Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Syne]

You guys have made up your own bibles.

See ya.

Typical. Throw a little tantrum and storm off when things do not go your way.

 

[Neverfly]

Typical. Throw a little tantrum and storm off when things do not go your way.

I haven't followed the whole thing, but having interrupted twice to point out odd glaring flaws in Jan's claims (54 and 60), your claim now doesn't carry much weight considering GIA most recent declaration.

 

[Syne]

I haven't followed the whole thing, but having interrupted twice to point out odd glaring flaws in Jan's claims (54 and 60), your claim now doesn't carry much weight considering GIA most recent declaration.

Really?

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

This is, of course, incorrect, but it was immediately preceded by:

... 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.

Gia made a hasty generalization to say "You guys" and simply used Jan's error as an excuse to avoid having to justify his own glaring Biblical errors. Hypocritical, and very much warrants calling him on it, regardless of Jan's later error.

Gia had already made up his own Bible before he accused Jan of doing so.

 

[Neverfly]

Really?
This is, of course, incorrect, but it was immediately preceded by:

Originally Posted by Greatest I am:
... 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.

It was incorrect and what it was preceded by which you quoted is correct. Read that passage, again- where is the error in what GIA said?
That passage shows it as the first command.

 

[Syne]

It was incorrect and what it was preceded by which you quoted is correct. Read that passage, again- where is the error in what GIA said?
That passage shows it as the first command.

Then I will ask you what Gia evaded. Where does it say that they could not reproduce before the fall?

Just because Gia made a different error, does not excuse it any more than the one Jan made.

 

[Neverfly]

Then I will ask you what Gia evaded. Where does it say that they could not reproduce before the fall?

Ah, I gotcha- not a clue.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.”

My point to GIA was that God never instructed A+E to reproduce at all, let alone in the genesis 1, and the quotes proved that.

My bad if it wasn't clear.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Really?



This is, of course, incorrect, but it was immediately preceded by:



Gia made a hasty generalization to say "You guys" and simply used Jan's error as an excuse to avoid having to justify his own glaring Biblical errors. Hypocritical, and very much warrants calling him on it, regardless of Jan's later error.

Gia had already made up his own Bible before he accused Jan of doing so.

Why am I incorrect?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

It says in genesis 1 that God created mankind, mankind meaning men and women, and instructed them to multiply.
In genesis 2.4 He creates the start of a new linage. It states...

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...

Now this statement ties in with the Qu'ran which tells of a discourse (presumably in heaven) between the angels and God. God explainded that he was going
to place upon the earth ''a successive authority'' which was Adam. Further on it says He ordered them to prostrate before Adam, which they all did except Iblis (satan), for which he was immediately expelled.

Also, if A+E wasn't the first ever humans, period, then it explains where Cain got his wife. Otherwise we have to resort incest, which seems a little extreem.

jan.

 

[Bowser]

Now this statement ties in with the Qu'ran which tells of a discourse (presumably in heaven) between the angels and God. God explainded that he was going
to place upon the earth ''a successive authority'' which was Adam. Further on it says He ordered them to prostrate before Adam, which they all did except Iblis (satan), for which he was immediately expelled.

jan.

Forgive my interruption in this conversation, but wasn't there a war between the angels over this very issue. I don't know where I read the interpretation, but I recall reading that satan and others couldn't accept god's love for man. They were expelled from heaven and thus explains hell and eternal suffering at the hands of satan and his lot.

 

[Balerion]

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 when the woman saw...she took of the fruit..."

What don't you understand about that?

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

She was repeating to him God's command. That doesn't mean she'd ever seen it. Clearly, given the fact that she seems to be looking at the tree for the first time in the verse where she eats from it, it would suggest that she hasn't.

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.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying that we know Cain wasn't from God, but he wasn't from Adam either? You're making no sense.

Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.”

It says right in the bible that they had the child as the result of sex.

Because the Eden story doesn't completely fill in the picture of what Adam and Eve's nature was prior to being banished, we can only guess based on what is said. For instance, God curses her with childbearing pains and the want for her husband. This suggests that they didn't have sexual desire or the ability to give birth prior to the fall.

She doesn't thank God for the child, she simply says "With his help, I have brought forth a man."

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.

I'll repeat again: Sheol is not a place of damnation. Translators were very loose in translating that word to "Hell," because "Hell" as a Christian concept is very specific.

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

What I mean is empirical evidence. And yes, we have witnessed evolution directly.

Again, get an education. The fact that you call it "Darwinian Evolution" proves that the sum-total of your understanding of it (IOW, where you are spoon-fed your opinions) comes from anti-evolution propaganda websites.

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

Incorrect. It boils down to which theory has the most supporting evidence, and evolution is that. At this point, it can safely be called scientific fact. We know it happens.

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

That's not accurate. Intent is not an act. You can't just redefine words to help you. And in the context of our conversation--the Eden story--God makes it very clear that intent has nothing to do with it:

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

and....

