Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

By the way, even if your contention about Verse 4 were correct (and i do not so stipulate), it would not serve to eliminate the contradiction, because the subsequent verses speak of the creation of man as having taken place subsequently.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Then how do you explain God's reaction to the illegal apple-eating in Genesis 2:22? "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

In God's opinion at least -- but you may be better informed than Him -- Adam and Eve were not immortal. Otherwise they wouldn't need to eat from the tree of life to live for ever.

Can't answer that completely. But there is a difference between the ability to live indefinitely and immortality which implies one will certainly live forever.

Signing off for the day. Have fun.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

let me guess:

The 'Sorry, sucker', hypothesis.

I'm not familiar with that hypothesis. You'll have to explain it to me.

neologist wrote:

You are entitled to believe it. As long as you are comfortable, who am I to ask you to change?

Well, given that I seem to have a better grasp of Genesis than you do, I wouldn't be inclined to change even if you did ask.

0 Replies

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif

I'll be back when I catch my breath.

0 Replies

OK, I'm back with head bowed. I must admit what I believe to be one of the fundamental teachings of the bible, one that I considered self evident, has eluded my ability to explain it. Certainly I have explained it many times before; to my children, to those with whom I have conducted bible studies and from the podium, but without the strenuous objections I have encountered here. I may only conclude the failing is mine because the bible is so outstandingly true.

I have not been swayed from my belief or understanding, mind you. But I have been forced to undertake a reevaluation of my rhetorical skills.

Please understand that I have not abandoned the cause, but rather, have retired until a more appropriate time.

0 Replies

You're taking the allegorical story of Adam and Eve literally. It is deeply symbolic. The Tree of Life is the human body, with the branching structure of the nervous system. The tree of the human nervous system bears tempting fruits in the form of sensory delights. The apple represents sex, which is denied to humans prior to adolescence. The serpent represents the sexual energy or kundalini that stimulates the sex nerves. Adam is reason, Eve is emotion. When emotions are overpowered by sex energy, reason soon follows -- the serpent tempts Eve who then tempts Adam. Children are innocent and usually unselfconscious about their bodies. During adolescence, the sex drive awakens and they lose their former innocence. They become aware of their nakedness. Their ability to discern right from wrong is expected when they reach adolescence and eat the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" -- with sexual awakening comes awareness of right and wrong. They lose the innocence of childhood and begin to take on responsibilities -- they are sent forth from the "garden of Eden" to "till the ground". There are other ways to interpret this story as well.

0 Replies

Neo, it is not your skills that are failing. The story is what it is..flawed.

Advanced rhetorical skills should not be required to explain a simple story inspired by a supreme being.

If Adam and Eve were created with perfect consciences, what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

If Adam and Eve were created as immortals, what is the purpose of the tree of life?

If God had told the truth about Adam dying in the day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, what is the purpose of banning them from the garden lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I have explained it many times before; to my children, to those with whom I have conducted bible studies and from the podium, but without the strenuous objections I have encountered here. I may only conclude the failing is mine because the bible is so outstandingly true.

You shouldnt be so hard on yourself neo. In this forum you dont have a podium. You are not talking to children and are not necessarily accepted as teacher. You are addressing for the most part sceptical intelligent and enquiring adults. Perhaps its not the weakness of your rhetorical skill but the weakness of your argument that fails to convince.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Neo, it is not your skills that are failing. The story is what it is..flawed.

Advanced rhetorical skills should not be required to explain a simple story inspired by a supreme being.

If Adam and Eve were created with perfect consciences, what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

That represented their choice of whether or not to accept God's authority.

mesquite wrote:

If Adam and Eve were created as immortals, what is the purpose of the tree of life?

They were not immortal. They could live indefinitely. (Jesus was supposedly perfect, yet he was killed.)

mesquite wrote:

If God had told the truth about Adam dying in the day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, what is the purpose of banning them from the garden lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:?

I don't understand this well enough to venture an explanation. The tree of life is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, so perhaps I can find an answer to relate.

I know I said I was going to stay a way for a while. I just feel like I had to answer that.

I'm hopeless. What can I say?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

neologist wrote:
I have explained it many times before; to my children, to those with whom I have conducted bible studies and from the podium, but without the strenuous objections I have encountered here. I may only conclude the failing is mine because the bible is so outstandingly true.
You shouldnt be so hard on yourself neo. In this forum you dont have a podium. You are not talking to children and are not necessarily accepted as teacher. You are addressing for the most part sceptical intelligent and enquiring adults. Perhaps its not the weakness of your rhetorical skill but the weakness of your argument that fails to convince.

That is the main reason I participate in this forum. I have improved considerably in the last 2 years.

The proposition I have advanced in this thread, that Adam and Eve chose to overrule their God given conscience, has not been disproved. It is I who have failed to prove it.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Please understand that I have not abandoned the cause, but rather, have retired until a more appropriate time.

I doubt it.

0 Replies

Sheesh. The cubs have a winning streak. Fine.

That doesn't mean you have disproved my proposition; It is I who have failed to state it clearly.

Or, rather, have failed to cause you to see clearly.

That may not be possible; but I have not given up.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2728099&sid=a99c72c17cc97f2c6a63c857daf72e5e#2728099

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Neo, it is not your skills that are failing. The story is what it is..flawed.

Advanced rhetorical skills should not be required to explain a simple story inspired by a supreme being.

