Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

And nothing in there says "He's telling her what she wants to hear." Nor does envy come into it. At all.

I suppose it says ''the snake tricked her''. I don't think.
And envy does come into it, you just don't understand it. That's all.

No, that's completely wrong. The concept is completely different. Hell in the NT is a place dedicated to eternal suffering as punishment for bad deeds. The "underworld" of the OT was where everyone went.

The word ''Hell'' didn't come into being untill well after Jesus' time.

You don't know the first thing about Darwinian evolution, for one. And no, "original sin" is not a vague concept, it's a very specific one. You changing the terminology doesn't change the concept.

Everybody knows the first thing about DE.
And yes ''original sin'' is a vague concept, and it's specificity is based on vagueness i.e, no one knows what it acutally is.

No, you didn't differentiate, you equivocated. You're not fooling anyone with this crap.

I don't have to make a point of differentation as the titles themselves do that.

I have no idea what you mean by "relieve yourself of the responsibility of drawing a conclusion."
Chances are, you don't mean anything by it, because you don't understand it.

All conclusions lead to God, as opposed to no God, which is why you shy away from drawing any.

But the reason you can only find that one definition of "original sin" is that "original sin" is a specific Christian concept. It began in the middle ages and was based on a couple of passages from Paul in the NT

Yes, it's peoples idea of what is written in the Bible.
They believe Adam and Eve were the first people, so it naturally follows that everything they did was the first.

Not according Judeo-Christian scripture.

Examples please.

Reproduction wasn't the purpose of eating the fruit, and I have no idea where you get that idea.
Again, you're punching above your weight in that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Adam and Eve's sin was disobeying God.

''Fruit'' can mean different things

When Abraham said... Gen 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.. was he referring
to fruit seeds?

Or when God spoke to Abraham, saying... And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you, was talking about 'pomegranates and bananas?

And finally, why would God say... And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thyseed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


The problem with your accustations is that you don't know what you're talking about, but are too proud to acknowledge it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh my. The religions that existed for 2,000 odd years before Jesus was born will be so pleased that the concept of sin was not in their theologies.

Regards
DL

Actually the concept of ''sin'' (the act of transgression) is in the 'Vedas' which some believe the scriptures to be more than 5,,000 years old, not to mention
that the 'Vedas' are a written represention.

But more importantly, the idea of transgression is understood by developed minds. You could say it comes with the territory. Just like microsot windows automatically come
with firewall and antivirus software.

jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

Actually the concept of ''sin'' (the act of transgression) is in the 'Vedas' which some believe the scriptures to be more than 5,,000 years old, not to mention
that the 'Vedas' are a written represention.

But more importantly, the idea of transgression is understood by developed minds. You could say it comes with the territory. Just like microsot windows automatically come
with firewall and antivirus software.

jan.

Thanks for this Jan

Being absent minded, I sometimes forget the time line of things.

I have read about 8 of the holy books including Hinduism if memory serves.
The way my mind works is to take out the wisdom I find and basically forget the details.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Balerion,


I suppose it says ''the snake tricked her''. I don't think.
And envy does come into it, you just don't understand it. That's all.

.

Gen 3 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I see desire for wisdom here. Not envy.

You may like to listen to this as well if you have the time.
It shows the more intelligent original view instead otf the Christian one.

http://www.onbeing.org/program/genesis-desire/6

You might wonder why God told A & E to reproduce back in Gen 1 yet did not give them what they needed to do so till Gen 3.
What was missing and what they needed to do that first command was desire and the knowledge of good and evil.

IOW. They had to eat of the tree of knowledge to follow the first command. The most important on to both God and mankind if there was to be a mankind.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You mistake "punishments" for natural consequences. And no, a child will not understand a consequence, beforehand, that is completely beyond its experience.

Not my god. I have told you that before, but you never seem to learn.

Your example is naive and obtuse, at best. It relies solely upon a child have some prior knowledge of what "being grounded" means. Man could not fathom the consequences of the ability to make self-aware value judgments. Any more specific warning would have been as effective as telling a child that sweets will rot their teeth, before they have even experienced a dentist visit.


No doubt, you will blithely avoid considering any of this in favor of the morass of your supposed "enlightenment". Enlightenment is not the end of learning, it is the beginning.

