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

[Greatest I am]

!

I cannot get the P M to work.
Can I ask you to initiate a contact. I have a question.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

While I understand the "uncaused" theory, a light bulb just went off that what u are saying: the universe doesn't need to have a cause to exist. How do we reconcile "cause and effect" then?

Think of perfect nothingness like a glass of absolutely pure water cooled to below 0 degrees C. It only takes a tiny speck of dust to act as a nucleus and then it all solidifies at once. Nothingness is too perfect to persist, it is unstable, and must break down into things.

 

[billvon]

What natural inclination could cause a man, --- if Adam was a man and not a boy but the question applies either way, --- who knows nothing of sex, would make him think it is natural to try to poke skin right through with his penis?

Instinct.

What would make a female cat, who knows nothing of biology or obstetrics, think it was a good idea to bite through a kitten's umbilical cord?

Instinct.

What would make a baby, who knows nothing of nutrition or the process of digestion, stick a piece of apple in his mouth?

Instinct.

 

[sideshowbob]

What natural inclination could cause a man, --- if Adam was a man and not a boy but the question applies either way, --- who knows nothing of sex, would make him think it is natural to try to poke skin right through with his penis?

The hymen is not a chastity belt. Sometimes its breakage during the first intercourse isn't even noticed. Sometimes it's broken even earlier through masturbation. There's no reason to think that Eve's loss of virginity was any different from any other woman's - and no reason to think she knew what was happening.

 

[sideshowbob]

The Christians got it wrong.

And so did you. You keep insisting that Adam and Eve knew about good and evil when the story plainly says that they didn't. I quoted where God Himself said that they became more like him in knowing good and evil.

 

[wegs]

I cannot get the P M to work.
Can I ask you to initiate a contact. I have a question.

Regards
DL

Sorry about that; you can send a pm now, if you like.

Think of perfect nothingness like a glass of absolutely pure water cooled to below 0 degrees C. It only takes a tiny speck of dust to act as a nucleus and then it all solidifies at once. Nothingness is too perfect to persist, it is unstable, and must break down into things.

EXCELLENT explanation; thank you.

Instinct.

What would make a female cat, who knows nothing of biology or obstetrics, think it was a good idea to bite through a kitten's umbilical cord?

Instinct.

What would make a baby, who knows nothing of nutrition or the process of digestion, stick a piece of apple in his mouth?

Instinct.

Billvon rocks. That's all I wanted to say.

And so did you. You keep insisting that Adam and Eve knew about good and evil when the story plainly says that they didn't. I quoted where God Himself said that they became more like him in knowing good and evil.

I grew up learning it somewhat this way too; it is commonly taught this way in the Catholic Church.
Their innocence was lost once they decided to become "like gods," by eating of the tree.
The problem here, whether literal or not, is that sex between these two should never have been considered "evil."
I do think you explained it well from a moral standpoint, of what was intended here.

Growing up, it was used as a moral teaching not so much about sex, but about the consequences of disobeying God.

I understand that part of it, but it seems like an odd tale to simply illustrate the importance of understanding the sovereignty of God.

 

[Rav]

Sorry for the delay. I missed this post.

Once again, that idea is the gist of the story. You must find science fiction very confusing.

Not at all. The fundamental difference with the Garden of Eden narrative is that people argue that it's true; that it really happened! This invites a particular sort of critical analysis that people don't usually apply to works of fiction.

How the recognition of this fundamental difference has eluded you is a little perplexing. And it's important too, because it contextualizes the whole discussion. You can't just say "your analysis of the story is incorrect because the story says so, or because it doesn't actually say this, or that". You have to defend its truth value, because that is what is essentially being challenged. And then you have to defend the arguments you put forth to make sense of it in the same way.

Imagine a world with only two humans, one male and one female. There is no culture. There is no knowledge base for them to work from. All there is is curiosity (which we are assuming is innate in humans). The curiosity will lead to exploration and experimentation. Some experimentation may be pleasurable and some may not. Unsurprisingly, they will continue what is pleasurable and discontinue what is not.

There is no need for prior knowledge. They will invent sex on their own, quite naturally. As I suggested in another post, most of us invent masturbation exactly like that. Most of us also "play doctor" and would invent sexual intercourse just as naturally if we weren't surrounded by a society that insists on stopping us from doing it but inundates us with information about it.

