Is the story of Adam and Even real...or allegory?

neologist wrote:

I can understand why one could read the bible and, without meditating on its meaning, might conclude that God is brutal, misogynistic and homophobic. But I can't for the life of me understand why one could read and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will

I am uncertain that you actually meant what you wrote. A careful and thoughtful reading of the old testament shows the god of the ancient Jews to be racist, sexist, elitist, homophobic and a murderously vicious and vengeful being. Additionally, you go on to write: ". . . and not conclude the God described therein could be limited by any necessity or that he does not posess free will" You meant to assert that the god of the old testament can be limited by any necessity and does not possess free will?

This part of your response seems confused, and i suspect does not say what you had intended it to say.

Precisely the strongest reason for not believing the old testament to be anything more than the perfervid maunderings of ignorant and supersitious nomadic tribesmen is the very puerile and vicious nature of the diety described therein. When that is coupled with the rather obvious polytheism textually evident before the return from the Babylonian captivity, at which time it appears the Hebrews imbibed Aryan monothesism from the Pharsee and Meda--the Persians--it seems all too painfully obvious that the bible is a collection of superstitious tales, ill-considered and never edited. The amount of contradiction and absurdity is sufficient to indict the document as flawed, and to demolish any attempt to describe it as the inerrant revealed truth of any description of deity.

Your reference to what one might conclude having read but failed to meditate upon the meaning of the document suggests that it is not what it seems, and that one is obliged to extract from it a meaning which is not apparent on the face of the text. That is a call for obscure, particularist and idiosyncratic exegesis--which in my never humble opinion is booking a cruise down the primrose-bordered path to theological lunacy.

Quote:

That being said, the next question is whether or not the text is sufficient to extend free will to his sentient creations. The very fact that the words 'choose' and 'repent' are ascribed to human activity would indicate that man and angels do, indeed, have free will.

One need accept, of course, in such a circumstance, that any such thing as an angel exists--and one need assume it absent physical evidence.

You have just discarded the entirety of Calvinist theological evolution, and therefore, Congregationalist and Presbyterian doctrine. . .

. . .

Quote:

If both God and man have free will and God is bound by no necessity (save that he cannot lie), then it follows that God is under no obligation to know in advance the freely decided outcome of each and every sentient being. In fact, the bible assures us that he does shield these outcomes from his purvey of knowledge.

I know of no reason to assume that a diety would or would not lie.

I know of no reason to assume that an omnipotent diety were not also omniscient. . .

You have a slim chance of asserting that there were such a thing as an omniscient deity who was not better informed about the future (although might reasonably assume she has a better grasp of statistical probability than anyone else) than the rest of us. You're going to have a lot of problem marketing such a deity, though. . .

What you assert that the bible assures us is not actually admissable, as it is not established that said scripture is inerrant. I understand that you're working your way to the heart of the Adam and Eve dog and pony show, but i'm not gonna cut you any slack in the process.

Now, if God knew in advance that Adam would sin and the consequence of that sin would be some 6000 years of human misery and wickedness, then we could only conclude that at one time all the evil that we know was at one time existing only in the mind of God and he deliberately brought this misery on the human race for some perverted reason.

You originally said:

Quote:

If God exists, the worst thing that could happen to me would be my eventual death and return to nothingness.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

RexRed wrote:

Animals are part of the physical death before Eden

There was no physical death before Eden.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You originally said:

Quote:

If God exists, the worst thing that could happen to me would be my eventual death and return to nothingness.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

Excellent logic here, Frank. I am incorrect because I do not agree with others who are incorrect. Isn't that called straw man, Frank?

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Animals are part of the physical death before Eden

There was no physical death before Eden.

Wrong

I see you're down with Bishop Ussher on the chronology again, for however much you deny it. Once again, much of whay you assert here is a theology which serves more than anything else to distinguish you from the Calvinists and the Hindus. I personally have no reason to assume a 6000 chronology, nor no of any reliable evidence of a profound change in species taking place 6000 years ago which would lead us to conclued that homo sapiens sapiens did not previously exist, but came into existence at that time, nor espeically in some pleasant bower in the mountains to the west of the central Iranian plateau.

