Spirituality
28 Jun 05
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by darvlayOops! If thats a Dutch flag them I'm surprised he doesn't use UK English rather than US! Dutch people are indeed often excellent linguists. Apologies ivanhoe, I had assumed you were American.
As I was rebuked once, Ivanhoe has impressive command of more than a few languages. English not being his first. How many do you know?
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperThere wasn't a challege taking place, creation at the end was called
uhm...did God not create that danger? God made the game, he made the rules and he made the consequences. God, Adam and Eve are the ONLY players.
I think you are arguing this incorrectly (bold of me isn't it?...sorry). What you should be saying in my opinion is that God, in order to give man free will, had to leave Adam and Eve with something that ...[text shortened]... ty screwed up thing to do...but then again Genesis is a pretty screwed up book. đ
TheSkipper
very good. Very good is the desired way to go, not sin, not evil. There
will always be consequences to actions, with this not doing something
command is much easier than having God tell them, they must do
something. If you read the commandments you will see that do not
do something commandments are easier than the do ones. Simply
having life sets one up for consequences, God warned them about
one, a simple thing to not do. Yet, they wanted what the wanted and
reached out to do something they knew they should not do.
Had the story been the way it was protrayed in this thread, God would
have reached out and killed them, instead they suffered the result
of thier actions they were forewarned about.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Oops! If thats a Dutch flag them I'm surprised he doesn't use UK English rather than US! Dutch people are indeed often excellent linguists. Apologies ivanhoe, I had assumed you were American.
Apologies accepted.
By the way, I'm not offended if someone thinks I'm an American đ
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are totally brainwashed and are unable to see the logical inconsistencies in your stance. HOW God decided to kill them is irrelevant; would it make a moral difference if he had smote them down immediately or if instead he sadistically made them suffer for the rest of their lives according to Genesis? Actually when I put it that way what he did do is even morally worse than merely killing them; he tortured them, too. All for disobeying him once. And how did they "reject him for all therir lives"? They were contrite and he threw a hissy fit. His actions were the same as the mother's except she didn't eventually kill her kids. BTW, where is that seraphim with the flaming sword; shouldn't he/she/it still bel in Iraq somewhere?
Let us stick to the subject you started, which is God killed them
or the danger that God warned them about did? God gave them
life, He as you pointed out didn't need a reason to kill them if
He wanted to; He didn't need a reason to co ...[text shortened]... not the danger within the wires were the threat
to kill.
Kelly
And remember he not only sentenced them to death, the "guilty" ones (although they are really incapable of guilt as they had no knowledge of right or wrong; animals don't sin, right?) but he also condemned ALL their descendents who had done nothing. "Just"? Don't think so. Obviously God was the only thing that could bring death to the human race according to Genesis and he did. He was the danger and his anger and draconian punishment was directed at people with no moral sense of right and wrong and their totally innocent descendants. It's a very sick story as interpreted by you and the other fundies.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by kirksey957To be honest, I like Greek myths on this type of subject better then the Israelite ones. They're less unremmittingly negative about the human race. Pandora's Box is one that is similar to the Genesis myth; Pandora is told not to open the box by the gods but her natural human curiousity takes over and she does. All the evils that Man are afflicted with - disease, war, envy, etc. etc. - are unleashed onto the prior paradise of Earth. Yet, this myth has at least a silver lining: left in the box never to leave Mankind is one thing: Hope. Compared to the Genesis horror story, this story still says something about the inherent dignity of our kind that a million OT's never will.
#1, I would be interested in your writing the parable over in a way that represents the way you think God should be interacting. This is a serious request and I am not baiting you.
One of the things that we may not take into consideration in the Genesis story is that all this is new to God. How is he supposed to know how to act? It's not like there is a wealth of collective knowledge about how to deal with these creations.
I like the story of Prometheus,too, the Titan who stole fire from Heaven and gave it to Man. For this he was sentenced to the eternal torment of having his liver devoured by a vulture every day only to grow back each night. What a metaphor for the cost we pay for our eternal struggle to gain knowledge and understanding of the world! Prometheus is a hero to the ancient Greeks for giving Man knowledge in defiance of the gods, while the serpent in the Garden is the archvillain for doing the same thing in Genesis.
Those stories show Man has flawed but still capable of hope and knowledge, while the interpretation of Genesis by the fundies gives us only the grim "obey or else" of eternal slaves. I like the Greek version of Mankind better and it comports with my everyday experiences of my fellow Man far more than the "vile and depraved" paradigm that their belief system assigns to the human race.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIt 's not that simple since my view of God is essentially the same as his Son's. If something it the OT doesn't fit that well too bad for people that think that's the literal word of God.. cause is surely ain't.
It is comparing apples and oranges, the way that people are trying
to make them look the same only shows that they don't have either
a clue what the Biblical story is, or that they have preconceived
ideas about God and are going to force them into the their
conclusions no matter if they fit that story or not.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
The best way to argue is to say that in order to bequeath free will to his creations he had to give them options and the options they choose forced him to kill them.Assuming that he didn't need the space in the garden to put up a gazebo or something.
Seriously, I think you are right: God wanted to see what A & E would do if they were given the opportunity to go forward. After all, the "apple" is a symbol of desire. Perhaps he wanted to awaken their desire rather than inject them with free will. Might seem cruel to modern sensibilities, sure. Perhaps God lacked empathy. (I favour the Patripassianist view: that God suffered with Christ on the cross--and he deserved it).
What makes Genesis weirder than it need be is the bad patriarchal editing. Some very interesting stories get left out--that of Lilith, for one. I could do with more on those god-men who walked the earth, too. The Nephilim.
29 Jun 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoegot a better idea ,, since we can change analogies.
Well, dear debaters, how does the story change if you replace the cookies by deadly poison ? .....
Does it represent the real thing more do you think ?
lets change: the older brother to a serpent
the twins to adam and eve
the cookies to the fruit on the tree of knowlege good and evil
the house to the Garden of Eden
and then see what they say about Mom.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompWell that is what is taking place, it isn't that the scriptures say the
got a better idea ,, since we can change analogies.
lets change: the older brother to a serpent
the twins to adam and eve
the cookies to the fruit on the tree of knowlege good and evil
the house to the Garden of Eden
and then see what they say about Mom.
same thing as in No1's analogy, but the attempt is there to make it
sound that way. Just as I pointed out to him in his 2nd analogy where
he was the killer not the electric cord, you want it to say the way
you want to, so the claims are made. What is written does not matter,
only the way you think about God and want to paint Him out to be
nothing else matters.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThat really isn't the case , the OT defines the OT god /
Well that is what is taking place, it isn't that the scriptures say the
same thing as in No1's analogy, but the attempt is there to make it
sound that way. Just as I pointed out to him in his 2nd analogy where
he was the killer not the electric cord, you want it to say the way
you want to, so the claims are made. What is written does not matter,
only the way you think about God and want to paint Him out to be
nothing else matters.
Kelly
just like novels define characters, you read the book and you get an impression of who the character is. That is of course, the novelist writes it well enough to convey what he wants you to think about the character.
I do realize Moses wasn't exactly Sabbatini, but then God isn't exactly Scaramouche
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by kirksey957So you're saying god is fallible , and will make mistakes when confronted with the new ?
#1, I would be interested in your writing the parable over in a way that represents the way you think God should be interacting. This is a serious request and I am not baiting you.
One of the things that we may not take into consideration in the Genesis story is that all this is new to God. How is he supposed to know how to act? It's not like there is a wealth of collective knowledge about how to deal with these creations.