Au contraire.

You have just shown us all the reason that God's punishment was unjust.

"a child will not understand a consequence, beforehand, that is completely beyond its experience. "

To A & E, you shall die meant absolutely nothing.

You think I consider you a dumb fuck and you are not that far off but I do not think you stupid. I just do not bother with your ilk because you always go for the personal instead of sticking to issues and to me that shows a small mind. You also never admit to losing an argument even when you have. I love to lose as that means I have learned something and that is one of the great joys of life.

Regards
DL

 

[Balerion]

I suppose it says ''the snake tricked her''. I don't think.
And envy does come into it, you just don't understand it. That's all.

No, you're just reading more into it than you should, is all. It says nothing of envy, it doesn't intimate that envy plays a role. There's nothing to be envious of.

The word ''Hell'' didn't come into being untill well after Jesus' time.

You're confused again. We're talking about the concept of hell, not the word itself. The English word "hell" is used in the OT today, but it is derived from a Hebrew word meaning "underworld" and lacks the negative connotations of the hell of the New Testament. Obviously the English word "Hell" doesn't come into existence until much later.

Everybody knows the first thing about DE.

You don't, clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a vague concept.

And yes ''original sin'' is a vague concept, and it's specificity is based on vagueness i.e, no one knows what it acutally is.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Original sin isn't discussed much in scripture, but the denominations themselves that believe in it have a very good idea of what it is. This is where you need to understand the difference between actual scripture and one's interpretation of it. But again, that would require you to educate yourself, which we both know you won't do.

I don't have to make a point of differentation as the titles themselves do that.

A point of differentation?

All conclusions lead to God, as opposed to no God, which is why you shy away from drawing any.

I'm gonna need an example of how all conclusions lead to God.

Yes, it's peoples idea of what is written in the Bible.
They believe Adam and Eve were the first people, so it naturally follows that everything they did was the first.

You're confused again. If it were simply a belief in Adam and Eve, then all denominations--and Judaism--would believe in original sin. Yet they don't. That's because the belief is based on the words of Paul the Apostle, who says that sin began with them.

Examples please.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

''Fruit'' can mean different things

When Abraham said... Gen 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.. was he referring
to fruit seeds?

:roflmao:

Yeah, I'm sure Abram was mad at God for not giving him any apple trees to be his heir. Because, obviously, trees can be heirs. That's also why in the very next verse God tells him to count the stars in the sky and know that that will be the number of his seeds. You know, because Abram wanted to start a Christmas tree farm. Obviously.

Or when God spoke to Abraham, saying... And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you, was talking about 'pomegranates and bananas?

No, he was talking about his children.

And finally, why would God say... And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thyseed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Because God's an asshole.

There are two problems with your "fruit can mean different things" rant; first, at no point in any of these verses is fruit mentioned. Secondly, "seed" is only used in one context in any of these examples: Offspring. So clearly "fruit" and "seed" are not interchangeable in the bible, and even if fruit was a metaphor (which it does not seem to be) it certainly wouldn't be a metaphor for children, as "seed" already serves that purpose.

The problem with your accustations is that you don't know what you're talking about, but are too proud to acknowledge it.

jan.

The preceding quote was brought to you by IRONY.

 

[Syne]

Au contraire.

You have just shown us all the reason that God's punishment was unjust.

"a child will not understand a consequence, beforehand, that is completely beyond its experience. "

To A & E, you shall die meant absolutely nothing.

You think I consider you a dumb fuck and you are not that far off but I do not think you stupid. I just do not bother with your ilk because you always go for the personal instead of sticking to issues and to me that shows a small mind. You also never admit to losing an argument even when you have. I love to lose as that means I have learned something and that is one of the great joys of life.

No, but you have just admitted the uselessness of any elaborate warning which could not be understood.

The warning does not matter so much because what you claim to be "punishment" was only natural consequence. A & E had free will from their creation (image of god), so whether there was any warning or not, their choices could have brought those natural consequences anyway. Just like a parent will tell their children not to do something "because I said so" in lieu of them being able to understand any reason, so it is here. There is no indication that A & E had any significant experience, so any warning would have likely been lacking. All that they could have understood was that there was some reason, whether they could comprehend that reason or not.

