God screwed Adam and Eve

[Watchmen]

How . . . noble of you.

If you only want to talk to others who share your delusion WHY are you on the debate board?

I'm capable of having respectful conversations. Apparently, you're not.

So, I guess we won't be talking either.


Good night.

 

[Watchmen]

Why would you trust the promises of someone who will manipulate you as part of his plan? Because he said so?
Why would you even believe that you know he's promised it? Because elders and "prophets" have said so?
Why would you believe any of it is true at all? That there is a creator, that he cares about you, that he has a plan? Because you're books said so?

Every single thing that you've said in this thread has been some wild assertion, without a shred of evidence. You have the internet, which gives you a vast library of human stupidity to compare to your particular brand. But you're content to believe it. Because you're promised a great reward. Because others believe it, too.

I meant it when I compared your religion to a confidence game. It's no different than an e-mail from a Nigerian prince. It sounds great, doesn't it? But it's not real. It's a fraud. It's a scam. Some people are in on it, but most of them are just as clueless as you are. And I say that without derision, because many smart people are completely blinded by their desire to believe in something bigger than themselves.

All people want to be "gods", in some form or another. All people want to believe that everything is part of a plan. All people want to believe that there is some benevolent hand in control of it all. But there are no gods, and there never have been.

Just wanting something doesn't make it so. Just because your ancestors believed something doesn't make it so.

It's only so because it's so.

OK - looks like you can't be respectful either.

Is that the new trend around here?

 

[dorsk188]

OK - looks like you can't be respectful either.

Is that the new trend around here?

Pointing out the lack of evidence presented by the other side in a debate is disrespectful? If you have some, please present it. I'd genuinely love to see it. But you're just making assertions, then calling people names for demanding evidence.

The Mormon Church does hold the New Testament to be the Word of God, doesn't it? 1 Peter 3:15 tells you: "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."

Edit: I cannot explain my view of your religion (or any other one, for that matter), without proposing that it is false. I cannot ask for evidence without pointing out that you've provided absolutely none. If you want me to respect you, provide evidence for your claims and treat others with respect. But if you view "respect" as not challenging someone's ideas, then you have no place in a debate forum.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I haven't gone through all of the posts, so this may have been addressed.

First, God did not make puppets. Why? The popular reasoning by those who do not hate God is that God prefers to have people choose to love and obey Him, ergo there is limited free will to do so.

Next, Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit so it seems reasonable to assume that they did not know that eating it was wrong. They only knew that God, whom, presumably, they loved, told them not to. That is all they knew in that regard except that eating it would lead to death.

Finally, if you read the text carefully you will see that Eve was punished for listening to the serpent instead of God and that Adam was punished for listening to Eve instead of God. The banishment from the garden was to keep them from the Tree of Life "lest they eat of it and live forever" and was a consequence of eating the fruit, not a punishment. God, it would seem, does not want man to have both the knowledge of good and evil, and to live forever.

 

[Watchmen]

Pointing out the lack of evidence presented by the other side in a debate is disrespectful? If you have some, please present it. I'd genuinely love to see it. But you're just making assertions, then calling people names for demanding evidence.

The Mormon Church does hold the New Testament to be the Word of God, doesn't it? 1 Peter 3:15 tells you: "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."

I've asked for the reasons. You have an interesting definition of "respect".

Edit: I cannot explain my view of your religion (or any other one, for that matter), without proposing that it is false. I cannot ask for evidence without pointing out that you've provided absolutely none. If you want me to respect you, provide evidence for your claims and treat others with respect. But if you view "respect" as not challenging someone's ideas, then you have no place in a debate forum.

You you use words like "mindless" and compare my God to Hitler then I'm going to get ****** off and disengage.

Shall we start over or continue the name-calling? I'm willing to try again.

 

[Watchmen]

I haven't gone through all of the posts, so this may have been addressed.

First, God did not make puppets. Why? The popular reasoning by those who do not hate God is that God prefers to have people choose to love and obey Him, ergo there is limited free will to do so.

