Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[wynn]

To all of you -

Can you explain why you try to make sense of what the Bible says?

 

[Balerion]

To all of you -

Can you explain why you try to make sense of what the Bible says?

Because this is a discussion forum, and discussions are interesting.

I mean, as I said in my last post, there's really no way to make sense of a lot of the stuff because it's all ancient mythology and every bit as opaque as one would expect ancient mythology to be. But the effort is sometimes enjoyable. And it's relevant, since so many people believe it to be the truth.

 

[Syne]

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.

"Help" is not in the Hebrew text. http://biblos.com/genesis/4-1.htm The context seems to be one of being blessed with a child. It is also likely that early man did not know what actually caused pregnancy, so causation from sex may have been unclear and the uneducated are just more likely to attribute things to the supernatural.

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.

Genesis 6 speaks of the Nephilim, "sons of God", and "daughters of men". Since there is no extensive taxonomy, there may very well have been other hominins. We do not have any reason to assume that only one pair of each animal was created, and since it does not say otherwise, we have no reason to assume only one pair of hominins were created.

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.

Seems you missed my point. There is no reason to assume it took the fall for humans to have sex.

instinct
1
: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


desire
1
: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment
2
a : longing, craving
b : sexual urge or appetite
3
: a usually formal request or petition for some action
4
: something desired​

It may have taken the ability to make self-aware value judgments (knowledge of good and evil) to have a "conscious impulse", but such knowledge is not required for "behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level".

Perhaps you can see the distinction I am making between human and animal sex? Only the "conscious impulse" for sex would involve any knowledge of good and evil, but such is by no means necessary to sex.

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.

Really? So are you assuming animals, in order to have sex, must have some sense of good and evil? That is preposterous. This does not even necessarily have anything to do with this story. Just look at present day nature. Do you really think sex, in animals, requires that they be conscious of the impulse? In what sense?

Or is it just more likely that environmental stimuli (pheromones, season, etc.) trigger innate mating behavior?

Anyway, I'd suggest the strongest clues for their chastity is the lack of any offspring prior to Cain.

Lack of offspring does not necessitate chastity. This is a baseless and unsupportable assumption.


You seem to be making contradictory assertions. If you assert that sexual desire is the same for humans and animals then it follows that humans would be capable of sexual desire prior to the fall. If, on the other hand, humans were not capable of sex prior to the fall then how are animals capable of sex?

And an appeal to ridicule is only an argument from fallacy which would seem to be an evasion.

 

[Balerion]

The problem seems to be that you're approaching this story as one that is literally true, whereas I am approaching it as myth.

"Help" is not in the Hebrew text. http://biblos.com/genesis/4-1.htm The context seems to be one of being blessed with a child.

"With God's help," is a fair translation of "Got a child from God."

It is also likely that early man did not know what actually caused pregnancy, so causation from sex may have been unclear and the uneducated are just more likely to attribute things to the supernatural.

The point--which you clearly miss--is that God says he's going to give her painful childbirth, and then she's saying that the Lord gave her a child. This suggests that per the myth, there was no childbirth prior to the fall.

Genesis 6 speaks of the Nephilim, "sons of God", and "daughters of men". Since there is no extensive taxonomy, there may very well have been other hominins. We do not have any reason to assume that only one pair of each animal was created, and since it does not say otherwise, we have no reason to assume only one pair of hominins were created.

Again, the story isn't true. And the Nephilim are not daughters, they are meales who marry the daughters of man. But okay, I suppose that explains why the world is already populated. Of course, keeping in mind that the Nephilim as a non-human race is fiction.

Seems you missed my point. There is no reason to assume it took the fall for humans to have sex.

I can play the definition game too;

desire
1
: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment
2
a : longing, craving
b : sexual urge or appetite
3
: a usually formal request or petition for some action
4
: something desired

Just because one definition of desire is a conscious doesn't mean every definition is.

Perhaps you can see the distinction I am making between human and animal sex? Only the "conscious impulse" for sex would involve any knowledge of good and evil, but such is by no means necessary to sex.

Obviously not. I'm saying that according to the myth, it seems very apparent that such was required. We have no indication that there was sex in the garden, nor are we given the sense that there are children about. It isn't until the fall--again, according to the myth--that we are told of Adam and Eve doing the nasty.

I find it hysterical that you're trying to argue from the point of view that Genesis actually happened. There's really no point in continuing if that's the case.

Really? So are you assuming animals, in order to have sex, must have some sense of good and evil? That is preposterous.