You're just reinforcing my point for me. Thank you.

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.

Yeah, but compared to, apparently, eternal bliss?

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

Ha! Hysterical.

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.

No, it doesn't make any sense because you rarely make any sense.

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!*

You are flip-flopping again:

In other words, you don't see a difference between "original sin" and "the origin of sin." And in fact, there isn't a difference, since "original sin" refers to the first sin committed by man. You just don't seem to know what the first sin was.

The former is intended for people like yourself to play with, who enjoy not arriving at a conclusion, the latter gets down to brass tacks.

You don't know anything, you only believe.

Based on the evidence, I know.

I have, but it's not clear.

No you haven't, and no it isn't. Unless you really do have reading comprehension problems. If you do, just say so.

Fruit that gives eternal life heh?

I agree it's absurd. But then, so is the idea that humanity began with two prudes wandering a garden with God (who apparently lived on Earth at this point in time). Anyway, that's what the scripture says:

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”[/qutoe]

You see a metaphor in there? I sure don't.

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?

No, I don't, because that is incorrect. The Hebrew word for "fruit" is peri, and means, literally, fruit. Karpos is a Greek word that means the same thing. It can be used as a metaphor (anything can be) but in the context of the Eden story, it is used literally to refer to the fruiting bodies on trees.

...


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



You're the one who is confused.


y

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

In other words...

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

...in the story!

I mean, really?

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

Only after you were called out on it. Then you cooked up some nonsense about how "fruit" and "seed" are somehow the same word!

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:

Sigh...



jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

Then I will ask you what Gia evaded. Where does it say that they could not reproduce before the fall?

Just because Gia made a different error, does not excuse it any more than the one Jan made.

A & E did not know they were naked till Gen 3.

IOW, they had no knowledge of what nakedness and innocence was all about as well as sex till their eyes were opened by desire.

I gave this link to show this but both that I said made up their own bibles do not see the obvious.
It is likely too long for those who think lessons can be learned in a one liner.
They likely do not have the attention span.

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

Sex and reproduction are subject to good and evil and they foolishly think A & E could know of them without the knowledge of good and evil.

They do not even wonder why A & E did not reproduce till after their banishment from Eden.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

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

Why am I incorrect?

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

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. -Genesis 1​

How else do you suppose man is to "multiply" other than reproducing? Or are you just being pedantic about whether this was a command, instruction, or suggestion? If so, you should know that the general consensus is that this is the first command given to man, as anything supposedly said by god takes on a natural authority.

Because the Eden story doesn't completely fill in the picture of what Adam and Eve's nature was prior to being banished, we can only guess based on what is said. For instance, God curses her with childbearing pains and the want for her husband. This suggests that they didn't have sexual desire or the ability to give birth prior to the fall.

"Desire" does not necessarily denote "sexual desire". Compare:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis 3​

And:

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” -Genesis 4​

In both, "will" or "want" seems more fitting than "sexual desire", as in both these are subordinate to rule. The first may seem to be sexual only because it speaks of conception and childbirth, but "multiply ... thy conception" directly implies that conception was possible prior to the fall. Before the knowledge of good and evil, man was just more akin to an animal. I would be hard pressed to call what animals do "sexual desire". Instinct does not really qualify.

 

[Syne]

A & E did not know they were naked till Gen 3.

Does an animal's unawareness of its nudity preclude it from having sex?

IOW, they had no knowledge of what nakedness and innocence was all about as well as sex till their eyes were opened by desire.

The instinct to reproduce does not require knowledge of good, evil, nakedness, innocence, or sex, otherwise all animals would have quickly gone extinct.

I gave this link to show this but both that I said made up their own bibles do not see the obvious.
It is likely too long for those who think lessons can be learned in a one liner.
They likely do not have the attention span.

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

You are free to explain it in your own words (more than a "one liner"), but midrash is specifically about reading into it what is not necessarily there for the rhetorical purpose of apologetics.

The Role Of Midrash In Orthodox Jewish Education

Midrash is not so much scriptural interpretation as homiletics (inspiring stories), said the Orthodox rabbi, citing Maimonides.

When we treat midrash as equal to holy writ, we propagate a belief that is not true. It makes Judaism look stupid (because so many midrashic tales are fantastic). When kids go from yeshiva to university, they are likely to view Judaism as stupid if they’ve been taught that midrash is on par with the Bible.

Sex and reproduction are subject to good and evil and they foolishly think A & E could know of them without the knowledge of good and evil.

If you think evil is necessary to sex, you are not doing it right.

They do not even wonder why A & E did not reproduce till after their banishment from Eden.

The story seems to indicate a fairly short period between the creation of man and the fall. Easily less than 9 months.

 

[Greatest I am]

Does an animal's unawareness of its nudity preclude it from having sex?



The instinct to reproduce does not require knowledge of good, evil, nakedness, innocence, or sex, otherwise all animals would have quickly gone extinct.