You're really not listening to me at all.

Once again, I simply chose to explore the usefulness of some of your real world references in making sense of the narrative. Particularly, the ones involving animals.

If you understand the science-fiction setting of the Adam and Eve story you can see how wrong the OP is.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I am not actually throwing in with the main thrust of GIA's argument. I was simply addressing some of the arguments you used to refute him.

 

[Greatest I am]

Instinct.

What would make a female cat, who knows nothing of biology or obstetrics, think it was a good idea to bite through a kitten's umbilical cord?

Instinct.

What would make a baby, who knows nothing of nutrition or the process of digestion, stick a piece of apple in his mouth?

Instinct.

So if man was to work by instinct alone in Eden, what was God screwing with our instincts for by demanding that we remain as stupid as bricks and why did he decide to murder A & E when they decided not to remain stupid and without knowledge of damned near everything?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The hymen is not a chastity belt. Sometimes its breakage during the first intercourse isn't even noticed. Sometimes it's broken even earlier through masturbation. There's no reason to think that Eve's loss of virginity was any different from any other woman's - and no reason to think she knew what was happening.

Except that Eve could not has her hymen broken as that has good and evil implications and she could not know of anything that involved good and evil.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

And so did you. You keep insisting that Adam and Eve knew about good and evil.

You have it backwards.

The whole premise of the O P is that they were completely innocent till after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

Pay attention my friend.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

You can't just say "your analysis of the story is incorrect because the story says so, or because it doesn't actually say this, or that". You have to defend its truth value, because that is what is essentially being challenged.

If the analysis of the story is incorrect, its truth value is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Holden Caulfield has wings or not. If Greatest I am claims he does, I don't have to prove he doesn't. I only have to point out that the story doesn't say he does, so you can't legitimately claim he does.

 

[sideshowbob]

Except that Eve could not has her hymen broken as that has good and evil implications and she could not know of anything that involved good and evil.

If having her hymen broken has good and evil implications (and I don't think it really does) that doesn't mean that Eve knew about the good and evil implications. It's possible for good and evil implications to exist without everybody knowing what those good and evil implications are. That is, yet again yet again yet again, what the story is about.

 

[sideshowbob]

The whole premise of the O P is that they were completely innocent till after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

That's what I've been saying all along. Why are you arguing with me?

 

[Greatest I am]

If having her hymen broken has good and evil implications (and I don't think it really does) that doesn't mean that Eve knew about the good and evil implications. It's possible for good and evil implications to exist without everybody knowing what those good and evil implications are. That is, yet again yet again yet again, what the story is about.

Can you tell what a grape tastes like without knowing what grapes are?

Neither could A & E.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Sorry about that; you can send a pm now, if you like.

I tried to respond to your two notes but could not. Short version ---- go to it Girl and link me up.
Your post might go here or the political forum depending on your wording and focus.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

That's what I've been saying all along. Why are you arguing with me?

You say that while saying they had knowledge of issues that have good and evil aspects.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Can you tell what a grape tastes like without knowing what grapes are?

The taste of a grape has nothing to do with knowing good and evil. But yes, of course you can tell what food tastes like without knowing what food it is.

 

[sideshowbob]

You say that while saying they had knowledge of issues that have good and evil aspects.

What I keep saying is that they could do things without knowing the good and evil aspects of those things. A child can fire a gun without knowing the good and evil aspects. The fact that there are good and evil aspects is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't know what they are.

How many examples do you need before you can understand that simple concept?

 

[Greatest I am]

The taste of a grape has nothing to do with knowing good and evil. But yes, of course you can tell what food tastes like without knowing what food it is.

Nice twist on words.
Go play elsewhere. It is becoming apparent and I have no more time for your garbage.

Regards
DL

 

[Rav]

If the analysis of the story is incorrect, its truth value is irrelevant.

This is nonsense.

If the story is purported to be true, then it's truth value is relevant from the outset. We no longer examine it as a work of fiction, we compare it to what we can divine from reality.

But more importantly I've explained to you at least twice now that what I was actually taking issue with in this thread was the nature of some of your own references to reality to make sense of the story. But since you seem intent on not discussing them further, or simply admitting that they were perhaps somewhat problematic, I guess we're done here.