Obviously not. Where do you get this crap? I said that the story appears to begin with two sexless humans.

This does not even necessarily have anything to do with this story. Just look at present day nature. Do you really think sex, in animals, requires that they be conscious of the impulse? In what sense?

I mean, seriously? Is that an actual question?

Or is it just more likely that environmental stimuli (pheromones, season, etc.) trigger innate mating behavior?

Yes, obviously. But according to the illiterate nomads who concocted this story, this scenario was far more interesting--and just as plausible as any other.

Lack of offspring does not necessitate chastity. This is a baseless and unsupportable assumption.

Hardly. Sex equates to procreation in the bible, so the absence of children means one of two things: Either they couldn't reproduce, as I suggested may have been what the myth was trying to convey (puts Eve's reference to her birth as a gift or blessing), or they weren't having sex prior to the fall.

You seem to be making contradictory assertions. If you assert that sexual desire is the same for humans and animals then it follows that humans would be capable of sexual desire prior to the fall. If, on the other hand, humans were not capable of sex prior to the fall then how are animals capable of sex?

This doesn't even make sense from your "Bible-is-truth" position. If this story really occurred, then it was well within God's power (which he exercises liberally) to change the nature of his creations. He does this by making childbirth painful for the woman, and by making the snake crawl on its belly. Obviously I'm of the view that it's just mythology, meaning that I'm not contending anything requires a literal fall of man to occur. I'm talking about things in the context of the story, which is fictional. The true nature of living organisms has no bearing on my interpretation of the text, because I know it was written by people who didn't know the true nature of living organisms.

And an appeal to ridicule is only an argument from fallacy which would seem to be an evasion.

What are you referring to?

 

[Syne]

The problem seems to be that you're approaching this story as one that is literally true, whereas I am approaching it as myth.

"With God's help," is a fair translation of "Got a child from God."

The point--which you clearly miss--is that God says he's going to give her painful childbirth, and then she's saying that the Lord gave her a child. This suggests that per the myth, there was no childbirth prior to the fall.

No, I am approaching the story as if it can be made sense of. Whether it is a myth does not matter one whit as to whether we can apply our reason to it. Actually, dismissing it as silly myth would seem to be an obstacle to applying reason to it.

So what kind of help are you proposing Eve got from God? Certainly not virginal conception. The tree of knowledge? Seems that was something she took of her own accord, against the wishes of god. So exactly what help? Be specific. Seems the only help would maybe be getting through the pains of labor. But no, "got a child from god" would only imply that she was blessed, by god, with a child, and has no bearing on whether they could have had sex before the fall.

So you are saying that god commanded them to reproduce without the ability to do so? No childbirth does not equate to an inability to conceive. Correlation does not imply causation.

Again, the story isn't true. And the Nephilim are not daughters, they are meales who marry the daughters of man. But okay, I suppose that explains why the world is already populated. Of course, keeping in mind that the Nephilim as a non-human race is fiction.

I never said the Nephilim were daughters. Where on earth did you get that from? And there is no overwhelming consensus as to what/who the Nephilim were. They could have been anything from fallen angles, the sons of Seth, or rulers in general. Only someone assuming it silly myth would leap to the conclusion that the most absurd must be what is meant.

I can play the definition game too;

desire
1
: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment
2
a : longing, craving
b : sexual urge or appetite
3
: a usually formal request or petition for some action
4
: something desired

Just because one definition of desire is a conscious doesn't mean every definition is.

Straw man, as I never said it did. I only pointed out that there is an observable difference in the desire of an animal and that of a human.

Perhaps you can see the distinction I am making between human and animal sex? Only the "conscious impulse" for sex would involve any knowledge of good and evil, but such is by no means necessary to sex.

Obviously not. I'm saying that according to the myth, it seems very apparent that such was required. We have no indication that there was sex in the garden, nor are we given the sense that there are children about. It isn't until the fall--again, according to the myth--that we are told of Adam and Eve doing the nasty.

Really? No sex, even though every creature, including man, was commanded to multiply. Since you refuse to apply any reason beyond considering it a silly myth, I guess you are happy to just assume all reproduction was by mitosis or something? Or did man also disobey about reproducing, and the myth just happens to leave that part out?

Like present day stories, we are told what is pertinent for advancing the story. Sex does not advance the story (seeing as this one is not a romance) except for when it produces a child. And again, not every sexual encounter produces a child. Even without modern birth control sex is not a 100% guarantee of pregnancy.