And I could not care less what you may think of me. Your constant excuse for dodging an argument seems to be an argument from fallacy. You cannot seriously claim that I have lost any argument you refuse to engage, and I have yet to see you learn anything.

 

[Greatest I am]

No, but you have just admitted the uselessness of any elaborate warning which could not be understood.

The warning does not matter so much because what you claim to be "punishment" was only natural consequence. A & E had free will from their creation (image of god), so whether there was any warning or not, their choices could have brought those natural consequences anyway. Just like a parent will tell their children not to do something "because I said so" in lieu of them being able to understand any reason, so it is here. There is no indication that A & E had any significant experience, so any warning would have likely been lacking. All that they could have understood was that there was some reason, whether they could comprehend that reason or not.

And I could not care less what you may think of me. Your constant excuse for dodging an argument seems to be an argument from fallacy. You cannot seriously claim that I have lost any argument you refuse to engage, and I have yet to see you learn anything.

A supernatural God with a talking snake and a supernatural tree curses a natural world and you call it natural consequences.

As we admit that A & E could not understand any good or evil because they had yet to know anything before eating of the tree of knowledge.

Ok.

Regards
DL

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

No, you're just reading more into it than you should, is all. It says nothing of envy, it doesn't intimate that envy plays a role. There's nothing to be envious of.

Not at all, the magician appealed to her envious nature, saying she will be on the same level as God if she entertained the forbidden fruit. And when she bore Cain, she boasted that she had gotten a man from from the Lord. As she had disobeyed God, she couldn't have meant God.

You're confused again. We're talking about the concept of hell, not the word itself. The English word "hell" is used in the OT today, but it is derived from a Hebrew word meaning "underworld" and lacks the negative connotations of the hell of the New Testament. Obviously the English word "Hell" doesn't come into existence until much later.

I'm afraid you're the one who is confused. ''Hell'' is not derived from hebrew, it is a separate concept intended to give an explanation of something that needs no explanation.
Further more it isn't used in the bible, meaning there is no hebrew word that translates into ''hell''. The english language is inadequate as far as translating scripture is concerned.

You don't, clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a vague concept.

That doesn't follow. It's vague because while it's being hailed as a scientific fact, there is no evidence, save an explanation, meaning it can't really be
a fact, unless we change the meaning of what is to be regarded as ''scientific fact''.

And yes ''original sin'' is a vague concept, and it's specificity is based on vagueness i.e, no one knows what it acutally is.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Original sin isn't discussed much in scripture, but the denominations themselves that believe in it have a very good idea of what it is. This is where you need to understand the difference between actual scripture and one's interpretation of it. But again, that would require you to educate yourself, which we both know you won't do.

For starters, disobedience isn't an act, and therefore isn't a sin. The act is the intention behind the disobedience.
Another, there is no such thing as apples, pears, bananas, or any fruit or plant that can give one knowledge of God.
So that blasts any idea of the mainstream notions of ''original sin'' out of the water. So like DE, it is vague as in having no basis in reality.

A point of differentation?

Meaning I don't have to make a distinction.

I'm gonna need an example of how all conclusions lead to God.

I can't make your conclusions for you, but I would be interested in how you conclude there is no God.

Yes, it's peoples idea of what is written in the Bible.
They believe Adam and Eve were the first people, so it naturally follows that everything they did was the first.

You're confused again. If it were simply a belief in Adam and Eve, then all denominations--and Judaism--would believe in original sin. Yet they don't. That's because the belief is based on the words of Paul the Apostle, who says that sin began with them.

I've already told you the concept is vague, and it's belief hinges on the notion that Adam and Eve were the first human beings (ever), therefore everything they do is original, including sin. That's it in a nutshell.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

How does this link demonstrate that sin ISN'T transgression of nature?

:roflmao:

Yeah, I'm sure Abram was mad at God for not giving him any apple trees to be his heir. Because, obviously, trees can be heirs. That's also why in the very next verse God tells him to count the stars in the sky and know that that will be the number of his seeds. You know, because Abram wanted to start a Christmas tree farm. Obviously.

So you think the ''tree of knowledge of good and evil'' was a fruit tree. Right?
What then, do you think ''the tree of life'' is?

