NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok here's how my challenge goes (I hope I dont mean to offend any more devout Christians here):

if God had not wanted adam and eve to partake of knowledge from the apple, he simply would not have placed it in Eden. So then he musta have wanted to place the tree of knowledge there for *some* reason

along with knowledge comes responsibility on how to use it wisely; I think that's the true moral of that story

Another moral might be, along with the power of knowledge comes the loss of innocence. A genie released can never be put back in the bottle, so while knowledge is power, there is always a price to pay.

Ok here's how my challenge goes (I hope I dont mean to offend any more devout Christians here):

if God had not wanted adam and eve to partake of knowledge from the apple, he simply would not have placed it in Eden. So then he musta have wanted to place the tree of knowledge there for *some* reason

along with knowledge comes responsibility on how to use it wisely; I think that's the true moral of that story

The placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden was an affirmation of free will, and represents God's desire that people exercise it. If God had not placed the tree there, if God had not given man the opportunity to reject Him, then man's love for God would be meaningless. If God had simply created man to automatically love Him with no capability to reject him, said love would be robotic and meaningless. God had to give man the opportunity to fail and reject him, because then our choice to love, accept and follow him would mean something.

The Tree of Knowledge represented a choice. God was essentially saying "make your choice." The fall of man, quite frankly, marked the creation of love.

just so you know, in Catholicism we belive the story of Adam and Eve is a metephore about the relationship between God and the early Jews that everyone else takes too seriousley

Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs, they had
Two sets of arms, they had
Two set of legs, they had
Two faces peering out of one giant head
So they could watch all around
And as they talked while they read
And they never knew nothing of love
It was before the Origin of Love...

Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs, they had
Two sets of arms, they had
Two set of legs, they had
Two faces peering out of one giant head
So they could watch all around
And as they talked while they read
And they never knew nothing of love
It was before the Origin of Love...

You talking philosophy or off-Broadway musical? :D

just so you know, in Catholicism we belive the story of Adam and Eve is a metephore about the relationship between God and the early Jews that everyone else takes too seriousley

Yeah...like the whole "Adam and Steve" argument.

If it were a REAL, TRUE historical accounting, then I want to know this...and follow me through here.

In the beginning there was Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve had three sons...Seth, Cain and Abel.
Cain killed Abel.
We do not know if Abel ever reproduced before he was killed by his brother, so let us assume he did.
We, therefore, have four potential male breeders...Adam, Seth, Cain, and Abel.
We do not know if Adam and Eve had any daughters. Women were usually not considered important enough to mention, so it may be they had daughters, whose names we don't know.

Nevertheless, we still have but four potential male breeders.

Now, here is what I want to know...
Which of the four...Seth, Cain, Abel, or Adam...committed incest with his own mother, or own daughter, in order to continue the huma race?

Obviously, the story is metaphor and not an accurate historical accounting.

Because we know God did not create another couple somewhere else...otherwise, we wouldn't all be stained by Original Sin.

this means we are all of the same blood, and therefore, ever single sexual encounter you have with ANYONE is, technically, incest...which the "moral" Christians claim to be abomination.

Ok here's how my challenge goes (I hope I dont mean to offend any more devout Christians here):

if God had not wanted adam and eve to partake of knowledge from the apple, he simply would not have placed it in Eden. So then he musta have wanted to place the tree of knowledge there for *some* reason

along with knowledge comes responsibility on how to use it wisely; I think that's the true moral of that story

The placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden was an affirmation of free will, and represents God's desire that people exercise it. If God had not placed the tree there, if God had not given man the opportunity to reject Him, then man's love for God would be meaningless. If God had simply created man to automatically love Him with no capability to reject him, said love would be robotic and meaningless. God had to give man the opportunity to fail and reject him, because then our choice to love, accept and follow him would mean something.

The Tree of Knowledge represented a choice. God was essentially saying "make your choice." The fall of man, quite frankly, marked the creation of love.

I like this. I have argued before that God did not want automatons, capable of only singing His praises, that would be meaningless.

this means we are all of the same blood, and therefore, ever single sexual encounter you have with ANYONE is, technically, incest...which the "moral" Christians claim to be abomination.

The definition of incest does not depend on whether or not people are "of the same blood" as obviously anyone and anything of similar species are "of the same blood."

The definition of incest depends on whether or not the local marrage custom allows two individuals to be married. The critical factor is how closely two individuals are related, not if they are related at all. The proximity of genetic relationship determines whether or not incest has occured.

And the explanation for preventing incest is simple: it helps assure genetic diversity. (EDIT: Which some "'moral' Christians" could explain as being the will of an intelligent designer who wished to see such diversity... :wink: )

God didnt want adam and eve to take of the fruit of the tree, but God gave them free will, eve was decieved by the snake and ate some, then seh somehow convinved adam to eat of the fruit.
so, its not a matter of God wanting them to, its a matter of free will, as it has been said before in this thread by someone.

