Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

neologist wrote:

Remember, he was supposedly perfect.
Surely that may be inferred from the text.

Where? The text says nothing about "perfect".

Tell me, Set. The first time Adam saw something that was not his, something that was desirable, what would prevent him from taking it?
Remember, he was supposedly perfect.
Surely that may be inferred from the text.

Good does not equal "perfect," and it is doubtful that there can be any concept of perfection in this context.

However, you're playing fast and loose with the text again.

The last verse of Genesis, Chapter One, reads (in the King James Version):

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Please note the time line there--day six. Genesis, Chapter Two, however, begins thus:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, your by god saw that it was "good" on the sixth day. He rests on the seventh day. On the day after that, he creates man. So, although it may well be that your boy god thought that the man he had created was good, as well, it is not mentioned in the text. Perfection is not mentioned in the text. You fail, once again, to support your argument from the text.

Thomas wrote:

neologist wrote:

Remember, he was supposedly perfect.
Surely that may be inferred from the text.

Where? The text says nothing about "perfect".

Oh, I forgot to say that after he was created, God pronounced his work 'good'. I guess that would mean he intentionally left out a few things so his first humans would screw up, eh?

neologist wrote:

Thomas wrote:

neologist wrote:

Remember, he was supposedly perfect.
Surely that may be inferred from the text.

Where? The text says nothing about "perfect".

Oh, I forgot to say that after he was created, God pronounced his work 'good'. I guess that would mean he intentionally left out a few things so his first humans would screw up, eh?

There are at least two responses to this.

For one thing, we know the god of Genesis has a rather casual relationship with the truth. For example, he flat-out lied to Adam and Eve when he said: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:16-17) This proves that just because god pronounces something, that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

. . .Moreover, your case fails to fly even if we give god the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't lying when he called his creation "good". As Setanta points out, "good" is not the same as perfect. Rather, it covers a whole range, starting with "quite adequate, even if it needs some work" to "pretty good" to "pretty darn good" to "perfect". But "good" by no means implies "perfect". Your attempted rebuttal of Setanta fails because your quote pertains to rocks, not to humans.

Oh, and later in the writings reputedly of Moses, we read.

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4)

Sorry, Neo, that's a direct quote of Genesis. So, either you admit that the Bobble is rife with contradictions, or you acknowledge the case i just made. You've painted yourself into a corner. You're going to have to make claims for the sequence of the verses which are not supported in the text, and you will once again have entered the swamp of interpretation, in which you attempt to claim that the text says what it patently does not say.

Whether you read Genesis 1:27 for the creation of man, or Genesis 2:7--nowhere in the text does it state or imply that these "creations" were perfect; nowhere in the text does it state or imply that these "creations" were possessed of an "innate moral sense."

Your argument can only be sustained by assumptions which you make which are nowhere supported in the text.

Oh, and later in the writings reputedly of Moses, we read.

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4)

Genesis chapter two summarizes in part chapter 1

So they would have behaved as what? Animals? Politicians? Any guide at all?

Then what would would have been their direction as you read the account? Anything?

Let's see, are Adam and Eve dead? Why yes they are. And had they died on the day of their eating? Well, to the God for whom a thousand years is as a day (Psalm 90:4), I would have to say yes. You have heard the expression 'dead man walking' have you not?

neologist wrote:

Let's see, are Adam and Eve dead? Why yes they are. And had they died on the day of their eating? Well, to the God for whom a thousand years is as a day (Psalm 90:4), I would have to say yes. You have heard the expression 'dead man walking' have you not?

What is you connection to eating the apple, then? In your reading of the Bible, when would Adam and Eve have died if they hadn't eaten the apple? Would they be alive today?

Thomas wrote:

neologist wrote:

Let's see, are Adam and Eve dead? Why yes they are. And had they died on the day of their eating? Well, to the God for whom a thousand years is as a day (Psalm 90:4), I would have to say yes. You have heard the expression 'dead man walking' have you not?

What is you connection to eating the apple, then? In your reading of the Bible, when would Adam and Eve have died if they hadn't eaten the apple? Would they be alive today?

Yes

neologist wrote:

Genesis chapter two summarizes in part chapter 1

This assertion on your part is not supported by anything other than your contention to that effect, and is painfully obvious as one of the many ways in which bible-thumpers dance when the contradictions of the Bobble are pointed out to them. It may pain you to learn it, but i don't consider you a reliable source for statements from authority.

Not only does Deuteronomy lack the authority of Genesis on the basis of the internal system of the Bobble, being very obviously a statement of a man about the god, but it is also beggared by all the other textual evidence that the god is not truthful and just, and is iniquitous. Finally, it is painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't have a stake in claiming the Bobble is infallible that passages such as you have quoted are among the many which have been cobbled together in a failed effort to resolve the issues of the scurrilous character of your god.

neologist wrote:

Thomas wrote:

neologist wrote:

Let's see, are Adam and Eve dead? Why yes they are. And had they died on the day of their eating? Well, to the God for whom a thousand years is as a day (Psalm 90:4), I would have to say yes. You have heard the expression 'dead man walking' have you not?

What is you connection to eating the apple, then? In your reading of the Bible, when would Adam and Eve have died if they hadn't eaten the apple? Would they be alive today?

Yes

In your opinion, would they die at all?

neologist wrote:

So they would have behaved as what? Animals? Politicians? Any guide at all?

They would have acted like people without any morality.

neologist wrote:

Then what would would have been their direction as you read the account? Anything?

I have no idea. I only know that they would not have been directed by their innate sense of right and wrong, since Genesis is quite clear that they lacked an innate sense of right and wrong.

Note that Genesis 2:4 combines all the days into one: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. . ."