And when God instucts the animals and humans to ''be fruitful and multiply'', did he mean gather as many apples and pears as they could, or did he mean to pro-create.

No, he was talking about his children.

By your logic, it could be construed as talking about flowers and plants.
How have you made the distinction?

Because God's an asshole.

But you still acknowledge His existence (even if it was a freudian slip).
The sub-conscious is mighty powerful.

There are two problems with your "fruit can mean different things" rant;
1. first, at no point in any of these verses is fruit mentioned.
2. Secondly, "seed" is only used in one context in any of these examples:
3. Offspring. So clearly "fruit" and "seed" are not interchangeable in the bible,
4. and even if fruit was a metaphor (which it does not seem to be) it certainly wouldn't be a metaphor for children, as "seed" already serves that purpose.

1. Didn't say it was, but we know that ''seeds'' can produce fruit, and God's instruction to living being was to be ''fruit-ful'' and multiply.
2. We know that, and ''fruit'' can be used as the transformation of ''seeds''. God said ''be fruit-ful'' and multiply.
3. They're not interchangable, period, but they are necessarily related.
4. How does it not seem to be?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

Gen 3 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I see desire for wisdom here. Not envy.

She/they had first class communication with God, undoubtedly the wisest of the wise, and the origin of all (including ''the tree of knowledge), and furthermore, they were aware of that. So why would she be seduced by a lesser being, into acquiring knowledge and wisdom?

Also, ''desire'' is the fuel of envy.

You might wonder why God told A & E to reproduce back in Gen 1 yet did not give them what they needed to do so till Gen 3.
What was missing and what they needed to do that first command was desire and the knowledge of good and evil.

He instucted the human race to reproduce, in genesis 1.
I doubt He told Adam and/or Eve to reproduce at all.
In fact Eve was created as a company for the lonely Adam.

IOW. They had to eat of the tree of knowledge to follow the first command. The most important on to both God and mankind if there was to be a mankind.

You assume they were the first people ever. Why?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Not at all, the magician appealed to her envious nature, saying she will be on the same level as God if she entertained the forbidden fruit.

The verse implies that she had never even seen the tree before, as she doesn't notice what it looks like until the snake tells her that it won't kill her. It may be greed, but her motives are not described as being envious.

And when she bore Cain, she boasted that she had gotten a man from from the Lord. As she had disobeyed God, she couldn't have meant God.

Of course she meant God. "Lord," "God," and "Lord God" are all used to describe the God character in the Eden story.

I'm afraid you're the one who is confused. ''Hell'' is not derived from hebrew, it is a separate concept intended to give an explanation of something that needs no explanation.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. But I'll repeat myself about hell since you apparently have reading comprehension difficulties: Hell in the OT is derived from the Hebrew word Sheol.

[/quote]Further more it isn't used in the bible, [/quote]

Um...?

It's used at least 65 times in the OT.

Can't keep your story straight, eh?

meaning there is no hebrew word that translates into ''hell''. The english language is inadequate as far as translating scripture is concerned.

Well, the King James bible translates "Gehenna" into hell, which is why the word shows up in the OT at all, but is an inaccurate translation. The "Hell" of Christianity comes from the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek.

That doesn't follow. It's vague because while it's being hailed as a scientific fact, there is no evidence, save an explanation, meaning it can't really be
a fact, unless we change the meaning of what is to be regarded as ''scientific fact''.

Again, wrong. There are mounds of evidence. You're either not intelligent enough to understand it, or unwilling to accept based on personal bias. Either way, you're wrong.

For starters, disobedience isn't an act, and therefore isn't a sin. The sin is the intention behind the act of disobedience.

These two sentences contradict each other. First disobedience isn't an act, then the focus is the intention behind the act of disobedience.

And the bible--especially the Eden story--makes clear that intention has absolutely nothing to do with it. The snake tricked the woman, and the man believed his wife, and still they were punished for eternity. All God wanted to know was "Did you eat that fruit?" And when the answer was yes, he booted them.

Another, there is no such thing as apples, pears, bananas, or any fruit or plant that can give one knowledge of God.