A great many religions eschew the concept of Satan, and jump right into a deity who incorporates all good and evil. Your insistence that the deity of whom you speak could not reasonably be such a deity simply places you firmly in the god/devil dichotomy camp. I say this, because, of course, you intend to deny the forgoing scenario.

Quote:

Again, if the above were true and if he indeed created us as sentient beings, why would he include in our mental processes the qualities of love and compassion he himself lacked? It doesn't make sense if you believe the bible.
Of course, if you choose not to believe, you can just go about your life in any way you choose. You have no obligation except to your own reasoning power.

Yes, and i much prefer it that way. This does not mean that i am not open to information and persuastion from others, but i do maintain, i hope it is fair to say, a high standard of evidence which need be met.

For as interesting ast your assault on Calvinist/Hindu concepts of predestination is, you have not yet ever directly answered the titular question, and have danced even in responding to my direct questions on the subjet. However, your reference to a deity knowing that Adam would sin from which 6000 years of misery would ensue is strong inferential evidence that you choose to be a biblical literalist.

So i'll take all of that as a "Yes" in regard to the question of whether the Adam and Eve three card monte show is literal truth.

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You originally said:

Quote:

If God exists, the worst thing that could happen to me would be my eventual death and return to nothingness.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

Excellent logic here, Frank. I am incorrect because I do not agree with others who are incorrect. Isn't that called straw man, Frank?

Grow a brain...and then let's start over.

You offer your blind guesses like they are certainties.

I guess there is some fun to be had watching such nonsense...but it does get boring after a while.

Good grief...you guessers sure are a gas.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Animals are part of the physical death before Eden

There was no physical death before Eden.

Wrong

That's a rather abrupt answer especially in light of no scriptural rebuttal. And how does this play into why dogs have to die for original sin?

The Bible even tells us when the very first animal died. This is in Genesis 3:21 when God killed an innocent animal to cover man's nakedness and man's sin.

The Bible says that God hates Death. He calls it his enemy. Surely it was not part of the original Creation. Death is a foreigner, an intruder in God's perfect world. The Bible says that death is a result of man's sin.

"The last enemy to be destroyed is Death" (1 Corinthians 15:26)

Whatever God sets out to do, he will acomplish.

So you've read part of the bible.

Good for you.

Yet you assume that Adam and Eve did not know what God meant by death.

At the same time, you probably are a firm believer in the countless years of history before man where animals lived and died and lived and died.

neologist wrote:

Whatever God sets out to do, he will acomplish.

Judges (1:19) And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Too bad, no chariots of marshmellows.

P

neologist wrote:

So you've read part of the bible.

Good for you.

Yet you assume that Adam and Eve did not know what God meant by death.

At the same time, you probably are a firm believer in the countless years of history before man where animals lived and died and lived and died.

Irrelative of any arguments as to Adam and Eve's innocence/ignorance as per they "did not know what God meant by death" my question was why do dogs die.

As to what my beliefs may be re: "countless years of history before man where animals lived and died and lived and died" this does not answer the question about dogs and I have addressed your perspective with "in as much as if one was to be a believer, a reasonable man would need to know why dogs die".

Also you claim I am wrong when I stated "There was no physical death before Eden" but where is your scriptural rebut and how does this play into why dogs have to die for original sin?

They don't. They just die.

Choo-choo, choo-choo cha boogie
Choo-choo, choo-choo cha boogie
Choo-choo, choo-choo cha boogie
Let me get back to the shack, Jack ! ! !


Rex, you have, apparently, less a grasp on reality than a two-year old. Just because you inhabit fantasy land willingly is not basis either to assert that you have all the answers or that others don't understand your subtle exegesis. You have all the subtlety of a run-away cement truck.

Pauligirl, that page is first-class entertainment.

Pauligirl wrote:

neologist wrote:

Whatever God sets out to do, he will acomplish.

Judges (1:19) And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Too bad, no chariots of marshmellows.

P

I think the word 'he', in red might make it more understandable. Who was it that failed?

"Specifically we are not associated wit the Raelian Movement or
other like-minded organizations and do not support their concepts."

Terry,

Sorry. I missed your question earlier. God told the truth. Satan lied to Eve when he told her she would not die. She's dead.