You're misusing the word "desire". If the rabbi has a point to make, tell us what it is in your own words.Everything is desire driven and if you cannot see it then perhaps this Rabbi can help you understand that Jewish myth.
You're misusing the word "desire". If the rabbi has a point to make, tell us what it is in your own words.Everything is desire driven and if you cannot see it then perhaps this Rabbi can help you understand that Jewish myth.
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
Can you not accept the tree of life as a metaphor of a writer ? why do you have to make such an issue. Or is it that that like to bad mouth god and you find all sort of pretext to do it.
You're misusing the word "desire". If the rabbi has a point to make, tell us what it is in your own words.
I didn't say that. I thought I was fairly clear but yes, I will take another stab at it: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?
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.
To think that God would create something to eventually become something He would view as evil is a stretch, even for me, as a believer.
One other sticking point I have is...
Adam and Eve "seem" to be in a monogamous relationship. Why would their desire for one another be seen as evil, suddenly? I think the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for cause and effect and an example of God giving man free will. Okay, but they weren't doing anything wrong.
They seemed committed to one another, so the story seems to paint God as having a problem with sex, a natural act that He created.
2) sex prior to their sin was less about desire and more procreative in nature.
One other sticking point I have is...
Adam and Eve "seem" to be in a monogamous relationship. Why would their desire for one another be seen as evil, suddenly? I think the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for cause and effect and an example of God giving man free will. Okay, but they weren't doing anything wrong.
They seemed committed to one another, so the story seems to paint God as having a problem with sex, a natural act that He created.
Hence my earlier inquiry into the nature of sexual intercourse between two physiologically modern human beings who supposedly didn't or couldn't experience sexual desire. It's one thing to merely present a broad speculative outline and quite another to make a truly compelling case that is also both scientifically and scripturally consistent.
The truth of the matter is that half-arsed apologetics just irritate me because really, they're a dime a dozen. Even if we could ignore all the non-christian religious fundamentalists out there who will dispute the validity of Christian apologetics in favour of their own, we still have a plethora of inconsistent and even conflicting denominational Christian views concerning precisely how biblical narratives should be interpreted. So I trust you'll forgive me saying that the most reasonable conclusion is that people are simply just making shit up, and shouldn't that offend our sense of philosophical integrity? And again, what is sideshowbob even bothering with this for if he accepts the modern evolutionary synthesis, as he clearly implies that he does? There's just no credible way that you can meld a literal interpretation of genesis with that. And if we're abandoning a literal interpretation of genesis why try to insist that you can have anatomically modern humans who procreate in a way that is actually less human than nonhuman apes, and presumably the common ancestor of both too. I mean really, show me any ape without sexual desire.
Having sex does not require "knowing" about sex. Have you ever seen The Blue Lagoon? Adam and Even could have had sex before eating the fruit, like the children in The Blue Lagoon, without having any idea what sex was - just doing what came naturally, without any "desire", like throwing a rock.Sex has good and evil aspects and if one does not know good and evil one cannot know about sex.
I didn't say, "without anything that even resembled sexual desire and/or pleasure?" Certainly, sex would have caused pleasure. They (could have) started out by doing something that was fun, like throwing a rock, and (would have) continued doing it as long as it was fun. There didn't need to be any, "I'd sure like to f**k that," beforehand.You didn't say that there was no desire involved in their sexual encounters?
It has nothing to do with "apologetics". I'm just pointing out what the story says, the same way I would point out what The Wind in the Willows says.But more important than all that is the question of why you are even trying to engage in garden of eden narrative apologetics....
Are you suggesting that I have to believe the Bible is true before I can discuss what it says?So tell me, are you speaking with conviction here, or just playing games?
Having sex does not require "knowing" about sex. Have you ever seen The Blue Lagoon? Adam and Even could have had sex before eating the fruit, like the children in The Blue Lagoon, without having any idea what sex was - just doing what came naturally, without any "desire", like throwing a rock.
The word "desire" is not used until Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit. They aquired desire along with knowledge.
Did A & E have any knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree of knowledge?
No.
Then they could not engage in sex as it has good and evil aspects and they did not have that knowledge.
Sex isn't rocket science or aviation. It is, quite obviously, something that can be done without the knowledge of good and evil and it is done without the knowledge of good and evil by every species on earth except for man.If you have no knowledge of how to fly a plane, can you fly a plane?
Earthworms have no knowledge of good and evil.