Nor is there an Eden, or Adam and Eve, or God for that matter. It's a work of fiction. It's a creation myth. If you follow the logic of the story, the reason humans don't have any fruits that give knowledge or eternal life is because we no longer have access to them after being kicked out of Eden.

So that blasts any idea of the mainstream notions of ''original sin'' out of the water. So like DE, it is vague as in having no basis in reality.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Meaning I don't have to make a distinction.

Hint: It's not really a word. And I know you didn't have to make a distinction, because they are disparate concepts. You actually tried to say they were all the same thing.

I can't make your conclusions for you, but I would be interested in how you conclude there is no God.

I don't know if there's a supreme being at the head of the universe, some prime mover, but I know the God of the bible--and every other man-made text--is false because the traditions they are based on are superstitions born out of ignorance and fear. This is obvious if you actually do scholarship of the texts.

I've already told you the concept is vague, and it's belief hinges on the notion that Adam and Eve were the first human beings (ever), therefore everything they do is original, including sin. That's it in a nutshell.

And I've told you the concept isn't vague. It's very specific.

How does this link demonstrate that sin ISN'T transgression of nature?

Read it.

So you think the ''tree of knowledge of good and evil'' was a fruit tree. Right?
What then, do you think ''the tree of life'' is?

The story doesn't specify. Presumably another kind of fruit.

And when God instucts the animals and humans to ''be fruitful and multiply'', did he mean gather as many apples and pears as they could, or did he mean to pro-create.

You understand the difference between "fruit" and "fruitful," no? He's not calling them fruit.

By your logic, it could be construed as talking about flowers and plants.
How have you made the distinction?

Because I'm not stupid? Because I can read? I don't know what to tell you, man. Fruit and fruitful are not the same word. They don't mean the same thing. Had God said "Go and be fruit," then I could understand your confusion. You'd still have to be contextually blind to not understand what he meant by "fruit" in the OT, since it's clearly a literal tale and doesn't work at all as a metaphor, but at least I could understand why you're having trouble. But this? I mean, I don't think I can help you.

But you still acknowledge His existence (even if it was a freudian slip).
The sub-conscious is mighty powerful.

How did I acknowledge his existence? You asked me why he said that, and I said because he's an asshole. We're talking about a character in a story. If you had asked me why Bane blew up Gotham, I'd have given you the same answer. Does that mean I believe Bane really exists?

1. Didn't say it was,

Yes you did, liar. You said "Fruit" can mean different things. You even put the word in quotes.

but we know that ''seeds'' can produce fruit, and God's instruction to living being was to be ''fruit-ful'' and multiply.

But at no point did he say "Be fruit" or "You are all fruit." You're trying to make the Eden story an extended metaphor, but it clearly doesn't work as such.

2. We know that, and ''fruit'' can be used as the transformation of ''seeds''. God said ''be fruit-ful'' and multiply.

Are you related to Stretch Armstrong? Because that's one hell of a reach.

3. They're not interchangable, period, but they are necessarily related.

No they're not. Just because fruit has seeds does not mean that his use of the word "seed" in the context of birth means that the references to fruit earlier are somehow also references to birth.

4. How does it not seem to be?

I've already explained to you why. It apparently takes a level of reading comprehension you either don't posses.

 

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am,




She/they had first class communication with God, undoubtedly the wisest of the wise, and the origin of all (including ''the tree of knowledge), and furthermore, they were aware of that. So why would she be seduced by a lesser being, into acquiring knowledge and wisdom?

Also, ''desire'' is the fuel of envy.



He instucted the human race to reproduce, in genesis 1.
I doubt He told Adam and/or Eve to reproduce at all.
In fact Eve was created as a company for the lonely Adam.



You assume they were the first people ever. Why?

jan.

I am here to discuss what the bible says and it says so.
You are doing the same with what you quote.
Yet what I quote you doubt or ignore.
Reciprocity is fair play.
If you are only going to believe the line of the script you like and disavow the lines I like then we are stalled.

Either stick to the scrip or not. Your choice. All or nothing.

Regards
DL

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am here to discuss what the bible says and it says so.
You are doing the same with what you quote.
Yet what I quote you doubt or ignore.
Reciprocity is fair play.
If you are only going to believe the line of the script you like and disavow the lines I like then we are stalled.

Either stick to the scrip or not. Your choice. All or nothing.

