What is the point of earth (to god)?

[Lion IRC]

Their deliberate disobedience WAS them choosing that they wanted to decide for themselves what was good or evil.
They could have (blindly) just done what they were told - like sheep.
But they were free to choose - to learn - for themselves.

ETA - sometimes it takes some people longer to 'distinguish' right from wrong. Often we learn the hard way.

That's a valuable lesson, and also what makes for a good Bible story. It's when people start taking the story as literal truth that it becomes a problem. When taken literally, God looks like a negligent parent who not only doesn't keep an eye on his kids, but also sets them down in the middle of a dynamite factory with a flamethrower. Sooner or later, shit's gonna go sideways.

But if taken as the parable it's meant to be, it provides a life lesson and provides insight into the human condition (particularly that we're no different now than 10,000 years ago).

When taken literally, all the great Genesis stories are boiled down to one thing: don't piss God off or really bad shit's gonna happen to you. And if that's the only lesson to be learned, then Adam and Eve already took care of that message, thereby making Jonah and the Whale, the Great Flood, etc. merely redundant rather than having further/new teachings and insight.

The bible I read is predominantly about the way humans should treat each other
not "don't piss off God".

The wickedness leading up to the Flood was rape, murder, theft, lying...

We're the folks at Neneveh simply taking the Lords name in vane???

 

[Learner]

@ Rory
You'll find they have pondered and studied thoroughly and still studying whereby better understanding becomes clearer in context(s)... Justs as its written, the bible will reveal itself (at least from the theist pov if not the non-believer). That is to say; understanding more and connected verses to verses (where they corroborate). Parallelling science ..updating and interpreting data.

You must be talking about the types on TV networks.(etc.. so to speak )

 

[Learner]

Yes, she did. And WE know that because we have the ability to tell good from bad.
She did not, for at least one of those decisions. So it's dickish to judge her state of mind in comparison to a completely different state (to wit: having knowledge of good and evil).

It's also not clear that the knowledge was instantaneously transmitted upon partaking of the fruit, though.

She bit, she talked Adam into it, he bit, THEN the Books says that they were aware they were naked....
So maybe there was some time delay? Digesting the fruit?

...and .. they were both punished.

Yep. But for shit neither one was competent to decide at the time.

You haven't yet changed facts in the story to where Woman or Adam could be credibly held responsible for eating the fruit.

Will get back to you (Im working still) But you see ... it seems you have the notion that everything was done in one instance. For example : God created Adam and then Eve then tells them not to eat of the fruit. So therefore : No understanding of choices and consequences.

Later.

 

[bilby]

Their deliberate disobedience WAS them choosing that they wanted to decide for themselves what was good or evil.
They could have (blindly) just done what they were told - like sheep.
But they were free to choose - to learn - for themselves.

ETA - sometimes it takes some people longer to 'distinguish' right from wrong. Often we learn the hard way.

That's a valuable lesson, and also what makes for a good Bible story. It's when people start taking the story as literal truth that it becomes a problem. When taken literally, God looks like a negligent parent who not only doesn't keep an eye on his kids, but also sets them down in the middle of a dynamite factory with a flamethrower. Sooner or later, shit's gonna go sideways.

But if taken as the parable it's meant to be, it provides a life lesson and provides insight into the human condition (particularly that we're no different now than 10,000 years ago).

When taken literally, all the great Genesis stories are boiled down to one thing: don't piss God off or really bad shit's gonna happen to you. And if that's the only lesson to be learned, then Adam and Eve already took care of that message, thereby making Jonah and the Whale, the Great Flood, etc. merely redundant rather than having further/new teachings and insight.

The bible I read is predominantly about the way humans should treat each other
not "don't piss off God".

The wickedness leading up to the Flood was rape, murder, theft, lying...

Well, it's a good thing God drowned everyone and eradicated those forever then.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Will get back to you (Im working still) But you see ... it seems you have the notion that everything was done in one instance. .

that makes absolutely no fucking sense as an interpretation of my complaint.
I'm clearly not talking about an instance but a series of events, the order of which is significant in the assessment of culpability.

