God screwed Adam and Eve

[Sententia]

And a response: How Do We Explain the Early Comments About the Kinderhook Plates?

Such as it may be. And hardly the crowning point of the video yet stands neatly on its own. The Joseph smith interpretation of the Egyptian papyrus is also interesting. One theory put forth: The Book of Abraham was not on the papyri; he received the text by revelation, with the papyri acting as a catalyst.

Heres another idea... He made it up.

Occam's razor mate. It doesn't require any supernatural explanations either. (e.g. Revelation from the one true god etc etc)

Nor do I have to continually revise my story. Well you see... we used to think he derived this book from that old embalming text but now we know it was divine revelation and the catalyst that allowed this supernatural ability was said document. Its all quite logical really.

The idea that its just commonly presented that he perhaps received direct revelation and only needed some type of stimulus to activate his ability is more comfortable in the comic book world of Marvel or DC then in reality. Not that its a unique claim either.

Supernatural Revelation is an interesting concept and if one is already comfortable with treating it as reality and believes in it today in this day and age I find that more then peculiar but its justification for beliefs in what is considered by most to be an obvious hoax is somewhat understandable.

 

[blackout]

God screwed Adam and Eve

Perhaps if god had screwed Adam and Eve he would be much less cranky,
and less inclined to constant threats/commands/annihalation/eternal torture and such.
Eternal celebacy must be hell.

 

[MissAlice]

I guess one could point the finger at Eve since it was she who was tempted by the talking snake. Meanwhile Adam was like Snow White, given an apple by a hag with ulterior motives.

But I'd have to ask whether or not that was screwed up since they both attained knowledge and became arroused by eachother's nakeness..errrr...I mean ashamed. On the other hand, they were cursed with hard labor and bigotry because god didn't like anyone being smarter than him....

Then again there's so many interpretations as to what happened hence the juicy fruit that caused such a controversy of dischord.

 

[blackout]

If you "read" the story by the traditional christian interpretation,
Adam was just along for the ride.
And eve, she was easily tricked by a double talking stranger.

So you've got the follower, following the misled.
What else is new?

It is very hard for me to read this story,
without considering "the garden"...
the inner garden of the individual,
and "god" the "voice within".
Or the "inner voice"... in the garden of self.

To me, the whole thing just says,
listen to your inner voice.
Not talking snakes... or talking heads.... or salesmen...
or wife or husband or neighbor or anyone.

To lose communication with your own inner voice...
is tantamount to losing your own Self....or the Garden of the Self.

This is really the only way I can read this story.

Yes, I know it is a metaphorical.

(I also know I did not address the trees here.)

 

[Ozzie]

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?

Maybe there was evil in the world evidenced by extinction of species prior to Adam and Eve?

 

[Ozzie]

Perhaps if god had screwed Adam and Eve he would be much less cranky,
and less inclined to constant threats/commands/annihalation/eternal torture and such.
Eternal celebacy must be hell.

Couldn't agree with you more. But whoever heard of eternal celibacy as hell? Should be fairly routine in an environment where earthly attributes are null and void.

 

[Watchmen]

Such as it may be. And hardly the crowning point of the video yet stands neatly on its own. The Joseph smith interpretation of the Egyptian papyrus is also interesting. One theory put forth: The Book of Abraham was not on the papyri; he received the text by revelation, with the papyri acting as a catalyst.

Heres another idea... He made it up.

Occam's razor mate. It doesn't require any supernatural explanations either. (e.g. Revelation from the one true god etc etc)

Nor do I have to continually revise my story. Well you see... we used to think he derived this book from that old embalming text but now we know it was divine revelation and the catalyst that allowed this supernatural ability was said document. Its all quite logical really.

The idea that its just commonly presented that he perhaps received direct revelation and only needed some type of stimulus to activate his ability is more comfortable in the comic book world of Marvel or DC then in reality. Not that its a unique claim either.

Supernatural Revelation is an interesting concept and if one is already comfortable with treating it as reality and believes in it today in this day and age I find that more then peculiar but its justification for beliefs in what is considered by most to be an obvious hoax is somewhat understandable.

I'll invite you to start your own thread where you can share your lack of faith.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

I obviously didn't mean children as literal children, but they were "new" when they were created right? And I too have read the story before, that's why i bring up the subject.

To assume that they were "new" and thus not able to follow directions is a bit of a stretch don't you think? After all when my children were able to understand language there were times they KNEW not to do X because Daddy told them not to. And thus they never did. I can't say that is true 100% of the time. Sometimes of course a child will disobey....they will disobey even after knowing the difference between right and wrong.

There is no reason to think that they were incapable of following a direct order. After all they feared God. Why not do as he said. They were witness to miraculous things that God himself did. There would have been no good reason not to respect the authority of GOd for either of them especially Adam whom was privy to more than Eve.