If Adam and Eve were created with perfect consciences, what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
That represented their choice of whether or not to accept God's authority.

Perhaps you are not thinking this through neo. Any old tree would have sufficed to serve that purpose. But this was a very very special tree with magical properties. When Adam and Eve ate from that tree... And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:. The message here is not that they were created with a perfect conscience, but rather that they were created with pure innocence. It was not until they ate from the tree of knowledge that they had the cognitive ability to discern right from wrong.

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
If Adam and Eve were created as immortals, what is the purpose of the tree of life?
They were not immortal. They could live indefinitely. (Jesus was supposedly perfect, yet he was killed.)

That is another story with it's own bucket of worms to explore at another time. But if you object to the term immortal I can accept that. The terminology that the Bible uses live for ever works for me.

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
If God had told the truth about Adam dying in the day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, what is the purpose of banning them from the garden lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:?
I don't understand this well enough to venture an explanation. The tree of life is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, so perhaps I can find an answer to relate.

It is mentioned in Genesis 2:9 as being in the midst of the garden, but I think that hurts more than helps your case because the only fruit forbidden was the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 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.

I know I said I was going to stay a way for a while. I just feel like I had to answer that.

neologist wrote:

I'm hopeless. What can I say?

Good luck neo, but as Frank once said... No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it is still gonna be a pig.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

. . . Any old tree would have sufficed to serve that purpose. But this was a very very special tree with magical properties. . .

Actually you are right about any old tree, so long as it was identifiable. Magic? . . .

0 Replies

Magical properties seems reasonable to describe a tree that produced fruit which when eaten would allow one to be as gods and know good and evil. Did you have an alternative to offer?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Magical properties seems reasonable to describe a tree that produced fruit which when eaten would allow one to be as gods and know good and evil. Did you have an alternative to offer?

Since it represented a choice, it could have been a door they were told not to open, a path not to take, etc.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Magical properties seems reasonable to describe a tree that produced fruit which when eaten would allow one to be as gods and know good and evil. Did you have an alternative to offer?
Since it represented a choice, it could have been a door they were told not to open, a path not to take, etc.

That is precisely my point neo. Had the author merely meant it to represent a choice it could have anything. In the Eden story however, the forbidden object was a fruit that had magical powers, very specific magical powers that relate directly to the point. Until they ate the fruit they did not know right from wrong. You keep breezing past that very significant part of the story as though it did not exist.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Magical properties seems reasonable to describe a tree that produced fruit which when eaten would allow one to be as gods and know good and evil. Did you have an alternative to offer?
Since it represented a choice, it could have been a door they were told not to open, a path not to take, etc.

That is precisely my point neo. Had the author merely meant it to represent a choice it could have anything. In the Eden story however, the forbidden object was a fruit that had magical powers, very specific magical powers that relate directly to the point. Until they ate the fruit they did not know right from wrong. You keep breezing past that very significant part of the story as though it did not exist.

You keep ignoring the question of how they would have made moral decisions if they had not eaten the fruit. I say they had an intuitive sense of God's moral standards. The act of eating the fruit was a rejection of those standards. I may not have proved the proposition, but none of the posters in this thread have disproved it either.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
neologist wrote:
I have explained it many times before; to my children, to those with whom I have conducted bible studies and from the podium, but without the strenuous objections I have encountered here. I may only conclude the failing is mine because the bible is so outstandingly true.
You shouldnt be so hard on yourself neo. In this forum you dont have a podium. You are not talking to children and are not necessarily accepted as teacher. You are addressing for the most part sceptical intelligent and enquiring adults. Perhaps its not the weakness of your rhetorical skill but the weakness of your argument that fails to convince.
That is the main reason I participate in this forum. I have improved considerably in the last 2 years.

The proposition I have advanced in this thread, that Adam and Eve chose to overrule their God given conscience, has not been disproved. It is I who have failed to prove it.

Well I admire your logical approach and your dogged determination to your cause. But your proposition is a matter of religion. It has to be taken on faith...or not. It is ultimately a waste of time trying to "prove" that Adam chose to overrule his God given conscience, just as I cannot "prove" that God prefers tea to coffee. (Although He most certainly does :wink: )

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

. . . Well I admire your logical approach and your dogged determination to your cause. But your proposition is a matter of religion. It has to be taken on faith...or not. It is ultimately a waste of time trying to "prove" that Adam chose to overrule his God given conscience, just as I cannot "prove" that God prefers tea to coffee. (Although He most certainly does :wink: )

Whether the bible is God's word is not the subject of my proposition. We have a Genesis story which includes 4 persons: God, Adam, Eve and Satan. We have a place: The Garden of Eden. We have a situation regarding the eating of the fruit of a certain tree and the ramifications of that act. The validity of the bible is not part of the argument, only its internal consistency.

My proposition is that the story only makes sense if Adam and Eve were created with a perfect moral sense and the eating of the fruit represented their desire to overrule that moral sense, thereby deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad.

So far, most of the contributors to this thread have contended that Adam and Eve were morally naive and easily duped in some sort of sucker arrangement. I agree that, if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, that could certainly be the case. However, that is not what the story relates.

One of the main reasons I continue in my contention is that, without Satan's interference, Adam and Eve would have eventually come upon some situation requiring a moral decision. Taken to that point, the contention that the first humans had no sense of moral direction becomes patently ridiculous.

0 Replies

Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know