Next, Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit so it seems reasonable to assume that they did not know that eating it was wrong. They only knew that God, whom, presumably, they loved, told them not to. That is all they knew in that regard except that eating it would lead to death.

Finally, if you read the text carefully you will see that Eve was punished for listening to the serpent instead of God and that Adam was punished for listening to Eve instead of God. The banishment from the garden was to keep them from the Tree of Life "lest they eat of it and live forever" and was a consequence of eating the fruit, not a punishment. God, it would seem, does not want man to have both the knowledge of good and evil, and to live forever.

I agree with most of this.

I would only say that I believe God did not want them to eat from the Tree of Life so that they wouldn't live forever in their fallen state. Rather, the Tree of Life has been put on hold until we are saved - whereby we may then partake of eternal life (and with the knowledge of good and evil we have gained).

 

[dorsk188]

You you use words like "mindless" and compare my God to Hitler then I'm going to get ****** off and disengage.

Would it be namecalling to accuse you of hallucinating? I said "clueless" (which is an important distinction, and one should not use quotation marks when paraphrasing). And I stand by it. I was referring to two groups of believers. The first group don't believe in it, but use it to exploit others, and the second group believe it when it's clearly nonsense when examined critically. I would never call someone "mindless" because they believe ridiculous things.

As for the Hitler reference, I have no idea what you're talking about. I skimmed others' posts, thinking you had mistaken their words for mine, but didn't see it. You are needlessly escalating our debate and accusing me of something I did not do.

Shall we start over or continue the name-calling? I'm willing to try again.

I stand by every word I wrote. I chose them with some degree of care, so I don't feel the need to "start over".

To be honest, my last substantive post (asking for evidence) was somewhat off-topic in a thread that presupposes that the story makes some sort of sense or even literally happened. But I was struck by your and Riverwolf's interpretations of the same text. Riverwolf gets a pass on this, because he's largely reflecting the author's apparent intent. (God created paradise for Adam, but Adam disobeyed him, thus there is suffering as punishment for the original act and death as a consequence of sin.) That seems to be the context within which the myth was conceived.

But your interpretation presupposes that the original story had a secret meaning that only became known after Jesus came and atoned for that original sin, and that God's plan involves raising us to be, on some level, his equals. I'll backtrack a bit and ask you how you know this to be the case. What evidence have you got that indicates that Genesis was meant to be interpretted your way, and not Riverwolf's? Why isn't your interpretation just a later rationalization and adaptation of the myth by someone else, for their own reasons?

Or more broadly, we could drift a bit off-topic. How do you know that this particular Mediterranean "Origin of Suffering" myth is the right one? Why not Pandora's Box? It's just as likely a story (and in my opinion, much more poetic). Or any of a dozen other myths? What makes this story, and your interpretation of it, true? Either literally (which it certainly isn't), or metaphorically?

These questions are somewhat off-topic, but it cuts to the heart of the matter. The reason why so many people try to rationalize this story, is because they believe it. And they believe a whole bunch of other stuff that they have to bring into harmony (God is unerringly good, mainly). How do you know God is unerrinly good, or even exists for that matter?

I'll leave it up to you to decide how broadly you want to defend your point of view. If you want to stick to the green, narrower questions, then feel free.

 

[dorsk188]

Finally, if you read the text carefully you will see that Eve was punished for listening to the serpent instead of God and that Adam was punished for listening to Eve instead of God.

Read it more carefully, then. Adam is punished (you could argue in part) for listening to Eve, but Eve is not punished for listening to the serpent. She is punished immediately after she confessed, and no direct reason is given.

And all of this is beside the point because God then makes the reasons for the banishment clear: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." This pretty clearly indicates they are banished because of they've eaten the fruit, not because of who they listened to. You could argue that toiling in the soil, and growing thorns was an inevitable consequence of being expelled, so it was really just reiterating the banishment.

But really, if you look at it critically, it's all just an excuse to explain why Bronze Age people lived the lives they did. Why do snakes bite us? Why does childbirth hurt? Why must people toil in the field? This is just ancient Jews (and others) trying to explain it.

