Praise God but don't blame it!

[averageJOE]

Not hardly. Language changes over time, so it's the translation that can become outdated.

Short answer: "Yes".

Your omnipotent god isn't very omnipotent.

 

[NeoSeeker]

​

It would be impossible to force someone to serve God who doesn't want to or doesn't believe. It would be lip service and nothing more. And it would cause resentment. So no, it would not be better, it would be much worse.

But Christianity and Islam are obsessed with recruiting followers by any means, the favorite is threat of physical or spiritual punishment for not following the right spiritual rules.

 

[Jeremiah]

The tree of knowledge, is about God telling people to be remind stupid; to mindlessly obey His commands, and to never eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It is saying, "Hey, if you question the authority of the religion and grow wise by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, then you are going to lead a terrible life." It is saying, ignorance is bliss (the garden of Eden?), that we should remain stupid and mindlessly obey Abraham's god.

The story embraces an anti-intellectualism view. Adam and Eve did what was right. They said, "God you have offered us paradise, unless we grow wise by eating from the tree of knowledge, but we are gonna eat that fruit despite your coercion."

It is about Adam and Eva, standing up, using their freewill to grow wise, and that perhaps sometimes serpents have good advice. Eating from the tree of knowledge was not a bad thing, it was the right thing to do. It is better to have wisdom then to mindlessly obey a god, despite what riches are promise or what it threatens you with.

 

[Strength & Honor]

Then the answer is yes you do.

Nope. There is a difference between what was said, and what someone tells me was said.

But it is the tree if knowledge. Adam and Eva didn't know the difference between right and wrong before they ate from the tree. So how would've they had even known that disobeying God was a bad thing?

Because, if the account is taken literally, God already told them! When Eve encountered the serpent, she knew she wasn’t supposed to eat of the tree.

Genesis 3:2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Yes they did know right from wrong.

 

[NeoSeeker]

The tree of knowledge, is about God telling people to be remind stupid; to mindlessly obey His commands, and to never eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It is saying, "Hey, if you question the authority of the religion and grow wise by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, then you are going to lead a terrible life." It is saying, ignorance is bliss (the garden of Eden?), that we should remain stupid and mindlessly obey Abraham's god.

The story embraces an anti-intellectualism view. Adam and Eve did what was right. They said, "God you have offered us paradise, unless we grow wise by eating from the tree of knowledge, but we are gonna eat that fruit despite your coercion."

It is about Adam and Eva, standing up, using their freewill to grow wise, and that perhaps sometimes serpents have good advice. Eating from the tree of knowledge was not a bad thing, it was the right thing to do. It is better to have wisdom then to mindlessly obey a god, despite what riches are promise or what it threatens you with.

The story leans to the preposterous side. I just can't believe it is held up as any kind of a religious standard to be learned from, but understanding religion, maybe I can.

 

[Jeremiah]

Nope. There is a difference between what was said, and what someone tells me was said.

Because, if the account is taken literally, God already told them! When Eve encountered the serpent, she knew she wasn’t supposed to eat of the tree.

Genesis 3:2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Yes they did know right from wrong.

"Yes they did know right from wrong. "

No, they didn't; this is after they ate the fruit.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, least he put forth his hand, and take also for the tree of life, and eat, and live fore ever:

Genesis 4:22

 

[Jeremiah]

They were told by God not to eat the fruit on a threat of death. But they didn't know that it was evil, because they were ignorant to the notion of good and evil before they ate the fruit.

 

[NeoSeeker]

Is the argument reduced to, they knew right from wrong, because they knew what God told them what not to do? If you give any creedence to this story and have any respect for the fictitious Adam and Eve, should they be viewed as mindless rule followers or individuals who can decide on their own?

It is the cornerstone of religion. These are God's rules so they are good. Treat others as you would have them treat you. A great rule, but it is great because your brain went through the process of analyzing it and deciding it was good. Not because God told you so. The assumption is that all of God's rules must be like this. But why would he want his children to remain ignorant (avoiding the tree of knowledge)? It can be argued this was not one of God's good rules especially since he created us with brains.

 

[Jeremiah]

Is the argument reduced to, they knew right from wrong, because they knew what God told them what not to do? If you give any creedence to this story and have any respect for the fictitious Adam and Eve, should they be viewed as mindless rule followers or individuals who can decide on their own?