1
God created two beings who were without the ability to know good from bad.

2
They took an action that was morally neutral to THEM, at the time THEY acted.

3
God punished them for shit they COULD NOT have identified as a Bad Action at the time they acted.

This is worse than your lover waking up in the morning to say, 'i was drunk, my consent does not count.'
It's worse than Hangover Tom being mad that Drunk Tom likes to hide all the aspirin in the house, because Drunk Tom is gone before Hangover Tom needs those aspirin.
This is worse than punishing a one of a year old because two of the twenty words he knows are daddy's favorite swear words.

 

[Jobar]

Two questions, while we're on the subject of Eden.

1. In the Garden there were two trees that were specifically named; the Tree of Life, which was not forbidden; and the Tree of Knowledge, which was.

I always wondered; wouldn't A&E sample the fruit of the permitted tree first? And if they did, wouldn't that have made them immortal? AFAIK the ToL is never mentioned again, although I know Christians claim that it's a metaphor for Jesus.

2. God is omniscient; it says so right here on the label. That means that when the serpent was in the very act of tempting Eve, God was aware of every word. God watched the fruit being picked, watched Eve take the first bite. God saw when she took it to Adam and got him to also eat.

And God did nothing to stop any of that.

Even worse. Gen. 3:9- "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, 'Where art thou?'

God pretended to be unaware of where they were, and what had happened. He lied, so He could pretend it was all A&E's fault.

That's just bloody fuckin' despicable, that is.

So, Lion, Learner- just how do you justify that, in your own minds?

 

[Lion IRC]

Two questions, while we're on the subject of Eden.

1. In the Garden there were two trees that were specifically named; the Tree of Life, which was not forbidden; and the Tree of Knowledge, which was.

I always wondered; wouldn't A&E sample the fruit of the permitted tree first? And if they did, wouldn't that have made them immortal?

I think there was only one tree that was prohibited.
Had they not eaten it they would have had eternal life from the get-go.
And it's not like, ha ha God, we ate from the tree of life, now you can't take away our immortality.
God wanted them to choose life.

2. God is omniscient; it says so right here on the label. That means that when the serpent was in the very act of tempting Eve, God was aware of every word. God watched the fruit being picked, watched Eve that the first bite. God saw when she took it to Adam and got him to also eat.

And God did nothing to stop any of that.

What would be the point of telling someone not to do something they would never be able to do anyway? Don't eat the apple but even if you try I will intervene and prevent you. ????

Even worse. Gen. 3:9- "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, 'Where art thou?'

God pretended to be unaware of where they were, and what had happened. He lied, so He could pretend it was all A&E's fault.

That's just bloody fuckin' despicable, that is.

Ever considered the possibility that it's a rhetorical question?
It's right there in the text. God said unto Adam.
Saying something TO someone who is hiding right in front of you.

There's no pretending by God necessary in order to lay the blame on Adam.
And the text doesn't allow such a strained, contorted interpretation IMHO.
Have you got any hermeneutic evidence for your claim?

 

[Rhea]

Two questions, while we're on the subject of Eden.

1. In the Garden there were two trees that were specifically named; the Tree of Life, which was not forbidden; and the Tree of Knowledge, which was.

I always wondered; wouldn't A&E sample the fruit of the permitted tree first? And if they did, wouldn't that have made them immortal?

I think there was only one tree that was prohibited.
Had they not eaten it they would have had eternal life from the get-go.
And it's not like, ha ha God, we ate from the tree of life, now you can't take away our immortality.
God wanted them to choose life.

Why are christians so bad at following a point?


If they didn't need to eat from the tree of life to get eternal life, why did they have to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to gain knowledge of good and evil?

And it's not like, ha ha God, we ate from the tree of life, now you can't take away our immortality.

So he could take away their immortality after they eat the fruit of the tree of life,
but he couldn't take away their knowledge of good and evil after they ate from the tree of knowledge?
... because... ??

God wanted them to choose life.

And if god wanted them to choose life, and they didn't need to eat the fruit to choose eternal life, but if they had, he could take it away...

??

