever_92]

"Adam, Eve, you see that freshly made tree in the corner of the garden? That luscious, beautiful tree with the appealing and soft and delicious-looking fruit? Yeah, don't touch that. Don't go near it, keep away from it. Like Seriously, don't even think about eating its tasty fruit. I mean it. Bad things will happen. Now let me just turn around for a half sec...WHAT THE F@#K I JUST SAY?!"

 

[outhouse]

In Genisis god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Treee of Knowledge of good and evil. He then gets mad when they do and kicks them out of the garden,why?

1) How were they suppose to know that eating from the tree would get them kicked out? how were they suppose to know that it was wrong to?

2) If god opened up the possibility of "free will" with this act, why didn't he just make humans like that from the beginning?

Someone told me oncer that it wasn't "wrong" for them to eat the fruit, but because they didn't listen to god, they were kicked out. If it wasn't wrong, why were they kicked out?

I think your thinking to deep about a allegorical fable.

taken literally is taking the story out of the context of how it was ment to be understood.

it was a simple lesson about morals nothing more

 

[Vendetta]

Well the question of the biblical gods power resides in the fact that after adam and eve ate the apple adam hid from god, and god had to ask adam where he was lol

 

[Sweetvoice]

In Genisis god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Treee of Knowledge of good and evil. He then gets mad when they do and kicks them out of the garden,why?

1) How were they suppose to know that eating from the tree would get them kicked out? how were they suppose to know that it was wrong to?

2) If god opened up the possibility of "free will" with this act, why didn't he just make humans like that from the beginning?

Someone told me oncer that it wasn't "wrong" for them to eat the fruit, but because they didn't listen to god, they were kicked out. If it wasn't wrong, why were they kicked out?

When reading the bible and it doesn't make much sense, try reading it metaphorically and allegorically. Perhap even imaginatively. This will help ease the confusion completely. Enjoy!

 

[nonbeliever_92]

When reading the bible and it doesn't make much sense, try reading it metaphorically and allegorically. Perhap even imaginatively. This will help ease the confusion completely. Enjoy!

Even metaphorically it doesn't make sense. What's the lesson one's supposed to learn?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

In Genisis god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Treee of Knowledge of good and evil. He then gets mad when they do and kicks them out of the garden,why?

1) How were they suppose to know that eating from the tree would get them kicked out? how were they suppose to know that it was wrong to?

2) If god opened up the possibility of "free will" with this act, why didn't he just make humans like that from the beginning?

Someone told me oncer that it wasn't "wrong" for them to eat the fruit, but because they didn't listen to god, they were kicked out. If it wasn't wrong, why were they kicked out?

I think of God of the Bible as a scientist of another, more powerful species, He likes to test things, and the creation of not only us but millions of other species on other planets was one of His best...

So He tested what would happen if He gave them freewill.

But that's only an idea that I had.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I think of God of the Bible as a scientist of another, more powerful species, He likes to test things, and the creation of not only us but millions of other species on other planets was one of His best...

So He tested what would happen if He gave them freewill.

But that's only an idea that I had.

But if he's omniscient, he already knew what would happen, therefore negating the need for a test.

This paradox arises every time someone mentions something about God testing people. There's just no logical way to explain it, other than he's not omniscient (assuming he exists of course).

 

[Watchmen]

Eating of the fruit was like flipping a switch. Before, Adam and Eve where like children. They were innocent, but they had no progression. Once they partook of the fruit and became like the gods, knowing good and evil, they had the opportunity for progression through experience. However, because they would screw up along the way, a savior was provided to them so that they might again be made perfect at the last day.

 

[thebigpicture]

In Genisis god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Treee of Knowledge of good and evil. He then gets mad when they do and kicks them out of the garden,why?

1) How were they suppose to know that eating from the tree would get them kicked out? how were they suppose to know that it was wrong to?

2) If god opened up the possibility of "free will" with this act, why didn't he just make humans like that from the beginning?

Someone told me oncer that it wasn't "wrong" for them to eat the fruit, but because they didn't listen to god, they were kicked out. If it wasn't wrong, why were they kicked out?

The point of it was that they disobeyed. It didn’t matter by what means, just that they disobeyed and that’s why they were punished.

But none of that really matters because what you’re really saying is that the story of Adam and Eve doesn’t make sense. And you know what? You’re right. It doesn’t make sense. Most of the stories in the bible don’t make sense. The reason? They’re fairy tales. Fiction.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But if he's omniscient, he already knew what would happen, therefore negating the need for a test.

This paradox arises every time someone mentions something about God testing people. There's just no logical way to explain it, other than he's not omniscient (assuming he exists of course).

Exactly and this is what I've been getting at for years here at RF. Some are to far deep into the rabbit hole to see this conundrum.