Who's booty you kissing?

Frank Apisa wrote:

If I were one of them...in dread of that god...it is what I would do.

I do not fault them for a minute for what they are doing .

It is what I would do if I were in their position.

You will excuse the expression...but...thank GOD I am not.

Frank, you probably understand as well as anybody what this creation story has meant to women throughout the centuries it has been around. It has been used as a powerful weapon to subordinate the female, with the obvious implications of the story: SHE is the weak one, SHE led him astray, SHE is at fault, SHE is responsible for the plight of mankind.

But, like you say, abject fear of this god will keep most people too afraid to examine the myth truthfully, to conclude that the responsibility for this human fiasco rests squarely on someone else. You have done a superb job of eliciting that irrational fear, and I am looking forward to you introducing and exploring the next phase.

0 Replies

Ok, can't pass this one up:

Frank wrote:

Quote:

So...since the god said they would die...and the evil serpent said they would not, but that their eyes would be opened to the difference between good and evil...

...and since the story has them not dying and their eyes being opened...

Their eyes would be opened. Hmmm. So then I guess if we were to take this literally Adam and Eve MUST have been walking around with their eyes closed. So how did they even find the tree to eat of it's fruit?

Frank wrote:

Quote:

...these good folk have to talk about innocence dying...about spirit dying...about brain death and physical death.

Well, since it's pretty obvious that Adam and Eve did not walk around with their eyes closed literally, yet it is stated by the tempter himself that their eyes would be opened, what other "eyes" are there Frank except their spiritual eyes?

Frank wrote:

Quote:

If I were one of them...in dread of that god...it is what I would do.

I hope you aren't talking about me. That would be putting words in my mouth.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

I do not fault them for a minute for what they are doing .

I appreciate this.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

It is what I would do if I were in their position.

You will excuse the expression...but...thank GOD I am not.

As I said before, if what you believe makes you happy, more power to you Frank. I think it is outstanding how you have stood up so strong for it. That is commendable indeed. There are very few who would take such a stance and maintain it without either giving up and writing the other person off completely, or cursing them 1000 times over and telling them how ignorant they are.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I wish someone could answer a question. Why would ANYONE even want to entertain the fact that Satan might have told the truth and God did not? What is with that? Satan throughout the Bible is called the Father of Lies, the Deceiver, etc. If you are going to take any part of the Bible as being true or at face value or at whatever you want to call it, then why is this point ignored?

Do you know of any instance in the Bible where Satan actually lies? NOT where he is called a liar or deceiver, but something he actually said that was untruthful.

Quote:

No tree ~ no choice. No choice ~ no free will. The way I see it, man just seems to be pretty ticked off at the fact that God did not make man perfect as God. So, I am guessing many are taking "man was made in our image (God's image)" literally? But, since it appears that man is not exactly as God is, God, what? Lied about that too?

There did not have to be a tree or test-to-failure in order for free will to exist! In fact, God effectively abrogated their free will by putting Adam and Eve into a situation that was beyond their ability to handle. If God is indeed omnipotent, then he KNEW in advance that they would disobey, but he did not modify his test nor give them the tools they needed to handle temptation. Had he given them stronger wills, better characters or training, informed them of the REAL consequences in advance (instead of saying that they would die, which was neither true nor something they likely had any concept of), not made a snake that was smarter than them, or designed them to desire ignorance over knowledge, they would not have failed his impossible test.

Yes, God (or the writer of Genesis) seems to have lied when God was said to have made man in his image, since man was created weak and ignorant, not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and certainly not "perfect."

Who do you think lied, God or the author?

0 Replies

tycoon wrote:

Frank, you probably understand as well as anybody what this creation story has meant to women throughout the centuries it has been around. It has been used as a powerful weapon to subordinate the female, with the obvious implications of the story: SHE is the weak one, SHE led him astray, SHE is at fault, SHE is responsible for the plight of mankind.

Eve considered what the snake told her about the fruit, examined it, and correctly decided that he was telling her the truth. She then risked death in order to gain wisdom for herself and mankind. IMO, she should be honored as a heroine instead of punished and blamed for Original Sin. I suspect that the real reason she is castigated is because the Church values unquestioning obedience and cannot tolerate those who seek independent knowledge or refuse to believe everything they are told.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Ok, can't pass this one up:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
So...since the god said they would die...and the evil serpent said they would not, but that their eyes would be opened to the difference between good and evil...

...and since the story has them not dying and their eyes being opened...

Their eyes would be opened. Hmmm. So then I guess if we were to take this literally Adam and Eve MUST have been walking around with their eyes closed. So how did they even find the tree to eat of it's fruit?

Excellent! Now that one I like. Yes..."opening their eyes" was non-literal.
Twisted Evil

But there is very little to make one suppose the god was speaking figuarively or metaphorically when saying, "...surely you will die if..."

Quote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
...these good folk have to talk about innocence dying...about spirit dying...about brain death and physical death.

