Spirituality
28 Jun 05
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderGenesis 2
How so? After all it is an Almighty God talking to the only two humans who ever existed supposedly. Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them since he is the one who created them and the only one with such a power (they can't even do it themselves).
Alpha10: A and E were ...[text shortened]... t a sense of right and wrong is roughly akin to a three year old (perhaps even a younger child).
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
To begin with God just told Adam not Eve, God also did not say He
would kill them, but warned them they would die. If you are warned
if you eat something you will die, it is not the samething as saying
if you eat something I will kill you.
They knew what they needed to know, even when Eve was speaking
to the serpent, she knew what God said, she knew what the result
would be, and Adam was there with her. Adam could have given her
some support, instead He too went for the line that the serpent
said, instead of heeding the warning God had said. They were
given two lines, one from God, one from the serpent and they
went with the one they wanted.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
1 edit
To more accurately correlate the two stories ('The Fall of Man' and 'The Tempting of Children with Cookies'😉, Mom should have already known that her children would eat the cookies (due to her unquestioned omnipotence) and therefore would merely be cruelfully plotting the expulsion of her children from her home. Hiding in the next room until she hears those sinful nibbles; jumping out from behind the dutch doors, "A-HA!" in a Cosby-esque moment of victory.
But such unmerciful behaviour would not be becoming such a gentle, loving creator like Mom. These actions make Mom nothing more than a living paradox and most likely a non-existent man-made myth; discrediting her own existence within the first four pages of her sacred texts.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAdam & Eve must have had experience of death, or the word "die" couldn't have meant anything to them. I wonder what form that experience took.
[b]Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayActually then he lied to them because they did not die from eating from the tree. God gave them various punishments for eating from the tree (i.e. eventual death, a woman's pain in childbirth, etc.) but that was decided by God. So in effect, God "killed" them (and all of us for that matter).
Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
To begin with God just told Adam not Eve ...[text shortened]... en two lines, one from God, one from the serpent and they
went with the one they wanted.
Kelly
You seem to kinda miss the point of the Modern Parable; that to expect people with the moral viewpoints of children to act as adults or be horribly punished isn't very nice. Would you address why Mom in the Modern Parable and God in the Genesis parable aren't equally unjust? Or is Mom in the Modern Parable perfectly correct in her harsh punishments of the 3 year olds?
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by darvlayNo Wire Hangers!!!!
To more accurately correlate the two stories ('The Fall of Man' and 'The Tempting of Children with Cookies'😉, Mom should have already known that her children would eat the cookies (due to her unquestioned omnipotence) and therefore would merely be cruelfully plotting the expulsion of her children from her home. Hiding in the next room until she hears th ...[text shortened]... t man-made myth; discrediting her own existence within the first four pages of her sacred texts.
RX
28 Jun 05
Perhaps another analogy would be helpful (my own this time): my three year old grandson is playing with the electrical cord from my PC. I yell to him," Don't touch that or you'll get electrocuted". Suppose later when I'm not looking, he plays with the electrical cord. Would it be just for me if I found out about it to electrocute him?
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHe didn't lie exactly. Perhaps he was being oracular. Reminds me of this story:
Actually then he lied to them because they did not die from eating from the tree. God gave them various punishments for eating from the tree (i.e. eventual death, a woman's pain in childbirth, etc.) but that was decided by God. So in effect, God "killed" them (and all of us for that matter).
You seem to kinda miss the point of the ...[text shortened]... is Mom in the Modern Parable perfectly correct in her harsh punishments of the 3 year olds?
In 550 BCE, Croesus was preparing to invade the Persian Empire when he consulted the Oracle about his chances for victory. After sacrificing 300 head of cattle to Apollo, he had gold and silver melted down into 117 bricks, which were sent to Delphi, along with jewels, statues, and a gold bowl weighing a quarter of a ton. With these gifts, Croesus sent his question of whether he should attack Persia.