I find it hysterical that you're trying to argue from the point of view that Genesis actually happened. There's really no point in continuing if that's the case.

This is a straw man seemingly meant only to justify an appeal to ridicule. Where have I said any of this "actually happened"? I am saying that this is a story that we can find some sense in, if we bother to look. I really do not know why you argue, as it really does not seem that you are interested in bothering to look at all.

You could probably do a lot less writing if you simply said, "it is a myth", and leave it at that.

Really? So are you assuming animals, in order to have sex, must have some sense of good and evil? That is preposterous.

Obviously not. Where do you get this crap? I said that the story appears to begin with two sexless humans.

This does not even necessarily have anything to do with this story. Just look at present day nature. Do you really think sex, in animals, requires that they be conscious of the impulse? In what sense?

I mean, seriously? Is that an actual question?

"Two sexless humans"? Where do you get that crap? If animals can have sex without knowledge of good and evil, it follows that humans could as well, as both have two sexes and were commanded to multiply. Very simple logic. I am asking you ridiculous questions because you have not seemed to follow the simplest of reasoning.

Or is it just more likely that environmental stimuli (pheromones, season, etc.) trigger innate mating behavior?

Yes, obviously. But according to the illiterate nomads who concocted this story, this scenario was far more interesting--and just as plausible as any other.

Well it is a relief that you concede that much, even though it is like pulling teeth. "Just as plausible"? See, dismissing something as silly myth is just an excuse to throw all reason right out the window. Or maybe you can explain what is so plausible about humans being initially incapable of something animals could readily do.

And those illiterate nomads must have been very imaginative to create a scenario completely beyond their experience. A & E were man and wife, and it would be a given that they have sex. An illiterate nomad would have made a big deal if it were otherwise. Nomads who likely took what women they liked and did with them whatever they liked.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. -Genesis 2​

To cling, cleave, keep close and be one flesh, unashamed of their nakedness. That sounds like a recipe for uninhibited and sexually free nudists, all before the fall. But even disregarding that..."leave his father and his mother". What? There were no children, and according to you no sex, but they knew something of mothers and fathers?

Hardly. Sex equates to procreation in the bible, so the absence of children means one of two things: Either they couldn't reproduce, as I suggested may have been what the myth was trying to convey (puts Eve's reference to her birth as a gift or blessing), or they weren't having sex prior to the fall.

The simpler answer is that there was not a significant lapse of time between chapters 2 & 3. Or are you seriously trying to claim that every act of sex always resulted in pregnancy. Maybe like many couples who have trouble conceiving, when she finally did it was considered a blessing from god.

You seem to be making contradictory assertions. If you assert that sexual desire is the same for humans and animals then it follows that humans would be capable of sexual desire prior to the fall. If, on the other hand, humans were not capable of sex prior to the fall then how are animals capable of sex?

This doesn't even make sense from your "Bible-is-truth" position. If this story really occurred, then it was well within God's power (which he exercises liberally) to change the nature of his creations. He does this by making childbirth painful for the woman, and by making the snake crawl on its belly. Obviously I'm of the view that it's just mythology, meaning that I'm not contending anything requires a literal fall of man to occur. I'm talking about things in the context of the story, which is fictional. The true nature of living organisms has no bearing on my interpretation of the text, because I know it was written by people who didn't know the true nature of living organisms.

You really like to erect that straw man of "Bible-is-truth".

The tree of knowledge of good and evil only changed their knowledge, hence the name. Everything else can easily be understood as a natural consequence of that change of awareness. You know what, never mind. I have tried to explain all this to GIA, but I have no greater hope that you could understand.

Again, why not just write it all off as myth instead of arguing? If you are going to argue, you are going to have to do better than, "hey, it's a myth, anything's plausible".

And an appeal to ridicule is only an argument from fallacy which would seem to be an evasion.

What are you referring to?

If you use it being only a silly myth to justify not applying any reason then you are evading any reasonable argument. It is just a running excuse to deny any reasonable argument as not applying to a myth written by illiterate nomads.

 

[Greatest I am]

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.

Not near as strange as Adam sitting there naming all the animals when he could have been having sex with Eve.

What would you do if told to reproduce with the most beautiful girl in the world?
Start a list of animals or jump Eve?

I repeat.

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.

BTW. Your first sentence is bang on and now you know why the Jews who wrote that myth saw it as man's elevation and not his fall. Think about it.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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.



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.

If you want to end your confusion on where all the men and women came from for Cain's city just look up the way Jews write Adam and adam.
Adam is a man, adam means something more like society or community. That is why we created them, male and female makes sense if read the Jewish way and none at all read the Christian way.

