God’s glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God’s second command to accomplish the first

[arauca]

It is not plain at all in Gen 1;28.

They were told to reproduce and could not without desire.

Your last shows that they knew nothing of reproduction and sex as they had no knowledge of nakedness.

Did you know anything of reproduction before you knew what nakedness was?

Of course not. No one does.
It is called innocence.

Regards
DL

Animals do it all the time and is programmed into the female to take cane of the new born, is it not nice ? Stop bitching about your Creator and give thanks that He give you Intelligence to explore the Scripture .
You can't helped you are part of Him is just that you are bitter about something so you are trying to degrade Him.

 

[sideshowbob]

You cannot do what requires a naked body without knowing what a naked body is.

Of course you can. Do rabbits "know" they're naked?

Can you be ready for sex without desire?

That has already been discussed above. Yes, you certainly can be ready for sex instinctively without any "desire" as desire is implied in Genesis. The instinct to reproduce requires no understanding of good and evil.

The point of the story is that Adam and Eve became different from the animals and more like God. The downside was that they understood the downside.

 

[wegs]

It is not plain at all in Gen 1;28.

They were told to reproduce and could not without desire.

You are adding 'not without desire.' The passage doesn't infer that.

Your last shows that they knew nothing of reproduction and sex as they had no knowledge of nakedness.

Instinctively, they could have known 'how' to procreate, without needing knowledge of anything further. We are guessing, but that seems possible.

Did you know anything of reproduction before you knew what nakedness was?

If by nakedness you mean, desire to have sex, yes. I understood biology or at least learned the mechanics of things, long before I felt desire to do so myself.
I learned about reproduction in 8th grade, and I didn't have any desires back then, other than some isolated crushes on boys. But, not of a sexual nature.
If that is what you mean by nakedness, that is my answer.

Of course not. No one does.
It is called innocence.

This tells me that you did in fact mean, lust. And as we have evolved, we have been taught things that we necessarily don't need to experience to understand. Do you agree?

The point of the story is that Adam and Eve became different from the animals and more like God. The downside was that they understood the downside.

well said

You cannot do what requires a naked body without knowing what a naked body is.

"Lack of "desire", if you want to call it that, doesn't prevent nature from working the way it does"

Can you be ready for sex without desire?

Biologically speaking, women don't 'need' sexual desire for procreation to occur.
If we are speaking of enjoyable sex, that is not the same as procreation. Procreation is strictly the act of bringing about offspring. We are now in a day and age (thank goodness), where women also have spoken up, and want to receive pleasure as well, 'during' procreation. But, there was a time when women's feelings on the subject mattered little, if at all. So. Yes. One can procreate, without 'wanting it.'

 

[Greatest I am]

Animals do it all the time and is programmed into the female to take cane of the new born, is it not nice ? Stop bitching about your Creator and give thanks that He give you Intelligence to explore the Scripture .
You can't helped you are part of Him is just that you are bitter about something so you are trying to degrade Him.

Hardly. He has done that on his own.

Your ignoring what I said says that you have no argument against so your deflecting I ignore.

You are right that I cannot help having God within me but it is not the genocidal son murderer that you hold dear.

The God I know has morals. Yours does not.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Of course you can. Do rabbits "know" they're naked?


That has already been discussed above. Yes, you certainly can be ready for sex instinctively without any "desire" as desire is implied in Genesis. The instinct to reproduce requires no understanding of good and evil.

The point of the story is that Adam and Eve became different from the animals and more like God. The downside was that they understood the downside.

Yet Christians call that elevation a fall and has God cursing man for it.

Be it instincts or intelligent desire driven, you nor any other animal cannot and will not reproduce without desire.

Everything is desire driven and if you cannot see it then perhaps this Rabbi can help you understand that Jewish myth.


http://www.onbeing.org/program/genesis-desire/feature/room-avivah-zornberg/11

Regards
DL

 

[arauca]

Hardly. He has done that on his own.

Your ignoring what I said says that you have no argument against so your deflecting I ignore.

You are right that I cannot help having God within me but it is not the genocidal son murderer that you hold dear.

The God I know has morals. Yours does not.

Regards
DL

Which is your god , were is your god >

I think you are missing my point . God created life and said go and multiply and let nature have its own way , you and I are part of nature , and He give us some commandment to live by . Since we don't listen so He sent Yashua which is the living word . In other way the example how a man out of flesh should life . So as Yashua said I am the way if you want to get to God you have to live ( relationship man to man ) as he did .

 

[Greatest I am]

You are adding 'not without desire.' The passage doesn't infer that.



Instinctively, they could have known 'how' to procreate, without needing knowledge of anything further. We are guessing, but that seems possible.