Well, since it's pretty obvious that Adam and Eve did not walk around with their eyes closed literally, yet it is stated by the tempter himself that their eyes would be opened, what other "eyes" are there Frank except their spiritual eyes?

No doubt...the "open their eyes" was figurative. And that is fairly obvious from the context. But truly there is nothing to suggest the "you will die" is. In fact, several of you folks have been arguing that the threat of death should have been enough to deter them. (I wonder why it wasn't???)

Quote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
If I were one of them...in dread of that god...it is what I would do.

I hope you aren't talking about me. That would be putting words in my mouth.

I was talking about me here. If I were someone in dread of the god...I would rationalize.

Without putting any words in your mouth, however...it is my contention that all of you are in dread of that god...and I fail to see any rational way anyone who thinks the god described is actually GOD...would not be in dread of the god.

The god is a barbaric, out-of-control monster, Heph. Anyone thinking that is actually GOD...who is not mentally unbalanced...would be terrified of the god. But, the terror would most likely be so great...that they would never be able to recognize it or acknowledge it in any way. So that is probably the reason so many Christians claim they are not in terror of the monster.

But if I was unable to convince you of some of the very obvious things we've discussed here, Heph, I doubt I will be able to convince you of that.

At least not for now!

Quote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
It is what I would do if I were in their position.

You will excuse the expression...but...thank GOD I am not.

As I said before, if what you believe makes you happy, more power to you Frank. I think it is outstanding how you have stood up so strong for it. That is commendable indeed. There are very few who would take such a stance and maintain it without either giving up and writing the other person off completely, or cursing them 1000 times over and telling them how ignorant they are.

Thank you, Heph. Allow me to restate that I am enjoying this discussion a great deal. You are a committed advocate for your position...and I respect that. And for the record, I respect all the others offering comments here and in the other related thread.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Their eyes would be opened. Hmmm. So then I guess if we were to take this literally Adam and Eve MUST have been walking around with their eyes closed. So how did they even find the tree to eat of it's fruit?

Well, since it's pretty obvious that Adam and Eve did not walk around with their eyes closed literally, yet it is stated by the tempter himself that their eyes would be opened, what other "eyes" are there Frank except their spiritual eyes?

The passage is translated as "their eyes were opened" because the evolution of the human brain/mind was not understood by the Israelites or later translators. Even today, people can block things from their awareness (trauma or things they cannot deal with). Prior to developing self-consciousness and conscience, people were no more aware of their nakedness than a cat is. One wonders what God wore when talking to them, why they never noticed that they were "different," and why they would have been ashamed of the bodies God gave them after they were enlightened.

0 Replies

I thought perhaps this thread might be serious, but now that my 'eyes have been opened', I see it has degenerated into a word smorgasbord. Interesting to note that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, they covered their bodies. Perhaps us guys can go to the strip club so long as we keep our eyes closed.

No peeking, Frank.

Frank!

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

The passage is translated as "their eyes were opened" because the evolution of the human brain/mind was not understood by the Israelites or later translators. Even today, people can block things from their awareness (trauma or things they cannot deal with). Prior to developing self-consciousness and conscience, people were no more aware of their nakedness than a cat is. One wonders what God wore when talking to them, why they never noticed that they were "different," and why they would have been ashamed of the bodies God gave them after they were enlightened.

So what was the "original" thing that was said then? What was it translated from? I think if you are going to present an argument about something you had ought to back up what you are saying with some sort of proof other than just your words. And I'm curious where you found this information as well. Of course people can block things from there awareness. I myself have done this. However, since we're talking about literal's here, and this is obviously not a literal statement, this really could be perceived in many different ways. Me, being someone who believes in spiritual things, can easily perceive this as being a matter of their spiritual eyes being opened until shown otherwise.

Neo wrote:

Quote:

I thought perhaps this thread might be serious, but now that my 'eyes have been opened', I see it has degenerated into a word smorgasbord. Interesting to note that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, they covered their bodies. Perhaps us guys can go to the strip club so long as we keep our eyes closed.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Neo wrote:

Quote:
I thought perhaps this thread might be serious, but now that my 'eyes have been opened', I see it has degenerated into a word smorgasbord. Interesting to note that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, they covered their bodies. Perhaps us guys can go to the strip club so long as we keep our eyes closed.

I think Neo is being unfair. Both Frank and Hephzibah have made serious points. Frank has argued that Adam and Eve were punished for becoming more god-like. However, I think Hephzibah effectively points out that God intended them to be somewhat god-like (references in Genesis about creating man in his image and giving man dominion over other creatures.)

0 Replies

But why reward them with what he always intended (making them more god-like) for disobeying him?

0 Replies

Terry,

Just so you realize I am not ignoring you. Why will you accept parts of the Bible as truth (the parts you obviously feel are derogatory, lies, etc.,) but continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that speak of love, goodness, mercy, etc.

I thoght it was Christians that were accused of cherry picking? Terry, "Come out of that tree!"