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

Say, why did god create a tree of knowledge of good and evil?

.

.

.

.

Really. Why.

Is it like those parents that put a gun on the coffee table to they can "teach" their toddler to not pick it up?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have never understood the idea of attempting to defend the Adam and Eve and garden allegory in Genesis. Or in any holy book for that matter. It's so obviously small compared to what we know today and trying to attach all these modern theological ideas to god in those stories just smacks as desperate.

 

[James Brown]

Without the Garden of Eden and the Fall, there's no sinful nature for everyone to be guilty of. And without that, there's no need for Jesus to die on the Cross.

For many Christians, without the Tree, a fundamental pillar of Christianity falls apart.

 

[bilby]

Without the Garden of Eden and the Fall, there's no sinful nature for everyone to be guilty of. And without that, there's no need for Jesus to die on the Cross.

For many Christians, without the Tree, a fundamental pillar of Christianity falls apart.

I'm not a Christian, but I agree with that analysis. The fundamentals of Christianity do fall apart, which is why it should be consigned to the bin along with all the other ideas that have been shown to be false.

 

[Rhea]

Without the Garden of Eden and the Fall, there's no sinful nature for everyone to be guilty of. And without that, there's no need for Jesus to die on the Cross.

For many Christians, without the Tree, a fundamental pillar of Christianity falls apart.

I'm not a Christian, but I agree with that analysis. The fundamentals of Christianity do fall apart, which is why it should be consigned to the bin along with all the other ideas that have been shown to be false.

Unless the tree is the ultimate tool of universal Muschausen By Proxy
God wanted to be worshipped
Adam and Eve were all, “what’s worship”
God: “when you say I’m the best of everything and you couldn’t live without me.”
Adam: “Everything’s great though. Everything.”
Eve: “And what’s, ‘without you’?”
God: “You ungrateful wretches, I’ll give you something to cry about! Then you’ll see how much you should have worshipped me!”
Eve: “you’re gong to make us cry?”
Adam: “what’s crying?”
God: “I mean, Oh, I love you so much. See that tree? Don’t eat from it.”
Adam: “I never noticed that before.”
Eve: “well, everything God made is good, so what’s the harm?”

God: (wipes the evidence of the feces off the feeding tube) “There. _now_ they’ll see how wonderful I am. No one loves them like I do.”

 

[Lion IRC]

I have never understood the idea of attempting to defend the Adam and Eve and garden allegory in Genesis. Or in any holy book for that matter. It's so obviously small compared to what we know today and trying to attach all these modern theological ideas to god in those stories just smacks as desperate.

I think you will mostly find Christianity defending its theological ideas only in response - when those ideas are attacked.

So if you want to talk about what "smacks as desperate", atheist proselytisers should ask themselves why THEY are so desperate to debunk some quaint garden allegory.
Exhibit 'A' - Rheas post above.
Non-stamp collectors who desperately want to talk about stamps.

 

[James Brown]

More like non-stamp collectors talking about the harmful effects that stamp collectors inflict on society because of their mad obsession.

I think that "If stamp collecting is the only legitimate hobby, why do so many people not like stamp collecting?" would be a valid topic for non-stamp collectors to discuss.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have never understood the idea of attempting to defend the Adam and Eve and garden allegory in Genesis. Or in any holy book for that matter. It's so obviously small compared to what we know today and trying to attach all these modern theological ideas to god in those stories just smacks as desperate.

I think you will mostly find Christianity defending its theological ideas only in response - when those ideas are attacked.

So if you want to talk about what "smacks as desperate", atheist proselytisers should ask themselves why THEY are so desperate to debunk some quaint garden allegory.
Exhibit 'A' - Rheas post above.
Non-stamp collectors who desperately want to talk about stamps.