If by nakedness you mean, desire to have sex, yes. I understood biology or at least learned the mechanics of things, long before I felt desire to do so myself.
I learned about reproduction in 8th grade, and I didn't have any desires back then, other than some isolated crushes on boys. But, not of a sexual nature.
If that is what you mean by nakedness, that is my answer.



This tells me that you did in fact mean, lust. And as we have evolved, we have been taught things that we necessarily don't need to experience to understand. Do you agree?



well said



Biologically speaking, women don't 'need' sexual desire for procreation to occur.
If we are speaking of enjoyable sex, that is not the same as procreation. Procreation is strictly the act of bringing about offspring. We are now in a day and age (thank goodness), where women also have spoken up, and want to receive pleasure as well, 'during' procreation. But, there was a time when women's feelings on the subject mattered little, if at all. So. Yes. One can procreate, without 'wanting it.'

So you think that two people who know all there is to know or count on instincts will not reproduce when commanded to and will just wait for some other time to do so.

B S.

Give a man any opportunity and if he has DESIRE, he will do any woman that is alive and some that are dead.

You likely have a point on women but the times we are speaking of, man ruled over woman.

You may want to listen to this woman. She makes a lot of sense.

http://www.onbeing.org/program/genesis-desire/feature/room-avivah-zornberg/11

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Which is your god , were is your god >

I have not named him as that would be idol worship.

Where is my God, the exact spot Jesus said he would be.

Is the kingdom of God not within you as Jesus taught?

Mine is.

I think you are missing my point . God created life and said go and multiply and let nature have its own way ,

You have nothing to prove that God created anything. And if you follow bible God with his low morals then you are going to hell.

Your statement is biblically wrong as God did not let nature have it's way.
He put Satan right there to tempt Eve and that is hardly letting nature take it's course.

you and I are part of nature , and He give us some commandment to live by .

We are a part of nature and God never gave anyone a command.
Only a fool would think that a God would write or inspire such an immortal bible.

Since we don't listen so He sent Yashua which is the living word . In other way the example how a man out of flesh should life . So as Yashua said I am the way if you want to get to God you have to live ( relationship man to man ) as he did .

Believe as you will. You seem to have no morals and have nothing to teach me.

I know all about you having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that you should line up to profit from God having his son murdered but that is all immoral B S that you have bought into.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning.
He would know that barbaric human sacrifice is immoral.

You do too. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

When you die, Satan will ask you; How was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

When you say yes, you become his.

You really need to start thinking as Jesus taught and how the churches never will.

[video=youtube;FdSVl_HOo8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y[/video]

Regards
DL

 

[wegs]

So you think that two people who know all there is to know or count on instincts will not reproduce when commanded to and will just wait for some other time to do so.

Forgive me, I don't completely follow you here? Adam and Eve didn't "know everything." And we can only assume from Genesis 1:28 that they followed what God commanded--that they multiply.

Give a man any opportunity and if he has DESIRE, he will do any woman that is alive and some that are dead.

I'm not a man, but I'm going to have to disagree.
Find it surprising no men here commented on this assertion.

You likely have a point on women but the times we are speaking of, man ruled over woman.

The issue though is, what was life like for Adam and Eve prior to eating of the tree of knowledge? There isn't much to go on except that they were asked to multiply. We can assume they did. We can assume they did with innocence, and once they "sinned"...their innocence was "gone." But what is your overall point? Could u clarify?

You may want to listen to this woman. She makes a lot of sense.

http://www.onbeing.org/program/genesis-desire/feature/room-avivah-zornberg/11

I will check it out; thanks.

 

[Rav]

Yes, you certainly can be ready for sex instinctively without any "desire" as desire is implied in Genesis. The instinct to reproduce requires no understanding of good and evil.

Are you actually suggesting that Adam got an erection, decided to insert it into Eve (we can assume respectfully so, if you like), had an orgasm and finally ejaculated a bunch of little spermies inside her, all without anything that even resembled sexual desire and/or pleasure? How did he have an orgasm then? Or are you saying that before the fall ejaculation was a fundamentally different psychological and physiological event? I can actually accept that for the sake of argument, but I have far more trouble with the suggestion that the sexual relationship dynamic of God's two prized creations was essentially no different from that of the baser instinct of mere animals. It just doesn't quite gel if we're trying to paint a consistent and credible looking picture.

Care to take a better stab at it?

 

[Greatest I am]

Wegs

If you cannot connect A & E's eyes being opened and them discovering nakedness, as discovering sexual thoughts, then we have nowhere to go.

P.S.
The men did not attack my response to you because they know it is true.

Regards
DL

 

[wegs]

If you cannot connect A & E's eyes being opened and them discovering nakedness, as discovering sexual thoughts, then we have nowhere to go.

I can connect that. I'm not sure why you think I said otherwise. But ok.

