A Modern Parable

Originally posted by no1marauder
WHAT? The analogy is perfect: God said don't eat from the tree or you'll die; I say don't play with the cord or you'll get electrocuted. A and C eat from the tree; my grandson plays with the cord. They don't die from eating from the tree; he doesn't get electrocuted. Then afterwards, God kills A and C eventually as punishment, and I electrocute my grandson as punishment. Where is the logical difference?

Again no you are wrong!

What you are doing with this is saying do not play with that cord
because you will be electrocuted, and turning it into if you play
with that cord you will die, because I'm going to kill you.

Even if it he played with it and did not die you were going to kill
him. So your warning should be I'm going to kill you if you
touch/play with that cord. Since you have taken it upon to yourself
to kill him, it is you not the fact that he touchs or plays with the
cord that does it. The danger is you not electricity!

With Genesis, God warned them about a danger, He did not say
that He was going to kill them.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
Kelly you also didn't answer my question; if the wages of sin is death and animals die, does that mean they sin? Can a virus sin?

You don't understand anything, now do you ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again no you are wrong!

What you are doing with this is saying do not play with that cord
because you will be electrocuted, and turning it into if you play
with that cord you will die, because I'm going to kill you.

Even if it he played with it and did not die you were going to kill
him. So your warning should be I'm going to kill you if you
tou ...[text shortened]... Genesis, God warned them about a danger, He did not say
that He was going to kill them.
Kelly

And the danger in the Garden to Adam and Eve was God, not the Tree. God IS the one that eventually kills them (along with other harsh punishments). Same thing.

And do animals sin? If not, how are the wages of sin death?

Originally posted by no1marauder
And the danger in the Garden to Adam and Eve was God, not the Tree. God IS the one that eventually kills them (along with other harsh punishments). Same thing.

And do animals sin? If not, how are the wages of sin death?

get yerself in "thinking" mode ......... genius.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And the danger in the Garden to Adam and Eve was God, not the Tree. God IS the one that eventually kills them (along with other harsh punishments). Same thing.

And do animals sin? If not, how are the wages of sin death?

The danger in the garden was God? He had just given them life,
He had just given everything life, and wanted it to remain that
way and He was the danger?

No, in your story you were the killer, not the danger within the cord.
In Genesis, sin was the danger.

In your story you made a threat, you were not giving a real warning
about the danger at hand within the cord.

In Genesis God gave them life, they had only one danger which
they had enough knowledge about to know they should avoid it,
the one thing they were warned off of.

In your story it did not matter if your 3 year old was injuryed because
of the danger within the wire, you were going to kill him.

In Genesis the result of that one action caused their deaths, which
if your story was the same it would have been playing with a bare
wire where the danger was real and no doubt about it death was
going to happen because of the wire, not because of you.
Kelly

Originally posted by ivanhoe

get yerself in "thinking" mode ......... genius.

Ivanhoe, it is obvious that you don't think the analogy is apt. Then again, it is obvious that you take the Genesis story to be allegorical. So, why are you interested in the analogy at all? The analogy is meant as an argument against those who maintain both that the Genesis story is to be taken literally and that God is perfectly just. The argument is completely irrelevant to anyone who takes the Genesis story as something other than literal history. If you want to step in and defend the Biblical literalists against this argument by analogy, then why don't you explain why the analogy is not apt (i.e., why it constitutes a strawman argument)? You are familiar enough with the Bible to do so, and yet you seem content to merely hurl insults at no1marauder in this thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The danger in the garden was God? He had just given them life,
He had just given everything life, and wanted it to remain that
way and He was the danger?

No, in your story you were the killer, not the danger within the cord.
In Genesis, sin was the danger.

In your story you made a threat, you were not giving a real warning
about the danger at hand ...[text shortened]... and no doubt about it death was
going to happen because of the wire, not because of you.
Kelly

That's rubbish; sin didn't kill them, God did. God made a rule, specified a punishment and then carried it out (with more besides). Just like in the Genesis story I'm telling him not to do something I regard as dangerous and when he does it anyway, I'm punishing him with the consequences I specified. There is no difference. Are you seriously asserting that God isn't punishing Man for his disobedience in the Genesis story?

Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, it is obvious that you don't think the analogy is apt. Then again, it is obvious that you take the Genesis story to be allegorical. So, why are you interested in the analogy at all? The analogy is meant as an argument against those who maintain both that the Genesis story is to be taken literally and that God is perfectly just. The argument is co ...[text shortened]... Bible to do so, and yet you seem content to merely hurl insults at no1marauder in this thread.