Yes they hide from god after the fact because then they knew it was wrong of them to disobey god, but they didn't know before hand that it was wrong of them becuase they had not yet eaten from the tree of good and evil. They hide because they are obviously guilty, yes.

No you are incorrect. They do not hide because they are guilty. They hide because they are ASHAMED of the fact that they are naked. Previously they had NO IDEA. This is a funny point because when you think about the Victorian age and the hatred they had for things in the sexual world and who that affects religion to this day.....and then you compare it to the fact that God intended for us to be buck naked.....that's pretty funny.

Adam did try to put the blame on Eve though, but he did not lie. He said "Eve gave me the fruit and I ate from it." Eve says that about the serpent "The serpent told me to eat from the tree and I did" they fessed up, but it wasn't their fault, it was god's and the serpents fault.

He's passing the buck. IT doesn't matter what Eve SAID.....what matters is what GOD said. God said don't eat it.

Eve passed the buck also. Imagine being God....maker of all things....and the first people you make you tell not to eat the fruit from a particular tree....and the girl says to you, "But that serpent said I could." Your NATURAL response as God would have been, "But I told you not to."

Doesn't leave them ANY wiggle room. They disobeyed a direct order. They KNEW they did it. They passed the buck to someone else so as to TRY to cover their own actions. Epic fail on their part.

Why would god put the tree of life in the garden in the first place? (And wasn't adam allowed to eat from it before he disobeyed?)

That's a good question. I think it was pretty dumb myself. The only logical argument would be that God wanted them to do it....but if that was the case why not just create them with the ability to know the difference between good and evil?

And no Adam was never able to eat from that tree. IT is true that God says:
‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.’ [Genesis 1:29 (NRSV)]

And later in Chapter 2 he says:
‘You may freely eat of every tree in the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’ [Genesis 2:16-17 (NRSV)]

But here is the problem. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are the same story. Chapter one is the creation and Chapter 2 is the creation with bonus details not included in Chapter 1.

This is VERY common of all stories in the Bible. There is generally writing A and then people have questions and demand a back story...so there is verion 2.0, 3.0 etc you will notice there are many stories told in the Bible MULTIPLE times. This case is no different.

Why would god put the tree of good and evil in eden also if he didn't want them eating from it?

Again good question I think I've already answered this though above.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

You obviously know nothing of true LDS beliefs. We all have the potential to be KINGS in Heaven.

Perhaps you should start a separate thread - though I doubt you're willing to truly listen to the LDS argument.

Only if you participate in polygamy.

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, pg266, 8/19/1866


:beach:

 

[Watchmen]

Only if you participate in polygamy.

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, pg266, 8/19/1866

Wrong answer.

I invite you to start your own thread.

 

[Riverwolf]

What wrong had they done?

It was wrong of them to eat of the fruit. They did not know this before eating the fruit (even though God expressly told them not to), but they did know after.

By the way, the first sin (by probably a simple mistake) was Eve adding a commandment that didn't exist. God simply said they couldn't eat the fruit; He didn't say anything about touching it.

 

[Humanistheart]

It was wrong of them to eat of the fruit. They did not know this before eating the fruit (even though God expressly told them not to), but they did know after.

And to you, finding out that something is 'wrong' after the act has occured that this makes it wrong. So you punish a teenager for what they did as an infant? You state this is wrong, but don't say why it is wrong. Oh, I also see you think a simple mistake is a sin. Well, given the definition of sin maybe, but that wouldn't make it unethical.

 

[Riverwolf]

And to you, finding out that something is 'wrong' after the act has occured that this makes it wrong. So you punish a teenager for what they did as an infant? You state this is wrong, but don't say why it is wrong.

It was wrong because YHWH Elohim told them not to. I have an idea that they weren't ready for the knowledge, and that YHWH Elohim would have given them permission to eat of the fruit in due time.

And, by the way, no, you punish the child right away. A far better example would be to punish a teenager for breaking a rule he or she did not know about. (Though Adam and Eve were at greater fault because they knew the rule existed.)

I say that they weren't punished simply for disobedience, but for not taking responsibility after.

Oh, I also see you think a simple mistake is a sin. Well, given the definition of sin maybe, but that wouldn't make it unethical.

Sin isn't only about ethics; it's about missing the mark, as it were. But this mistake may have caused the greater sin of disobeying YHWH Elohim. When Adam and Eve touched the fruit and realized nothing bad happened, they ate the fruit, using the same logic.

Before refuting a story, you might want to delve in far deeper than the surface. It also may be a good idea to stop holding the ancient desert folk to the same standards as us.

 

[Humanistheart]

It was wrong because YHWH Elohim told them not to...

And that makes it 'wrong' because...?

And, by the way, no, you punish the child right away. A far better example would be to punish a teenager for breaking a rule he or she did not know about. (Though Adam and Eve were at greater fault because they knew the rule existed.).