They didn't understand that snakes bite in self-defense, using their venom as a means to protect themselves from predators. Or that human skulls have evolved to become larger to facilitate our larger brains, as our pelvis' became more rigid and bowl-shaped to accomodate bipedalism, causing unusually difficult childbirth. Or that their ancestors had adopted agriculture for a variety of reasons in the Fertile Crescent, none of which involved cosmic punishment. They needed a way to explain their world, so they made it up. Just like every human society did.

How does Genesis explain the hunter-gatherer societies that lived fairly easy lives, eating fruit from the trees and wild game without once tilling the soil? Have they somehow escaped God's punishment? And why was it that women and children in Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand had nothing to fear from snakes at their feet? They seem to have avoided God's ordained enmity, haven't they?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree with most of this.

I would only say that I believe God did not want them to eat from the Tree of Life so that they wouldn't live forever in their fallen state. Rather, the Tree of Life has been put on hold until we are saved - whereby we may then partake of eternal life (and with the knowledge of good and evil we have gained).

That would seem to be an assumption on your part. Specifically this is what was stated in Genesis 3, "[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Unless you can supply verses that directly relate to this situation and add to God's reasoning for the expulsion then I'll stick with my view on it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Read it more carefully, then. Adam is punished (you could argue in part) for listening to Eve, but Eve is not punished for listening to the serpent. She is punished immediately after she confessed, and no direct reason is given.

Good point.

And all of this is beside the point because God then makes the reasons for the banishment clear: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." This pretty clearly indicates they are banished because of they've eaten the fruit, not because of who they listened to. You could argue that toiling in the soil, and growing thorns was an inevitable consequence of being expelled, so it was really just reiterating the banishment.

I though I made it clear that the banishment was not a punishment but a consequence of eating the fruit.

But really, if you look at it critically, it's all just an excuse to explain why Bronze Age people lived the lives they did. Why do snakes bite us? Why does childbirth hurt? Why must people toil in the field? This is just ancient Jews (and others) trying to explain it.

They didn't understand that snakes bite in self-defense, using their venom as a means to protect themselves from predators. Or that human skulls have evolved to become larger to facilitate our larger brains, as our pelvis' became more rigid and bowl-shaped to accomodate bipedalism, causing unusually difficult childbirth. Or that their ancestors had adopted agriculture for a variety of reasons in the Fertile Crescent, none of which involved cosmic punishment. They needed a way to explain their world, so they made it up. Just like every human society did.

How does Genesis explain the hunter-gatherer societies that lived fairly easy lives, eating fruit from the trees and wild game without once tilling the soil? Have they somehow escaped God's punishment? And why was it that women and children in Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand had nothing to fear from snakes at their feet? They seem to have avoided God's ordained enmity, haven't they?

This is a view by people who do not see Biblical narratives as being divinely inspired but a result of man's view of the world. I do not hold to that conception of Scripture.

 

[Watchmen]

That would seem to be an assumption on your part. Specifically this is what was stated in Genesis 3, "[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Unless you can supply verses that directly relate to this situation and add to God's reasoning for the expulsion then I'll stick with my view on it.

I think my interpretation is completely in line with and don't forget I'm LDS - we believe in latter-day revelation and additional scripture and instruction.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're dodging my point. Either Adam had a choice, or he did not. You are claiming that Adam had a choice. That he had the capacity to resist temptation for eternity.

But he didn't. God set up the rules in a way that Adam eventually would disobey him. Adam could never free himself.

Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.

Watchmen understands this. He has rationalized that it was part of God's plan (an interpretation with its own problems), but you seem to insist that God truly intended that Adam stay in his Garden for eternity, always avoiding a certain fruit because God told him so. It's a more literal interpretation (and the one closest to the author's intent, I'm sure).

But it still presents Adam with no statistical way to avoid disobedience. In a year. Or ten thousand. Or a trillion. Or 10 to the power of a trillion. Adam could not die, and God would never say to him: "Good job, you've obeyed me." Because as long as he was in that garden, he still might take a bite of that fruit. And eternity means "as long as it takes".