The Pythia answered that, if he crossed a river, "Croesus will destroy a great empire." Encouraged by this response, he invaded Persia, only to suffer a decisive defeat. The Persians invaded and then conquered Lydia and captured Croesus, who thereafter bitterly denounced the Oracle. He sent his iron chains to Delphi with the question, "Why did you lie to me?" The Pythia correctly answered that her prophecy had been fulfilled. Croesus had destroyed a great empire -- his own.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThey are not alive now are they, they died didn't they?
Actually then he lied to them because they did not die from eating from the tree. God gave them various punishments for eating from the tree (i.e. eventual death, a woman's pain in childbirth, etc.) but that was decided by God. So in effect, God "killed" them (and all of us for that matter).
You seem to kinda miss the point of the ...[text shortened]... is Mom in the Modern Parable perfectly correct in her harsh punishments of the 3 year olds?
The wages of sin is death, had they not sinned they would not have
died. Seems simple enough, and because they did what they did there
were other things that happened too. The other things like sweating
while working, pain in child birth where given along with the reasons
why they were added.
You can make your modern parabel mean what ever you want, I was
responding to another poster.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperThis is ridiculous ! As a father of three , I never left all of the poisonous cleaning products under the sink , I put them out of reach . Are you saying good parenting would have been for me to leave them there , tell the kids not to play there ? Better yet , to hell with the cupboard , I'll put the bleach , lye , and bug spray in the middle of the room like god did with the tree . After all , how will they learn not to be naughty and not drink poison unless they've got a choice ?
While I believe No1's parable to be interesting and very clever I have one problem with it which I will atempt to outline here.
Say God were to put the fruit 'out of reach' as the mother should have with the cookies. Where then is the free will we are supposed to have? How can we CHOOSE to be naughty if we are logistically FORBIDDEN to be naughty? ...[text shortened]... we must also be given the ability to do something God would prefer we not do. yes?
TheSkipper
How else will they learn to do right , you asked . Did god try raising them , educating them ? No , he was the equivilant of a neglectful father in this story . He put the temptation in front of the niiave humans , cut them loose and took off , then left the burden of the "sin" on the very people he set up . And in light of the claim that he's all knowing , this is pretty twisted behaivior .
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThey knew quite a bit without experience, you too I imagine know
Adam & Eve must have had experience of death, or the word "die" couldn't have meant anything to them. I wonder what form that experience took.
about things you have never experienced as well.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Moldy Crow
This is ridiculous ! As a father of three , I never left all of the poisonous cleaning products under the sink , I put them out of reach . Are you saying good parenting would have been for me to leave them there , tell the kids not to play there ? Better yet , to hell with the cupboard , I'll put the bleach , lye , and bug spray in the middle of the roo ...[text shortened]... set up . And in light of the claim that he's all knowing , this is pretty twisted behaivior .
It's a pretty twisted Strawman and now it has even become a pretty ridiculous one.
.... it's all a waste of time.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowIf you look at OT law you will see there are several things people
This is ridiculous ! As a father of three , I never left all of the poisonous cleaning products under the sink , I put them out of reach . Are you saying good parenting would have been for me to leave them there , tell the kids not to play there ? Better yet , to hell with the cupboard , I'll put the bleach , lye , and bug spray in the middle of the roo ...[text shortened]... set up . And in light of the claim that he's all knowing , this is pretty twisted behaivior .
were allowed and forbidden to do. Inside Genesis in the garden
there was only one, they were free to do and say anything they
put thier minds to, anything but that one thing. Now you do not
and I do not either put anything poisonous where my young kids
can get them. I do put them in places where my older kids can
and they know because they can either read, or was told not to
touch, not to eat, not to do whatever it is that could hurt them.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat you don't like is the analogy's effectiveness , not that it matters since the same conclusion should be drawn from the original story.
It's a pretty twisted Strawman and now it has even become a pretty ridiculous one.
.... it's all a waste of time.
Just one more bit of evidence that the story is not to be taken literally.