Personally, the only flaw I can see in the analogy is that the mother doesn't eventually kill the kids like God does. I don't think the argument is just for literalists; it is equally apt for those who think it is an allegorical tale that supposedly shows a just God. I believe what the person who wrote the Modern Parable was saying is that the Genesis parable is a poor one on which to base a loving, just God as his actions are unjust and irrational.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Came across this and thought it was pretty interesting:


A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill t ...[text shortened]... gioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm


Thoughts? Comments?

i like this analogy quite a bit.

one thing i have never understood about genesis is that adam and eve supposedly become aware of good and evil (right and wrong) when they commit the act of eating the apple. fair enough. but then that means that they had no knowledge of right and wrong prior to their eating the apple. if they had no knowledge of what is right and wrong prior to eating the apple, then they cannot be expected to know that it is right (as opposed to wrong) to follow god's initial instruction. so they would not be morally responsible in that case for going against god's instruction. despite this, god punishes them in a hella-big way.

this is only one reason why i don't agree with the christian god's views on moral responsibility and punishment -- he seems to think punishment is justified just because he deems it to be.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's rubbish; sin didn't kill them, God did. God made a rule, specified a punishment and then carried it out (with more besides). Just like in the Genesis story I'm telling him not to do something I regard as dangerous and ...[text shortened]... od isn't punishing Man for his disobedience in the Genesis story?

So you say, but God did what to them? We saw that God gave them
life, we saw that God breathed that life into them, and God did what
with their lives after they sinned? Burn them up in a fire, open up the
earth and have it swallow them, what did God do? In your story you
know what you said you were going to do, you were going to take
action, and kill your 3 year old.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, it is obvious that you don't think the analogy is apt. Then again, it is obvious that you take the Genesis story to be allegorical. So, why are you interested in the analogy at all? The analogy is meant as an argument against tho ...[text shortened]... em content to merely hurl insults at no1marauder in this thread.

Have you read the whole thread, including my posts ?

The post which suggests to replace the cookies with deadly poison is the most important one to make the analogy work.

If someone considers the story to be allegorical, this does not imply that the story does not communicate any truth at all. On the contrary !

The story of Adam & Eve is turned into a lie for political purposes. I resent that very much.

BBarr: " ...... and yet you seem content to merely hurl insults at no1marauder in this thread.

No1, the "King of Insults" doesn't deserve any better. Read the thread very carefully please.

EDIT: ....... and by the way, I do not have written on my banner: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

EDIT: .... and could you please consider the insults and foul language Mr. Insult is hurling at me .... damnit !

Originally posted by LemonJello
i like this analogy quite a bit.

one thing i have never understood about genesis is that adam and eve supposedly become aware of good and evil (right and wrong) when they commit the act of eating the apple. fair enough. but then tha ...[text shortened]... s to think punishment is justified just because he deems it to be.

Good and evil, is not always the same thing as right and wrong.
You can be right about 1 + 1 = 2 and that not have anything
to do with morals views of right and wrong. They knew about not
eating of that tree because there was danger involved with the
eating of that tree, they knew enough.

A side note: There was no apple.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say, but God did what to them? We saw that God gave them
life, we saw that God breathed that life into them, and God did what
with their lives after they sinned? Burn them up in a fire, open up the
earth and have it swallow them, ...[text shortened]... you were going to take
action, and kill your 3 year old.
Kelly

BS. God eventually kills them for their disobedience; what does it matter if he gave them life initially? If you want, make the three year old my son instead of grandson; I "gave" him life then - can I justly kill him for his disobedience? God does take an action; you continually refuse to address that point.

In reality. we know what your position is: God can do anything he wants because he is God. There is no morality but in doing what you are told. Personally, I believe that is the real point of the Genesis parable; that if you don't do what your master tells you blindly and unthinkingly, you will be punished. That is why the fundies can say sticking a spear in a baby is moral if God says so. I think that this reading of the OT leads to the most amoral and inhumane position possible, since EVERY religious group thinks they're doing God's will. And that is above any petty concerns of human morality, ain't it, KellyJay; so anything goes?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

There are priests and ministers who don't believe in God, so wassup ?


No1, YOU are the streetfighter for posting this in this Spirituality forum.

Is this forum the sole preserve of god-botherers then?