That said, I still question whether Genesis is meant to be metaphorical to its reader.

P.S.
The men did not attack my response to you because they know it is true.

Not all men will "do" any woman as you suggest in post #27.
I still disagree. Lol

 

[Rav]

The men did not attack my response to you because they know it is true.

Actually I just didn't feel the need to go to all the bother of disagreeing with such an absurd generalization. If I spoke up every single time I disagreed with the manner in which someone characterized something around here, I'd barely have time for anything else. But now you're trying to double-down on the purported accuracy of your statement my radar is blipping in a way I don't want to ignore anymore.

Give a man any opportunity and if he has DESIRE, he will do any woman that is alive and some that are dead.

The first part of that is not necessarily inaccurate. I mean yeah, when a man sexually desires a woman and has the opportunity to sleep with her, he typically will. But the way you've phrased the sentence bothers me. It's like there's an underlying assumption that all men are essentially sex crazed animals who are perpetually trying to force themselves on women. Obviously this isn't the case. As for dead part, that's just further confirmation that I've accurately discerned the sort of direction in which you were thinking.

The truth is that the human sex drive, especially among men, is indeed a powerful force. But it is certainly not beyond moderation and control. Those few for whom it is are just weak.

 

[Greatest I am]

I can connect that. I'm not sure why you think I said otherwise. But ok.

That said, I still question whether Genesis is meant to be metaphorical to its reader.



Not all men will "do" any woman as you suggest in post #27.
I still disagree. Lol

My brush was a bit wide I agree but I stand by the thought with a smaller brush.

As to the bible. FMPOV only fools will read it literally.
Doing so makes them idol worshippers of their Godinabook and that screw up their morals because they have to have a double set to exonerate their genocidal son murdering God.

All religions are myths based, not reality based, even as all myths are based on reality with fantasy scenarios and characters thrown in.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Actually I just didn't feel the need to go to all the bother of disagreeing with such an absurd generalization. If I spoke up every single time I disagreed with the manner in which someone characterized something around here, I'd barely have time for anything else. But now you're trying to double-down on the purported accuracy of your statement my radar is blipping in a way I don't want to ignore anymore.



The first part of that is not necessarily inaccurate. I mean yeah, when a man sexually desires a woman and has the opportunity to sleep with her, he typically will. But the way you've phrased the sentence bothers me. It's like there's an underlying assumption that all men are essentially sex crazed animals who are perpetually trying to force themselves on women. Obviously this isn't the case. As for dead part, that's just further confirmation that I've accurately discerned the sort of direction in which you were thinking.

The truth is that the human sex drive, especially among men, is indeed a powerful force. But it is certainly not beyond moderation and control. Those few for whom it is are just weak.

No argument.

I have already taken the excuse of artistic liberty to what I wrote and shrank my brush above.

Regards
DL

 

[wellwisher]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is connected to moral law. Moral laws tell us which behavior is good and which behavior is evil. This is knowledge of good and evil. This tree is the favorite of Satan, since the self righteous love to abuse in the name of law, doing worse evil then what they claim is so bad.

Relative to moral law, sin is not imputed where there is no law. If we went back 100 years ago, there was no law against smoking marijuana. If someone smoked this, there was no self righteous and no social sin in the dynamics. There was no awareness that what you were doing was anything but part your free choice. Once the law/knowledge of good and evil was created, by prohibitions, now sin was now imputed. People or the collective and individual now see the same thing differently. The behavior did not change, just the perception created by this knowledge of good and evil and the altered social perception.

Adam and Eve would have acted without shame of being naked using natural instinct before the fall. Once they eat of the tree of knowledge they learn moral law and see the same thing in a different way, due to sin now being imputed by the law of good and evil.

As a modern example, it was not crime not to have health insurance in the USA last year. But next year, this is a sin. This knowledge of good and evil will now allow the self righteous to beat on you. They will call that good. God said, the moment you eat of that tree you shall surely die. What dies is the age of innocence, where not having health insurance meant you were free from sickness. Now you much act sick or the self righteous will beat you with the rod of their own law. Satan likes this tree because it leads to more evil.

 

[Rav]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is connected to moral law. Moral laws tell us which behavior is good and which behavior is evil. This is knowledge of good and evil. This tree is the favorite of Satan, since the self righteous love to abuse in the name of law, doing worse evil then what they claim is so bad.

Relative to moral law, sin is not imputed where there is no law. If we went back 100 years ago, there was no law against smoking marijuana. If someone smoked this, there was no self righteous and no social sin in the dynamics. There was no awareness that what you were doing was anything but part your free choice. Once the law/knowledge of good and evil was created, by prohibitions, now sin was now imputed. People or the collective and individual now see the same thing differently. The behavior did not change, just the perception created by this knowledge of good and evil and the altered social perception.

