Who's booty you kissing?

My motive is simple. It is to take an honest look at the accusations people so quickly throw around about God to see if there really is any validity to them.

You are using reverse logic.
When trying to ascertain the truth of something, you must look for what IS not what ISN'T.
You are assuming a conclusion while trying to create premises, while what you should be doing is examining premises and from that forming conclusions.
You have a sharp mind, you CAN shake off that last bit of brainwashing. You have come so far.

You are assuming a conclusion while trying to create premises, while what you should be doing is examining premises and from that forming conclusions.

And why not start at the beginning. (Before I do...keep this in mind. If you are going to dismiss any of the things I present as "allegory"...be prepared to discuss what the "allegory" is trying to teach.)

In Genesis...the god places Adam and Eve...two innocents...into a garden which has, for no other purpose than to tempt them,

a tree in its center whose fruit they are forbidden to eat. The tree is referred to as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." If they eat of the fruit of this tree, they will gain the knowledge of good and evil...and this is what the god is attempting to prevent them from obtaining.

The god, for no good reason, allows the greatest Tempter of all history to be in the garden with the two. The Tempter, as was its wont, tempts them to eat of the fruit.

Mind you...at the point where they are facing an unneeded temptation...and being egged on by this great Tempter...the are completely and totally oblivious as to what it means to be good or evil. They have absolutely no idea that disobedience, for instance, is bad or evil....and obedience is good or moral.

And, as any five year old could have told the god...they succumb to temptation and eat the fruit....and learn what good and evil is.

In effect, they could not commit sin...or disobedience...or anything bad or evil...

...because all knowledge of such things had been denied them BY THE GOD.

Frank you said,

Quote:

And why not start at the beginning. (Before I do...keep this in mind. If you are going to dismiss any of the things I present as "allegory"...be prepared to discuss what the "allegory" is trying to teach.)

What is your definition of "dismiss"?

Quote:

In Genesis...the god places Adam and Eve...two innocents...into a garden which has, for no other purpose than to tempt them,

Rough start here Frank. First I'd like to know where you got THIS information from? For no other reason than to tempt them? This sounds to me like an opinion you've formed somewhere along the line... so where exactly did it come from?

Quote:

a tree in its center whose fruit they are forbidden to eat. The tree is referred to as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." If they eat of the fruit of this tree, they will gain the knowledge of good and evil...and this is what the god is attempting to prevent them from obtaining.

While this sounds reasonable to believe I must disagree, again it sounds more like an opinion to me.

It is very clearly stated in Genesis why Adam was told not to eat of the tree... because if he ate of it he would die.

What died exactly when they ate of that tree? It's obvious they didn't die physically. So did God lie then? It was their innocence that died.

For the first time since being created Adam felt fear when he heard God's voice. Why? Because he had the knowledge of good and evil. Prior to doing that Adam and Eve didn't even know what fear was.

So I say it was not that God was trying to prevent them from knowing good and evil, but rather He was protecting them from the outcome of knowing good and evil.

You said:

Quote:

The god, for no good reason, allows the greatest Tempter of all history to be in the garden with the two. The Tempter, as was its wont, tempts them to eat of the fruit.

Mind you...at the point where they are facing an unneeded temptation...and being egged on by this great Tempter...the are completely and totally oblivious as to what it means to be good or evil. They have absolutely no idea that disobedience, for instance, is bad or evil....and obedience is good or moral.

And, as any five year old could have told the god...they succumb to temptation and eat the fruit....and learn what good and evil is.

In effect, they could not commit sin...or disobedience...or anything bad or evil...

...because all knowledge of such things had been denied them BY THE GOD.

First of all it was not denied them. It was there in plain view, within reach. God told them not to eat of the tree, however He had created the tree and left the it there in the garden. Interesting concept. Though they may not have known what disobedience was they did function in obedience to God.

After all Adam had a purpose in being put in the garden... To "keep" it. Does someone have to know giving gifts is "good" in order to be able to give gifts? Does someone have to know that murder is wrong in order not to murder someone? Absolutely not.

However having that knowledge brings a whole different ball into the game. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyway you most likely will feel bad, maybe afraid of what will happen, maybe regret because you did it. If you know something is good and you do it, that brings with it good feelings, happiness, joy, contentment. To have knowledge of good and evil requires you to live by a certain standard. You have to make a choice. Will I do good or bad? Will I do what is right or wrong?

Why must you make a choice? Because your actions will bring with them a consequence or reward.