Nice to see you again, Terry.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

But why reward them with what he always intended (making them more god-like) for disobeying him?

Sozobe, I can understand the perspective that God was withholding something from them. I think Frank has done a very good job of presenting that. However, if it's not needed is that really counted as withholding? They were already God-like, they were lacking in the knowledge of something that didn't pertain to their life anyway. I fail to see how that can be counted as withholding. It wasn't a reward for them to have that knowledge. It was something they didn't need.

Once someone "sees" something, even pertaining to what Terry was talking about, they are in a position to have to deal with it. It is no longer "hidden" from their eyes. Adam and Eve did not have to deal with the knowledge of good or evil because they could not "see" it. It was in no way needed in their life. Once they could "see" it however, it became part of their life, an aspect they had to therefore deal with.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Terry,

Just so you realize I am not ignoring you. Why will you accept parts of the Bible as truth (the parts you obviously feel are derogatory, lies, etc.,) but continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that speak of love, goodness, mercy, etc.

I thoght it was Christians that were accused of cherry picking? Terry, "Come out of that tree!"

Nice to see you again, Terry.

Terry

MA is simply unable to grasp the concept of being able to quote from the Bible to make a point...WITHOUT ACCEPTING those parts as truth.

I have explained this to her at least 10 - 15 times...but she obviously is not up to the task of understanding it.

I do hope you give it a try.

Maybe you will have better luck.

By the way...of course the Bible contains truths. There definitely was a Rome...and it was run by an emperor. And there was a Jerusalem and a Bethlehem...and many other things. There is some history in the book. But because I accept that there is a Rome...am I therefore compelled to accept that GOD (should there be a GOD) acts like the barbaric murderer purporting to be a god in the Bible?

And why??????????

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Neo wrote:

Quote:
I thought perhaps this thread might be serious, but now that my 'eyes have been opened', I see it has degenerated into a word smorgasbord. Interesting to note that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, they covered their bodies. Perhaps us guys can go to the strip club so long as we keep our eyes closed.

I think Neo is being unfair. Both Frank and Hephzibah have made serious points. Frank has argued that Adam and Eve were punished for becoming more god-like. However, I think Hephzibah effectively points out that God intended them to be somewhat god-like (references in Genesis about creating man in his image and giving man dominion over other creatures.)

Thank you wandel. I understand though why people could get frustrated with this. Going around in circles is only fun the first time. Maybe the second time is a little fun... but eventually it just gets old. Smile

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

sozobe wrote:
But why reward them with what he always intended (making them more god-like) for disobeying him?

Sozobe, I can understand the perspective that God was withholding something from them. I think Frank has done a very good job of presenting that. However, if it's not needed is that really counted as withholding? They were already God-like, they were lacking in the knowledge of something that didn't pertain to their life anyway.

Good grief, Heph...how can you say it did not pertain to their lives. Not knowing the difference between good and evil...not knowing that it was wrong to disobey this god...cost them EVERYTHING...and cost ALL THE REST OF HUMANITY everything also.

It was vital that they know the difference.

Quote:

I fail to see how that can be counted as withholding. It wasn't a reward for them to have that knowledge. It was something they didn't need.

(He shakes his head...and sighs a deep sigh.)

0 Replies

(I have some comments, but I couldn't make them short and don't want to derail. Carry on.)

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Good grief, Heph...how can you say it did not pertain to their lives. Not knowing the difference between good and evil...not knowing that it was wrong to disobey this god...cost them EVERYTHING...and cost ALL THE REST OF HUMANITY everything also.

It was vital that they know the difference.

Quote:

I fail to see how that can be counted as withholding. It wasn't a reward for them to have that knowledge. It was something they didn't need.

(He shakes his head...and sighs a deep sigh.)

Well, we've already been there, done that. Probably about three times now. I don't know I've lost count. So what do you say to moving on? I'm getting dizzy from going in circles. I don't think I'm the only one.

0 Replies

Let's talk for a bit about the "punishment." (This is pretty much my final installment on the first 3 chapters of Genesis.)

Adam and Eve did not know good from evil...they were tempted by the greatest tempter of all time...and the infraction actually gained them knowledge.

They were innocents...naive new borns.

It was an act of disobedience...but the extenuating circumstances are enormous.

So what was the punishment.

The book...the entire library...was thrown at them.

Worse than 10 consecutive life sentences.

They were cast out of paradise...cause to feel pain...subjected to death...and a bunch of other stuff.

AND ALL THE REST OF HUMANITY FOR ALL THE REST OF TIME were subjected to that same punishment.

Okay...I am dying to hear the rationalizations why this all makes fine sense...and that the punishment was not out of proportion to the transgression.

0 Replies

the god in question works in mysterious ways just like the rationality of its supporters.

0 Replies

Thank you sozobe. Perhaps we can discuss what you are thinking somewhere else sometime? I would be interested to hear what you have to say.

0 Replies

Who's booty you kissing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know