Regards
DL

The bible states no where that Adam was the first human ever, but there is ample reason to assume that he wasn't.
Sorry if you can't deal with that.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

The bible states no where that Adam was the first human ever, but there is ample reason to assume that he wasn't.

There is?! Let's read...

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

That looks like ample reason to assume he was, unless God created a whole bunch of men, during the creation of everything, then created one woman like Smurfette, later.
It implies that if Adam was not the first- who was the first that existed prior to the creation of Earth, etc?
Lastly, how was that "first" breeding? Did they just fission off?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

The verse implies that she had never even seen the tree before, as she doesn't notice what it looks like until the snake tells her that it won't kill her. It may be greed, but her motives are not described as being envious.

Two points:

The verse implies nothing of the sort.

Gen 3 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

And... she told her seducer exactly where the tree was in another verse.

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die

Of course she meant God. "Lord," "God," and "Lord God" are all used to describe the God character in the Eden story.

We know from the bible that Cain was not from God, and if she thought he was, then we can assume he wasn't from Adam.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. But I'll repeat myself about hell since you apparently have reading comprehension difficulties: Hell in the OT is derived from the Hebrew word Sheol.

Hell can mean: suffering in the afterlife for eternity, a place of fire and brimstone, a place where you go before going to your destination, a place populated by demons.
It is often described as a place where God isn't percieved, a frozen lake of blood and guilt, and more.
IOW what you have is a word that interpreters thought would fit a specific description depicted in the OT, which is why I said the word is only a repesentation of what tranlators thought was being described, but clearly it is very vague.

Again, wrong. There are mounds of evidence.

You means mounds of talk, pictures, and models, but nothing that actually shows DE.

You're either not intelligent enough to understand it, or unwilling to accept based on personal bias.

You're either not intelligent enough to understand that, or unwilling to accept based on personal bias.

Either way, you're wrong.

There is no way that you can know DE is a scientific fact, it is boils down belief or preference at best.

These two sentences contradict each other. First disobedience isn't an act, then the focus is the intention behind the act of disobedience.

I said: For starters, disobedience isn't an act, and therefore isn't a sin. The act is the intention behind the disobedience.

And the bible--especially the Eden story--makes clear that intention has absolutely nothing to do with it. The snake tricked the woman, and the man believed his wife, and still they were punished for eternity. All God wanted to know was "Did you eat that fruit?" And when the answer was yes, he booted them.

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

and....

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Punished for eternity you say?
Eve just made a seriously bad move, and the result of that move is what we would term as a normal life.
Note that ''her desire'' will now be for her husband, and he will be in control of her.
Makes you wonder what freedoms she had before. Uh?

If you follow the logic of the story, the reason humans don't have any fruits that give knowledge or eternal life is because we no longer have access to them after being kicked out of Eden.

You should try following the logic of the story some time.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it doesn't because your belief system appeared to be under attack, and your defence mechanism which is to automatically plead ignorance. kicked in.

It's alright, you can come out now.

Hint: It's not really a word. And I know you didn't have to make a distinction, because they are disparate concepts. You actually tried to say they were all the same thing.

Sure I did which is why I disregarded ''original sin'' for ''the origin of sin''. *Sheesh!*

I don't know if there's a supreme being at the head of the universe, some prime mover, but I know the God of the bible--and every other man-made text--is false because the traditions they are based on are superstitions born out of ignorance and fear. This is obvious if you actually do scholarship of the texts.

You don't know anything, you only believe.

And I've told you the concept isn't vague. It's very specific.

And what you said about it is vague.

Read it.

I have, but it's not clear.
Can you clarify?

The story doesn't specify. Presumably another kind of fruit.

Fruit that gives eternal life heh?

You understand the difference between "fruit" and "fruitful," no? He's not calling them fruit.

And you understand the original hebrew word from came the word ''fruit'' is karpos and one definition is ''fruit of ones loins - progeny or prosterity'', as well as fruit?

Because I'm not stupid? Because I can read? I don't know what to tell you, man.

...

Fruit and fruitful are not the same word.

Well done! They're not the same word.
There's no getting one pass you is there?

They don't mean the same thing. Had God said "Go and be fruit," then I could understand your confusion.