You are free to explain it in your own words (more than a "one liner"), but midrash is specifically about reading into it what is not necessarily there for the rhetorical purpose of apologetics.

The Role Of Midrash In Orthodox Jewish Education

​

If you think evil is necessary to sex, you are not doing it right.



The story seems to indicate a fairly short period between the creation of man and the fall. Easily less than 9 months.

You are such a wasted mind.

I already explained the desire factor for man.

If you want to use an analogy of animals then be exact FFS.

The moment of desire for young animals is when they recognize and react to hormones from the female. They sniff vulvas and A & E ate of the tree of knowledge.

As to your pathetic view of God creating males and females, the ancients had quite a different view. I know this is too long for your limited attention span but if you do a few minutes here and there, you will note what the definition of the Jewish name for God is and what it likely meant to them.

You are reading a Jewish text with a non-Jewish mind set. God was androgynous to the ancients.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-250123575095449181

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

You are such a wasted mind.

I already explained the desire factor for man.

Where? I have read nothing but twaddle-speak from you.

If you want to use an analogy of animals then be exact FFS.

The moment of desire for young animals is when they recognize and react to hormones from the female. They sniff vulvas and A & E ate of the tree of knowledge.

How does that mean that animals must have knowledge of good and evil to have sex? Humans, prior to the fall, would have innocently been subject to their base instincts, just like animals, without any value judgment at all. There would not have been any judgment if human sex before the fall were as brutal as that of many animals.

As to your pathetic view of God creating males and females, the ancients had quite a different view. I know this is too long for your limited attention span but if you do a few minutes here and there, you will note what the definition of the Jewish name for God is and what it likely meant to them.

You are reading a Jewish text with a non-Jewish mind set. God was androgynous to the ancients.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-250123575095449181

You know, for someone who calls people small-minded for making personal remarks, you have said "your limited attention span" quite a few times. So by your own judgment, you are either small-minded or a hypocrite.

And what is this complete non sequitur from anything I said? What "pathetic view of God creating males and females"?

Who ever said god had male genitalia?


This just seems a non sequitur dodge to avoid answering questions you cannot. You do not even have the integrity to respond to what the midrash actually is, and the fact that you have naively assumed it of equal value. Do not speak of others having a short attention span until you can manage to read this link and respond to it.

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=3241

It is very short.

 

[Greatest I am]

Now you know why I basically ignore your pathetic ass. You have a brain but are wasting it.

One last hint. Is sex subject to good and evil?
Is it always used in a good way or are there times where we can say it is misused?
Your answer tells you why A & E could not reproduce before eating of the tree of knowledge.
You are now on ignore till you smarten up.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Yes, as usual, you do some arm waving that answers nothing and run away.

 

[cole grey]

if adam and eve couldn't reproduce before they learned about sex by eating the apple, then it seems the fall was necessary for the human race to exist, unless the tree also changed their method of procreation. I can't quite figure it out, but it seems like perhaps the idea that they wouldn't have had sex without eating the apple is being proposed here, which seems rather strange to say.

 

[Balerion]

"Desire" does not necessarily denote "sexual desire". Compare:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis 3​

And:

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” -Genesis 4​

In both, "will" or "want" seems more fitting than "sexual desire", as in both these are subordinate to rule. The first may seem to be sexual only because it speaks of conception and childbirth, but "multiply ... thy conception" directly implies that conception was possible prior to the fall. Before the knowledge of good and evil, man was just more akin to an animal.

Certainly in the second example you're right, but the first one is less clear in my view. But supposing both mean "will" in a non-sexual sense, there are contextual clues that suggest there was no sex prior to the fall. For instance, they are apparently alone. Cain appears to be their first child, and the occasion is marked by Eve noting the experience was possible with help from God.

Then again, I don't know what to make of the fact that the rest of the world seems to be populated. Consider that Cain is afraid that someone will find him and kill him as he wanders the earth; if it's just the three of them--him, Adam, and Eve, then who's he afraid of? In the end he goes off to a land that already has a name--Nod. He builds a city there, but for whom? He also marries a woman, but there is no word as to who she is or where she came from. Presumably she isn't Adam and Eve's, but if she isn't, then who the hell is she? I tend to chalk this up to it being a creation myth from antiquity and therefore somewhat artless, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I would be hard pressed to call what animals do "sexual desire". Instinct does not really qualify.

Of course it does. What do you suppose sexual desire is, then? Some intellectual invention? Obviously not. It's as much an instinct as any other desire. And it really doesn't appear that a whole lot of rational thought went into the creation of this myth, so pointing out the idea that the animals would have died out if such knowledge was required seems silly. Almost as silly as God thinking that perhaps a pigeon might make a useful helper in tending to chores in the garden, but I digress. Anyway, I'd suggest the strongest clues for their chastity is the lack of any offspring prior to Cain.