The way they use God is also the same. To Jews God is more of a group of leaders.


Psalm 82:5-7

King James Version (KJV)


5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

If you are to analyse a Jewish myth, it is good to know how they used language.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

To all of you -

Can you explain why you try to make sense of what the Bible says?

Perhaps they are women and Gays and wonder why Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve has been used by all the Abrahamic cults to justify the oppression of women and the killing of Gays for 2,000 years.

Do you have daughters or Gay relatives?

If so then it is to your benefit and theirs to discredit the immoral interpretation that Christianity uses instead of the moral Jewish version.

Even if you do not have children, and if you have a sense of social conscience, you too should be trying to discredit the Christian interpretation.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Not near as strange as Adam sitting there naming all the animals when he could have been having sex with Eve.

What would you do if told to reproduce with the most beautiful girl in the world?
Start a list of animals or jump Eve?

Adam named the animals before the creation of Eve.

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 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 and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. -Genesis 2​

I repeat.

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.

What, so sex must include the capacity to be used for evil to exist at all? That is a false dilemma. Do animals "misuse" sex?

 

[wynn]

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.

Where I come from, when people talk about Adam and Eve, "eating from the tree of knowledge" (along with phrases like "he knew her" etc.) is taken to mean 'to have sex'.

 

[Syne]

Where I come from, when people talk about Adam and Eve, "eating from the tree of knowledge" (along with phrases like "he knew her" etc.) is taken to mean 'to have sex'.

That would only seem to be because sex sells, even in religion.

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil..." -Genesis 3​

This would seem to imply it was a knowledge of moral/value judgment.

 

[Balerion]

No, I am approaching the story as if it can be made sense of. Whether it is a myth does not matter one whit as to whether we can apply our reason to it.

Of course it does. In several places, your argument amounts to "That couldn't have been what it means, because that's not the way the world is." In other words, you rely on the idea that it must be true.

So what kind of help are you proposing Eve got from God? Certainly not virginal conception. The tree of knowledge? Seems that was something she took of her own accord, against the wishes of god. So exactly what help? Be specific. Seems the only help would maybe be getting through the pains of labor. But no, "got a child from god" would only imply that she was blessed, by god, with a child, and has no bearing on whether they could have had sex before the fall.

In the context of the story, it certainly seems that way. Prior to God's command, there were no children (evidently). Afterwards, there are. That seems to be the internal logic. Am I saying it's perfectly consistent? Obviously not, since it's an ancient myth that has roots in tradition predating their ability to write. What I'm saying is that as the story is presented, that seems to be what it says.

So you are saying that god commanded them to reproduce without the ability to do so? No childbirth does not equate to an inability to conceive. Correlation does not imply causation.

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm saying that God gave them the ability to reproduce in the fall. Just as he gave her childbearing pains and made the snake slither on its stomach, he changed the nature of humans when he ousted them from Eden.

I never said the Nephilim were daughters. Where on earth did you get that from?

From you:

Genesis 6 speaks of the Nephilim, "sons of God", and "daughters of men".

You're either suggesting that the Nephilim were the one's being referred to as "sons of God" and "daughters of men," you are suggesting that they are three different peoples. In either case, you're wrong, as the Nephilim are clearly referred to as "sons of God," and the "daughters of men" are the female offspring of humans.

And there is no overwhelming consensus as to what/who the Nephilim were. They could have been anything from fallen angles, the sons of Seth, or rulers in general. Only someone assuming it silly myth would leap to the conclusion that the most absurd must be what is meant.

Well, it is a myth. Earlier in Genesis, God creates the universe in 6 days, creates man from a lump of dirt, and woman from man's rib. Later in Genesis, we get a "modern" retelling of Gilgamesh's flood tale. I have no reason to believe that the Nephilim are any less mythological than anything else in Genesis.

Straw man, as I never said it did. I only pointed out that there is an observable difference in the desire of an animal and that of a human.

No, you were trying to say that "desire" is not an animal trait. For example:

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

This is why you brought out the dictionary. You wanted to "prove" that desire is not of the subconscious. I proved that wrong by highlighting two alternative definitions.

Really? No sex, even though every creature, including man, was commanded to multiply. Since you refuse to apply any reason beyond considering it a silly myth, I guess you are happy to just assume all reproduction was by mitosis or something? Or did man also disobey about reproducing, and the myth just happens to leave that part out?