What?! Only on planet Christian. If Christianity was as benign as you'd like to project, most likely most of us wouldn't be here. We'd just mumble about those people with the crazy beliefs, shake our heads, and move on. But one thing Christianity is not is benevolent. You aren't quite burning people at the stake anymore (and by the way, this was when YOU were in control) but you have this problem that every other religion has. Once it has enough followers and starts to run things, it gets ugly. This doesn't matter whether it's Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or almost any religion you care to name. The amount of harm it does correlate directly with how much power it has to enforce its silly ideas. While it's no longer fashionable to show up with the Inquisition, it most certainly still causes plenty of harm in today's age. In fact, Christianity is a former shell of itself even now. It's sects, even taken together has massive problems. It's either diddling kids, fighting science in public education, supporting authoritarians like Donald Trump, or splitting up families. There is one thing all these sects can agree on though, and that is that they hate certain minorities. Christianity in the US, in particular, has become a haven and justification for bigotry.

If only it would keep to itself.

 

[Lion IRC]

What's the harmful effect of treating others the way you would like to be treated?
What's the harmful effect of charities that care for the homeless and single mothers and AIDS sufferers? No, you don't want to talk about that do you.

You want to quibble of 'garden allegories' and whine about how democracy sucks when atheists are in the minority. You want to take the opium away from the masses and replace their religion with your own.

 

[Rhea]

I think you will mostly find Christianity defending its theological ideas only in response - when those ideas are attacked.

This is such a narcissistic Christian thing to say.

Today, I was at a fair and the ONLY thing someone tried to shove into my hands was a bible (idiotic Gideons). I did not attack this man, but he sure wanted to defend his theology right then!

If you would take out every single dumb christian law in our country so that you all would stop "defending your theology" onto us every waking moment, that'd be great. I'm sure I didn't attack some Christian over birth control this week, but damned if they aren't all forcefully "defending their theology" all over my insurance company, and my Planned Parenthood.



Yeah, it's just the kind of narcissism that thinks they can do no wrong, despite people explaining exactly how much harm they cause DAILY with their forced religionism on us, that when we ask them to stop they whine, "oh, why are you attacking me!? I never did nothin' to you!!"


So we're forced to hear your crap all year; in school, in public, at work, at sports games, at Rotary club meeting when we have to sit through your stupid prayers (defending your theology) or listen to your idiot bullying of non-believers, and we're forced to take harm from your stupid theology all year long in our medical care and our legal system,

and you have the utter obliviousness to say that it's strange for non-christians to talk about christianity when we can't get the crap off our shoes for 10 seconds before it's smeared on again just as thick the next step we take.


Narcissistic victim-blaming christians just doing their regular thing.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the harmful effect of treating others the way you would like to be treated?
What's the harmful effect of charities that care for the homeless and single mothers and AIDS sufferers? No, you don't want to talk about that do you.

You want to quibble of 'garden allegories' and whine about how democracy sucks when atheists are in the minority. You want to take the opium away from the masses and replace their religion with your own.

This deserves it's own thread (link). The list is so long as to be a derail from this.

 

[James Brown]

What's the harmful effect of treating others the way you would like to be treated?

Well, you listed one of the 'hit's of Christianity. A principle, by the way, that's been espoused by other cultures not influenced by Christianity, so really that falls under a philosophical truth.

What's the harmful effect of charities that care for the homeless and single mothers and AIDS sufferers? No, you don't want to talk about that do you.

Sure, let's talk about them.

Charity is another one of the 'hits' of Christianity. But since non-Christians are also charitable, it's not really relevant.

But what about the 'misses'? Are we allowed to talk about those?

 

[James Brown]

So if you want to talk about what "smacks as desperate", atheist proselytisers should ask themselves why THEY are so desperate to debunk some quaint garden allegory.

Of course, if threads like these are so bothersome to you, you're not being held here against your will. Up in the upper-right corner of the screen is a link that reads, "Log Out".

 

[Lion IRC]

So if you want to talk about what "smacks as desperate", atheist proselytisers should ask themselves why THEY are so desperate to debunk some quaint garden allegory.

Of course, if threads like these are so bothersome to you, you're not being held here against your will. Up in the upper-right corner of the screen is a link that reads, "Log Out".

WTF makes you think I find threads like this bothersome
Dude - I've been visiting places like this for 20 years.
So thanks for your totally redundant 'pro-tip' that I'm free to leave anytime I like.