That's not as apt as the previous analogy, as adam and eve were innocent as children, then ate fruit and wisened up numerious years in a moment. Adam and eve knew about this rule but did not understand right from wrong, so they might as well not have known. And how is punishing a teenager or anyone for a law they don't know about 'good'? How is that ethical? Also, it's best not to 'punish children', rather discipline is better. I trust you understand the distinction, but enough of that as it will lead of topic.

I say that they weren't punished simply for disobedience, but for not taking responsibility after..

This would be a more probable explanation as lieing might be seen as wrong, but who is this god to punish them for that?

Sin isn't only about ethics..

Unfortunatly sin in the abrahamic religions is never about ethics. But you're saying something was wrong. If you can't explain this with ethics, what are you basing the assumption that this act was wrong on?

Before refuting a story, you might want to delve in far deeper than the surface. It also may be a good idea to stop holding the ancient desert folk to the same standards as us.

So you believe in cultural relitive ethics. If something is considered wrong in a culture it is, and if not, then it's not. So child abuse is wrong in america, but not in countries without laws against it. Not the kind of world I wish to live in.

 

[Riverwolf]

And that makes it 'wrong' because...?

I'll get back to you when I'm more awake.

That's not as apt as the previous analogy, as adam and eve were innocent as children, then ate fruit and wisened up numerious yeats in a moment. Adam and eve knew about this rule but did not understand right from wrong, so they might as well not have known. And how is punishing a teenager or anyone for a law they don't know about 'good'? How is that ethical? Also, it's best not to 'punish children', rather discipline is better. I trust you understand the distinction, but enough of that as it will lead of topic.

I do understand the distinction, and recognize that these days, we understand that discipline is far better than punishment. I do agree with you there. (I'm sure you already knew that.)

This would be a more probable explanation as lieing might be seen as wrong, but who is this god to punish them for that?

You know as well as I do that one of the most common disciplinary phrase by parents and teachers alike to children is: "Don't give me any excuses."

And lying is one of the worst things you can do.

Unfortunatly sin in the abrahamic religions is never about ethics. But you're saying something was wrong. If you can't explain this with ethics, what are you basing the assumption that this act was wrong on?

Guess we need to get on the same page here. "Bad" is the opposite of "good" regarding this tree, and that doesn't have to relate to ethics.

It was bad of them to disobey God, just as its bad for a child to disobey his parent.

So you believe in cultural relitive ethics. If something is considered wrong in a culture it is, and if not, then it's not. So child abuse is wrong in america, but not in countries without laws against it. Not the kind of world I wish to live in.

One of my favorite lines from Back to the Future... "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally."

Besides, what I see in this statement is along the same lines as "Either my form of ethics or a world that is immoral." Now where have I heard that before...?

Not to mention, you ask who is God to punish Adam and Eve for not taking responsibility, but likewise, who are we to decide what values other cultures are going to have? I mean, our own ethics aren't very good.

Yeesh... I'm tired and my answers are sloppy. I'll get back to you in greater detail later. Good night.

 

[JustWondering]

Besides, what I see in this statement is along the same lines as "Either my form of ethics or a world that is immoral." Now where have I heard that before...?

So to you child abuse is ok depending on the culture it happens in? Wow!

 

[Riverwolf]

So to you child abuse is ok depending on the culture it happens in? Wow!

Of course not. However, whether or not I think it's okay is irrelevant, especially since nobody can seem to agree on the parameters of child abuse. Besides, if child abuse, as in, beating a child due to a drunken stupor, is going on in another country on the other side of the world, there's nothing I can do about it. (After all, I can't stop it in my own town.) Therefore dwelling on it is a waste of time.

But it is not the place of one culture to decide what another culture's moral values are, especially since NO culture has very good morals, anyway. (Look at America: a country that financially and legally supports corporate thievery, slavery, and outright murder; what right have we to barge in on another culture to dictate to them what's moral and what's not? Then again, it's probably in our blood to do that, considering our history...)

 

[JustWondering]

Then again, it's probably in our blood to do that, considering our history...)

Agreed.

 

[Aquitaine]

To me the story just doesn't make sense: God created what was forbidden, and created it in reach of Adam and Eve, he knew exactly what would happen, even worse - he orchestrated it to happen, and then when it happens he wtfpwn's Adam and Eve and damns us lot (who have nothing to do with it) for the rest of our lives.

This "curse" will also last right until te very last Humans. Doesn't really make any sense to me.

 

[Riverwolf]

...and damns us lot (who have nothing to do with it) for the rest of our lives.

This "curse" will also last right until te very last Humans. Doesn't really make any sense to me.

That's not part of the story. According to the story, it simply happened to the two of them. The idea that we are all cursed from this sin came much later, and is strictly Christian. (Not all Christians believe it, either.)