"If you give any creedence to this story and have any respect for the fictitious Adam and Eve"

Personally, I don't give credit to a story simply because it was penned a few thousands years ago, or because it shows up in religious text. To me, it is just a story.


"should they be viewed as mindless rule followers or individuals who can decide on their own?"

Reminds me of a passage in the A Clockwork Orange.

It may not be nice to be good, little 6655321. It may be horrible to be good. And when I say that to you I realize how self-contradictory that sounds. I know I shall have many sleepless nights about this. What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who has chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? Deep and hard questions, little 6655321 - A Clockwork Orange page 95

 

[NeoSeeker]

"If you give any creedence to this story and have any respect for the fictitious Adam and Eve"

Personally, I don't give credit to a story simply because it was penned a few thousands years ago, or because it shows up in religious text. To me, it is just a story.

I'm discussing it in allegorical philosophical, not literal terms.

 

[Jeremiah]

Whatever the intended message of story of the tree of knowledge (or even if there is one), I highly doubt it was meant to be taken literally.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm discussing it in allegorical philosophical, not literal terms.

I understand. I also entertain the notion that it is just a bed time story and perhaps it was never meant to have any deeper meaning.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

I don't believe that Satan is a being, but is symbolic of our flesh, which is weak to temptation. That is one way around "the problem with evil" argument.

We fully agree satan isn't a "being": IOV he's simply our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature!

And here's yet another way around the "problem with evil," quoted from the Baha'i scriptures:


Chapter 74.

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

“The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
“Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
“Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
“In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
“Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
“The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
“Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.”
— 'Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Best!

Bruce

 

[NeoSeeker]

I understand. I also entertain the notion that it is just a bed time story and perhaps it was never meant to have any deeper meaning.

It's not just a fun story. In the eyes of Christians, the description of the downfall of mankind from paradise by the hand of God is HUGE. Come on!

 

[NeoSeeker]

Hi!



We fully agree satan isn't a "being": IOV he's simply our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature!

And here's yet another way around the "problem with evil," quoted from the Baha'i scriptures:


Chapter 74.

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

“The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
“Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
“Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
“In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
“Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
“The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
“Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.”
— 'Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Best!

Bruce

Bruce, I don't find this quote to be enlightening regarding good vs evil. Maybe I completely missed the point, but there is no way I would ever describe any creature, some might say God's creatures as being evil. They are just doing their survival thing. And to pick on the ones with poison or stings, is just not fair. Some have pretty big fangs and claws. Good vs evil should be used in the realm of human choice, not a snake that bites you in self defense.

 

[Jeremiah]

It's not just a fun story. In the eyes of Christians, the description of the downfall of mankind from paradise by the hand of God is HUGE. Come on!

"In the eyes of Christians,"

I don't care what the Christians think about it. When it was first fashioned, it could have been nothing but a story to tell children around the campfire. Maybe it only found its way into the Bible because it was the most popular story of creation. This whole idea that simply because something is in the Bible, that there must be some hidden meaning to it, is a bit off in my opinion.

 

[JustWondering]

If the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally then here is my logical train of thought on why God is not a purely good being.

1. God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2. God allows Adam and Eve to eat from the tree enabling them to commit evil acts.
3. Thus God is responsible for creating and bringing evil into the world.

 

[JustWondering]

Whatever the intended message of story of the tree of knowledge (or even if there is one), I highly doubt it was meant to be taken literally.

The message of the story is that God created us as imperfect beings. God does not like imperfect beings but since he is such a nice guy he'll overlook our imperfection if we jump through hoops to suck up to and worship him.

Saying that humans choose to be sinners is ridiculous. If we are created beings we can only behave in the manner in which we were created to behave. In short, God created us to be sinners. Since God says he hates sin what sense does Genesis make? None.

It would be like someone buying a dog and training it to relief itself on the furniture. Then kicking the dog outside for reliefing itself on the furniture. Someone like that would have to be insane. The only way for the God described in the Bible not to be evil is if he is insane.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally then here is my logical train of thought on why God is not a purely good being.

1. God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2. God allows Adam and Eve to eat from the tree enabling them to commit evil acts.
3. Thus God is responsible for creating and bringing evil into the world.

4. God knew ahead of time that they would eat the fruit.

Here is the thing, who ever said the God is all peaches and cream?

God is a jealous and vengeful God that should be feared.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God is a jealous and vengeful God that should be feared.

I don't see it. I've been talking smack about god for years and I haven't suffered any venegance. Seems like a big wuss to me.