The whole concept of original sin is based in free will.

Adam and Eve made choices. They both "chose" wrong in accordance with the fraility of not having knowledge; ignorance does this, and once knowledge is gained to overcome ignorance, one is more capable of breaking the "rules" set forth by the universe (or in this case, God).

Free will is the basis for life as we know it, for if God did not want us to know the difference of good and evil, we would not be having this conversation now, because life as we know it never would've evolved passed the garden of Eden.

What I want to know, where is Lilath in all of this (she is still seen as Adam's first female consort by certain sects of Kabbahlistic Judaism, even though current Rabbinic Judaism and Chirstianity both fail to acknowledge her).

Why would Adam come before Eve?
Particularly if your so-called God if genderless.
Why did it have to be Eve who grabbed the apple?
Are humans inherently insane thanks to chronic inscest among themselves?
If not where were all the other people hiding?
Which brings up another question: If there were other people were they created by the same God or by other Gods?
And could that be related to the commandment about having no Gods before Him?

Could someone explain this to me? :?

What I want to know, where is Lilath in all of this (she is still seen as Adam's first female consort by certain sects of Kabbahlistic Judaism, even though current Rabbinic Judaism and Chirstianity both fail to acknowledge her).

She was left on the cutting room floor after she pissed God and Adam off because she didn't want to be a slave.

Why would Adam come before Eve?
In Kabbala, he was created simultaneously with Lilith, but she ran away like a disobedient pet/

Particularly if your so-called God if genderless.
See above post

Why did it have to be Eve who grabbed the apple?
Because men wouldn't gossip with a snake

Are humans inherently insane thanks to chronic inscest among themselves?
No, it is due to floride in the water supply

If not where were all the other people hiding?
Belgium. (I hear they have a good motorway system)

Which brings up another question: If there were other people were they created by the same God or by other Gods?

And could that be related to the commandment about having no Gods before Him?
Well the reason was because he was a jealous God. Maybe God's spouse had ran away with another God who created the Indians.

If not where were all the other people hiding?
Belgium. (I hear they have a good motorway system)


HA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. :lol:

And could that be related to the commandment about having no Gods before Him?

Could someone explain this to me? :?

I can explain that one. Most all competent theologians and religious historians acknowledge that early Judaism was in fact hedotheistic, rather than monotheistic (note: most current forms and derivatives of Rabbinic Judaism are monotheistic, despite their hedotheistic roots). Being hedotheistic essentially means that one recognizes the existance of more that one deity/supernatural entity, but feel that only one is worthy of worship (i.e. one is inheriantly and demonstrably superior to all the others). Hence why the first commandment is "I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt not have any other gods before me".

If not where were all the other people hiding?
Belgium. (I hear they have a good motorway system)


HA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. :lol:

Glad you liked it.

It's an injoke between my friends.

Failsafe, must have the second clause.

[quote="Labrador"][

Obviously, the story is metaphor and not an accurate historical accounting.

quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Well Lab, that's the whole key to this isn't it. As long as we argue as if the facts were as described in the Old Testament, the debate is meaningless.
We have to try and understand why the ancient Jews wanted to tell that story, what was the message they were imparting and then we might get somewhere as to why we're all here.

I think the whole tree of knowledge thing shows what an asshole God is. Adam and Eve eat from the tree, they gain knowledge then He kicks them out of Eden for gaining knowledge. What a prick, what was His intention in creating humanity in the first place? Did He kick them out because He feared that after gaining knowledge they would rebel against their pervert oppressor? Maybe that was his reason all along. He wanted to perv on them for all eternity. Then after they ate from the tree He could no longer do that so He kicked them out as punishment.

Why did it have to be Eve who grabbed the apple?

Because Adam, as a male, was too dull and slow-witted to even notice anything other than Eve's chest.

I think the whole tree of knowledge thing shows what an asshole God is. Adam and Eve eat from the tree, they gain knowledge then He kicks them out of Eden for gaining knowledge. What a prick, what was His intention in creating humanity in the first place? Did He kick them out because He feared that after gaining knowledge they would rebel against their pervert oppressor? Maybe that was his reason all along. He wanted to perv on them for all eternity. Then after they ate from the tree He could no longer do that so He kicked them out as punishment.

"It's like the whole God thing, right. so God puts Adam and Eve in the garden and says, hey, guys do what you like, but don't eat the apple. And then they do, and God jumps up, AHA!! Gotcha. It doesn't matter if they never ate it. Because you're dealing with someone with the mentality that likes leaving bricks under hats on the pavement. They won't give up, you know perfectly well in the end they will get you." - Douglas Adams, paraphrase.