You're the one who is confused.

You'd still have to be contextually blind to not understand what he meant by "fruit" in the OT, since it's clearly a literal tale and doesn't work at all as a metaphor, but at least I could understand why you're having trouble. But this? I mean, I don't think I can help you.

y

You're the one who doesn't understand what is meant by fruit in the OT.

How did I acknowledge his existence?

Go read. I've already told you.

We're talking about a character in a story. If you had asked me why Bane blew up Gotham, I'd have given you the same answer. Does that mean I believe Bane really exists?

Yes it would mean that.
Or it could mean that he represents a trait that you believe to exist.

Yes you did, liar. You said "Fruit" can mean different things. You even put the word in quotes.

I acknowledged that the particular verse I quoted didn't have the word fruit in it.

Keep up will ya!

But at no point did he say "Be fruit" or "You are all fruit." You're trying to make the Eden story an extended metaphor, but it clearly doesn't work as such.

I understand that's how it seems to you, but then again you're prone to seeing elaborately made garments on a stark naked emporer. :shrug:



jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

Christians think it evil for us to want our spiritual eyes opened and gain the moral sense that God had. Even as all churches, governments and parents want badly to teach morals and open the spiritual eyes.

How foolish.

They would prefer mankind to go extinct as you may have noted that God's first command to A & E was to reproduce in Gen 1 ---- but they could not do so till Gen 3 after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

The Jews, the authors and true judges of their own myths called Eden man's elevation because of this while Christians reversed that more intelligent evaluation to a fall.

How is becoming as Gods in the moral sense a fall?

No one has yet accepted the challenge of that question. Obey obey obey and stay stupid. Christian dogma at it's best. Not.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

A supernatural God with a talking snake and a supernatural tree curses a natural world and you call it natural consequences.

You must remember that the Bible was written by men, from the perspective of men, when you deal with such value judgments as "cursed". At the time it was written, the natural consequences of the weather was often attributed to "being cursed" by "evil spirits". The natural consequence here is the evolution of the mind of man, whether you wish to attribute that to a god, a natural process, or space aliens. All consequences mentioned are only those of the capacity for self-aware value judgments.

Christians think it evil for us to want our spiritual eyes opened and gain the moral sense that God had. Even as all churches, governments and parents want badly to teach morals and open the spiritual eyes.

How foolish.

The Jews, the authors and true judges of their own myths called Eden man's elevation because of this while Christians reversed that more intelligent evaluation to a fall.

How is becoming as Gods in the moral sense a fall?

No one has yet accepted the challenge of that question. Obey obey obey and stay stupid. Christian dogma at it's best. Not.

Nonsense that only illustrates your very poor understanding of what you rail against.

"The fall" is the separation from the presence of god. It has nothing to do with any moral sense. It is just a simple matter that if man becomes more godlike he must stand on his own, as a god does, rather than be forever protected and coddled by a god.

There is much more to this, but I doubt you will be able to follow that much.

They would prefer mankind to go extinct as you may have noted that God's first command to A & E was to reproduce in Gen 1 ---- but they could not do so till Gen 3 after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

Where on earth do you get this misguided notion? Where does it say man could not reproduce before the fall?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

They would prefer mankind to go extinct as you may have noted that God's first command to A & E was to reproduce in Gen 1 ---- but they could not do so till Gen 3 after they ate of the tree of knowledge.

God didn't command A+E to reproduce in Gen 1...

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

At least it doesn't say that.
Why do you ignore this?

How is becoming as Gods in the moral sense a fall?

There can logically only be one being known as GOD, who is The Supreme Being.

Also, if it was possible for me to become you, then you would cease to exist.

No one has yet accepted the challenge of that question. Obey obey obey and stay stupid. Christian dogma at it's best. Not.

It's not really much of a challenge.

Regards
Jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

You guys have made up your own bibles.

See ya.

Regards
DL

 

[Neverfly]

God didn't command A+E to reproduce in Gen 1...

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

At least it doesn't say that.
Why do you ignore this?

That has me rolling. Seriously Jan? I'm atheist and I know better than you. Which isn't surprising.
Let's see, you quoted Gen 1:27. Let's add the next line, Gen 1:28 on to that and see what we get...

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”