While living without the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve knew nothing of consequences. There were none because they were in obedience to God and doing the things they were created to do. Just because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil though does not mean they did not have knowledge of any sort. Obviously they had something... otherwise Adam wouldn't have been able to name all the animals, keep the garden, and so forth.

So therefore they must have had enough knowledge to be able to make a choice.

Hence... God left the tree in the garden. To tempt them intentionally? Hmmm I'm not so sure about that. I don't see it saying anywhere that God waived it in front of their face. Yes, the tempter was there, they were tempted and thus they had their first introduction to evil. However it is 3:00 am and I am exhausted, so I'm just going to leave you with what I have so far. The whole tempter/temptation thing is a completely different ball of wax I'm too tired to try to take it on tonight.

I apologize for my slow responses. I have a busy couple of days ahead of me. I will be as prompt as possible in responding.

So Frank... what do you say?

I say...good beginning of a beginning. Lots more to go before we get to the middle of the beginning. Looking forward to it.

Re your signature line, Doktor S, wasn't it Churchill that said of someone "He has much to be modest of"?

What other reasons are given???

There is no reason for that tree to be there...except as a temptation. That does seem to be the point of the story.

What part, exactly, is opinion. It is almost word for word from the Bible.

Do we really have to quote from the book?

It is obvious from the god's reaction "...he has become like one of us, knowing good from evil...."..that the reason for wanting them not to eat of the fruit...was because they would learn this knowledge and become one of the gods.

Even the serpent told them that.

The fact that the god told them they would die that very day if they ate of it....was one of the consequences...not the reason the god did not want them to eat of it.

...and this is what the god is attempting to prevent them from obtaining.

Well that is what the god told them...that they would die that very day. And the serpent (or Satan, as some prefer) told them they would not die that day. One was wrong; one was correct.

Prior to doing that Adam and Even didn't even know what good and evil were...and that is a hell of a lot more important to the points being made here than that they didn't know fear.

BOTTOM LINE: Until they ate of the fruit...they did not know right from wrong...good from evil. VERY IMPORTANT POINT!

Excellent rationalization. I commend you. But what say we go with what is actually in the Bible rather than the rationalizations.

BOTTOM LINE: Until they ate of the fruit...they did not know right from wrong...good from evil. VERY IMPORTANT POINT!

It WAS denied them. The story tells us so. They didn't have it!!!! We know they didn't have it...the Bible specifically tells us so. The only way they could get it...was to eat of the fruit. And until they ate of the fruit...they could not know it was wrong to disobey; they did not know that disobedience was wrong or evil.

There is no getting past that. No rationalization works, Heph.

As a matter of fact, yes you do! You have to know there is something wrong with eating human flesh...or you eat it without guilt or twinge. People have murdered other people throughout history without a moments thought of guilt.

Adam and Even DID NOT KNOW there was anything wrong with disobedience! They had absolutely no concept of right and wrong...good and evil. That fact is an integral facet of the story, Heph.

Interesting...but besides the point. We know from the story that they did not know right from wrong...good from evil.

Yeah...but the Bible...and the story...expressedly tell us that they DID NOT KNOW right from wrong...good from evil.

You cannot get away from that.

C'mon, Heph.

They did not know there was anything wrong or evil about ANYTHING...until after they ate of that fruit. That is the point of the story. (A major screw-up, in my opinion, by the people creating this bit of what is obviously fiction.)

The best possible guess about this story is that it an allegory, Heph....made up by ancient, superstitious, not especially sophisticated people trying to explain "existence." They did a terrible job of it. And to see modern humans trying to rationalize it is disheartening.

Take your time.

So that this does not become one of those rambling threads, Heph, I more than likely will devote all my attention exclusively to what you have to say in this thread....until a particular issue is exhausted. At that point, I will go back and cover anything from other posters. If you see something someone else posts and would like to include it in your posts...or that you want to refer to me for immediate response...please do so. I be glad to accomodate you.

I say...good beginning of a beginning. Lots more to go before we get to the middle of the beginning. Looking forward to it.

Frank,

Quote:

What other reasons are given???

There is no reason for that tree to be there...except as a temptation. That does seem to be the point of the story.

Actually NO reason's are given as to why the tree was there, so if you want to be honest here BOTH of us are rationalizing. LOL However I think we both have valid points as to the possible reason the tree was there.

Almost word for word is not the same as word for word. By adding or taking away just a word or two someone can change the entire meaning of what is being said.