Adam and Eve would have acted without shame of being naked using natural instinct before the fall. Once they eat of the tree of knowledge they learn moral law and see the same thing in a different way, due to sin now being imputed by the law of good and evil.

As a modern example, it was not crime not to have health insurance in the USA last year. But next year, this is a sin. This knowledge of good and evil will now allow the self righteous to beat on you. They will call that good. God said, the moment you eat of that tree you shall surely die. What dies is the age of innocence, where not having health insurance meant you were free from sickness. Now you much act sick or the self righteous will beat you with the rod of their own law. Satan likes this tree because it leads to more evil.

In other words, nakedness is shameful because God declared it to be shameful. But it clearly wasn't inherently shameful as evidenced by his former endorsement of it. Thus your argument is that rather than the nature of morality being something that is derived from the fundamental nature of things, it is merely a seemingly arbitrary divine declaration. No surprise there since a large chuck of the Old Testament tells the same story.

I've observed that many of the more fundamentalist religious types have lost the ability to independently navigate the moral landscape because they're so used to letting someone else do the driving. This is evidenced by the fact that when they imagine being behind the wheel themselves they often say things like "what's to stop me from raping and pillaging?". My point here is that if one actually wants to make genuine moral choices one needs to understand the reasons behind your so called "moral law". So just out of curiosity then, can you tell us why nudity was fine one minute, but inherently shameful the next?

 

[Greatest I am]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is connected to moral law. Moral laws tell us which behavior is good and which behavior is evil. This is knowledge of good and evil. This tree is the favorite of Satan, since the self righteous love to abuse in the name of law, doing worse evil then what they claim is so bad.

Relative to moral law, sin is not imputed where there is no law. If we went back 100 years ago, there was no law against smoking marijuana. If someone smoked this, there was no self righteous and no social sin in the dynamics. There was no awareness that what you were doing was anything but part your free choice. Once the law/knowledge of good and evil was created, by prohibitions, now sin was now imputed. People or the collective and individual now see the same thing differently. The behavior did not change, just the perception created by this knowledge of good and evil and the altered social perception.

Adam and Eve would have acted without shame of being naked using natural instinct before the fall. Once they eat of the tree of knowledge they learn moral law and see the same thing in a different way, due to sin now being imputed by the law of good and evil.

As a modern example, it was not crime not to have health insurance in the USA last year. But next year, this is a sin. This knowledge of good and evil will now allow the self righteous to beat on you. They will call that good. God said, the moment you eat of that tree you shall surely die. What dies is the age of innocence, where not having health insurance meant you were free from sickness. Now you much act sick or the self righteous will beat you with the rod of their own law. Satan likes this tree because it leads to more evil.

Yet God created that tree.
Then your words explains why God is so evil.

He admits that A & E became like God.
From YPOV, God must be evil, so you may be right.

Perhaps that is why that immoral God murdered them. He did not liker his own evil reflection.

Makes sense as he would not like the look of a genocidal son murderer. His own look.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

In other words, nakedness is shameful because God declared it to be shameful. But it clearly wasn't inherently shameful as evidenced by his former endorsement of it. Thus your argument is that rather than the nature of morality being something that is derived from the fundamental nature of things, it is merely a seemingly arbitrary divine declaration. No surprise there since a large chuck of the Old Testament tells the same story.

I've observed that many of the more fundamentalist religious types have lost the ability to independently navigate the moral landscape because they're so used to letting someone else do the driving. This is evidenced by the fact that when they imagine being behind the wheel themselves they often say things like "what's to stop me from raping and pillaging?". My point here is that if one actually wants to make genuine moral choices one needs to understand the reasons behind your so called "moral law". So just out of curiosity then, can you tell us why nudity was fine one minute, but inherently shameful the next?

Wow. I could sure use you in my hip pocket.
Well thought out.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Are you actually suggesting that Adam got an erection, decided to insert it into Eve (we can assume respectfully so, if you like), had an orgasm and finally ejaculated a bunch of little spermies inside her, all without anything that even resembled sexual desire and/or pleasure?

I didn't say that. I thought I was fairly clear but yes, I will take another stab at it:

There's no reason to think that Adam and Eve didn't have sex before the fall - but sex doesn't require "desire" any more than picking up a stone and throwing it requires "desire". It comes naturally. If Adam and Eve had sex before they ate the fruit (and there's nothing in the story to specify whether they did or didn't), they did it innocently, like throwing a rock. The knowledge of good and evil which they aquired by eating the fruit made them aware of the consequences; there may be children to take care of, there may be diseases, there may be jealousy. They lost their innocence. They discovered that throwing rocks, however easy and natural it may be, has to be done responsibly.