Did you know that matter continually teleports around, completely at random? It's very unlikely, but an atom can instantly be somewhere else, even far distances, for no reason. It's this process that allows matter in black holes to leave the event horizon, and the black holes evaporate. In a trillion years, a single fruit may instantly transport three feet to the left. Unlikely, but possible. But when infinity is involved, then Adam could never have escaped the fruit reappearing in his mouth while he slept.

If you take this story literally, which is a stupid thing to do, then Adam could not escape. But even as a metaphor, it's a disaster. God locked Adam in a room with a certain forbidden thing, and punished him for eventually getting around to doing it. That's the work of a maniac. And it's no more instructive than the story of Pandora's Box or any other "why is there suffering in the world?" myths.

Either I'm not being clear, or you're not reading my posts very well.

I do NOT take the story literally, and I do NOT think YHWH Elohim intended Adam and Eve to stay in the garden for eternity as they were, like many parents do with their kids. One possible speculation is that YHWH Elohim was going to let them eat the fruit when they were ready. However, they did so before they were ready, and so sinned afterwards, avoiding responsibility and casting the blame elsewhere.

I am aware that this is a myth; the characters of Adam and Eve as they are portrayed in this story almost certainly did not exist.

It's not necessarily a metaphor, but an allegory. It could have been written as an allegory for growing up. Or maybe (and I've heard this one a couple of times elsewhere) it's an allegory for the "fall" of humanity from a hunter-gatherer society to a farming society.

 

[dorsk188]

I though I made it clear that the banishment was not a punishment but a consequence of eating the fruit.

You did, but I'd argue that Adam's punishment (toiling in the field, growing thorns, etc) were actually just a consequence of living outside the Garden. Either all the Earth was a paradise and God made it less liveable as punishment, or it was always a cesspool and Adam was never really punishment. The former view doesn't make any sense when you consider the vast rainforests where natives can live year-round without tilling a field. Did God just deforest certain areas as punishment?

This is a view by people who do not see Biblical narratives as being divinely inspired but a result of man's view of the world. I do not hold to that conception of Scripture.

Can you explain why this particular story is true, or divinely inspired, but the story of man receiving Zeus' stolen fire from Prometheus, only to be punished by all the world's evil from Pandora's box is not? What makes the Jewish origin story true, but the Greek one false? How do you know it's not the other way around? Or that neither are true?

Either I'm not being clear, or you're not reading my posts very well.

I do NOT take the story literally, and I do NOT think YHWH Elohim intended Adam and Eve to stay in the garden for eternity as they were, like many parents do with their kids. One possible speculation is that YHWH Elohim was going to let them eat the fruit when they were ready. However, they did so before they were ready, and so sinned afterwards, avoiding responsibility and casting the blame elsewhere.

I am aware that this is a myth; the characters of Adam and Eve as they are portrayed in this story almost certainly did not exist.

I didn't mean to imply you took it literally, or even believed it. I was trying to say that your interpretation is much closer to the original author's apparent intent. In short: "Adam and Eve eating the fruit in the story was not part of God's intended plan. Their disobedience was sinful and wrong, and that it is explains various forms of struggle and suffering in human existence." I was basing this largely on what I thought I had read in your responses, though going back through your posts, I couldn't find why I had thought this. I probably did misread something and extrapolated. I apologize for mischaracterizing your view.

The original Jewish myth appears to be an explanation of suffering (along with the larger origin myth), not the groundwork for a cosmic redeemer (Jesus) or a maturation of the human race into higher beings. Those other ideas were subsequently formed and retroactively changed the older stories' continuity. My point was that Watchmen's interpretation, or the seperate idea that "God would have given them the fruit when they were ready" are not in the original text, and there's no reason to believe that the author intended it this way.

It's not necessarily a metaphor, but an allegory. It could have been written as an allegory for growing up. Or maybe (and I've heard this one a couple of times elsewhere) it's an allegory for the "fall" of humanity from a hunter-gatherer society to a farming society.

I touched on this in my other post. The truth is that it's difficult to know exactly how literally the myth was taken by the society that created it. Nearly all myths were created to serve an explanatory role for some phenomenon, but clearly some now take them to be literally or metaphorically true. It seems likely that many contemporaries accepted the story as true since there weren't really any better alternative narratives out there.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm willing to answer your questions if you cut the attitude. What will it be?

You put a swear into your post and you want to talk about my attitude. Right watchmen. You don't answer because you can't, don't try to make excuses.

 

[Humanistheart]

Either I'm not being clear, or you're not reading my posts very well.

I do NOT take the story literally, and I do NOT think YHWH Elohim intended Adam and Eve to stay in the garden for eternity as they were, like many parents do with their kids. One possible speculation is that YHWH Elohim was going to let them eat the fruit when they were ready. However, they did so before they were ready, and so sinned afterwards, avoiding responsibility and casting the blame elsewhere.

.

If it's just an alegory then why apply a logical thought like 'god might have let them eat of it later'?

Fact remains, god screwed adam and eve because this character is a twisted no-nothing sadist, with absolutely no ethics what so ever.

 

[Riverwolf]

If it's just an alegory then why apply a logical thought like 'god might have let them eat of it later'?

Because I'm allowed to speculate. ^_^

Fact remains, god screwed adam and eve because this character is a twisted no-nothing sadist, with absolutely no ethics what so ever.

You okay? This kind of statement is a bit much even for you.

 

[Riverwolf]

I didn't mean to imply you took it literally, or even believed it. I was trying to say that your interpretation is much closer to the original author's apparent intent. In short: "Adam and Eve eating the fruit in the story was not part of God's intended plan. Their disobedience was sinful and wrong, and that it is explains various forms of struggle and suffering in human existence." I was basing this largely on what I thought I had read in your responses, though going back through your posts, I couldn't find why I had thought this. I probably did misread something and extrapolated. I apologize for mischaracterizing your view.

That's okay. I'm guilty of doing that myself sometimes.

The original Jewish myth appears to be an explanation of suffering (along with the larger origin myth), not the groundwork for a cosmic redeemer (Jesus) or a maturation of the human race into higher beings. Those other ideas were subsequently formed and retroactively changed the older stories' continuity. My point was that Watchmen's interpretation, or the seperate idea that "God would have given them the fruit when they were ready" are not in the original text, and there's no reason to believe that the author intended it this way.

It's really just speculation. I would never say that this is the way it is.

I touched on this in my other post. The truth is that it's difficult to know exactly how literally the myth was taken by the society that created it. Nearly all myths were created to serve an explanatory role for some phenomenon, but clearly some now take them to be literally or metaphorically true. It seems likely that many contemporaries accepted the story as true since there weren't really any better alternative narratives out there.

At first some myths appear to explain "why" questions, but they can also serve other purposes. After all, we have mythologies of our own in this age that few people believe literally. (Such as superheroes.) What's the real purpose of those? I doubt it's simply entertainment.

I don't think it's meant to show "why" the world is the way it is, but to show "what" the world is through allegory.

 

[Watchmen]

You put a swear into your post and you want to talk about my attitude. Right watchmen. You don't answer because you can't, don't try to make excuses.

I have an answer. I'm willing to share if we can both be respectful. What will it be?

 

[Humanistheart]

I have an answer. I'm willing to share if we can both be respectful. What will it be?

So it looks like no ones trying to defend god and his shappy treatment of adam and eve anymore.

Or perhaps watchmen wishes to continue, if he had a more 'respectful' opponent, dispite the ironic use or curse words in his posts.

The moral of this story: This god's an evil character.

 

[Riverwolf]

So it looks like no ones trying to defend god and his shappy treatment of adam and eve anymore.

The entire argument is pointless, anyway. As interesting as the debate has been, it was pointless from the start; nobody learned anything we didn't already know, and nobody's views were changed. Those who really study and understand this story, if memory serves me right, did not participate, probably because this argument is cliched and unoriginal.

All I can say is: literalistic readings of the Bible are as fruitless as literalistic readings of T.S. Elliot.