Well, it is a myth, I just happen to have forgotten about the "Be fruitful and multiply" part. Simply mistake. It apparently took a re-reading by you, otherwise you would have brought this up sooner.

Like present day stories, we are told what is pertinent for advancing the story. Sex does not advance the story (seeing as this one is not a romance) except for when it produces a child. And again, not every sexual encounter produces a child. Even without modern birth control sex is not a 100% guarantee of pregnancy.

That's fair, though the absence of children does still suggest that there was no sex. In the context of "be fruitful and multiply" it could simply mean that they hadn't gotten around to it yet, but there's no suggestion that either of them were trying and failing.

This is a straw man seemingly meant only to justify an appeal to ridicule. Where have I said any of this "actually happened"? I am saying that this is a story that we can find some sense in, if we bother to look. I really do not know why you argue, as it really does not seem that you are interested in bothering to look at all.

See, there's no point to having this discussion if you're going to use weasel tactics. You know damn well you're approaching this from the position of it actually happening. This is why you've tried to say my arguments necessitate animals needing to know good and evil, and attempting to apply modern logic as a roadblock against particular meanings. You're assuming that the tale is true. This is also why you're so vehemently against the idea of it being a myth. You even put the word in quotes. Clearly, you believe this happened.

You could probably do a lot less writing if you simply said, "it is a myth", and leave it at that.

No doubt. But no one said that myths have no purpose, or that they aren't meant to be read a certain way or convey a certain message. I'm sorry that I can be right while also understanding that the story is simply mythology. If that upsets you, I apologize, but I'm not going to stop talking about it just because it makes you uncomfortable.

"Two sexless humans"? Where do you get that crap? If animals can have sex without knowledge of good and evil, it follows that humans could as well, as both have two sexes and were commanded to multiply. Very simple logic. I am asking you ridiculous questions because you have not seemed to follow the simplest of reasoning.

There you go again, except now that you've remembered the command to multiply, your question seems less ridiculous. Previously, your appeal was simply to the fact that birds multiply without said knowledge, so presumably humans can too. That is not a logical argument.

Well it is a relief that you concede that much, even though it is like pulling teeth. "Just as plausible"? See, dismissing something as silly myth is just an excuse to throw all reason right out the window. Or maybe you can explain what is so plausible about humans being initially incapable of something animals could readily do.

I'm not conceding anything, I simply made you aware of your straw man argument.

And those illiterate nomads must have been very imaginative to create a scenario completely beyond their experience. A & E were man and wife, and it would be a given that they have sex. An illiterate nomad would have made a big deal if it were otherwise. Nomads who likely took what women they liked and did with them whatever they liked.

This makes no sense. Even if it were true that Adam and Eve were sexless prior to the fall, the world these nomads were supposedly living in was after the fall, meaning that conditions pre-fall were of no consequence. But again, even if they were having sex, the concept of Eden--with talking serpents and an earth-bound God--are well beyond their experience.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. -Genesis 2​

To cling, cleave, keep close and be one flesh, unashamed of their nakedness. That sounds like a recipe for uninhibited and sexually free nudists, all before the fall.

I love how you argue against the sexual meaning of "desire" yet freely assume that cling and cleave could not be suggestive of a union rather than sex. Especially since "join" is precisely the Hebrew term used.

But even disregarding that..."leave his father and his mother". What? There were no children, and according to you no sex, but they knew something of mothers and fathers?

Wow. Absolute drivel, and a poor attempt at a "Gotcha" moment. Clearly the tale isn't meant to be heard by Adam and Eve themselves, but by people who live in the post-fall world and know exactly what a mother and father are. I mean, come on.

You really like to erect that straw man of "Bible-is-truth".

It's not a straw man, it's what you're suggesting.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil only changed their knowledge, hence the name. Everything else can easily be understood as a natural consequence of that change of awareness. You know what, never mind. I have tried to explain all this to GIA, but I have no greater hope that you could understand.

Ah, now comes the ad hom. It took you longer than usual this time. By all means, allow me to return the favor: You clearly have a problem admitting that you're wrong, which is why you construct straw man arguments all while accusing me of doing the same. It's an old routine, and one I have no interest in reliving. But we both know you're wrong, and I'm comfortable in that knowledge. This "discussion" is over.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syne,

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.

They're supposed to multiply by having sex.

However, there was no such instruction given to the man, Adam or is his wife Eve.


jan.

 

[wynn]

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil..." -Genesis 3​

This would seem to imply it was a knowledge of moral/value judgment.

Sure, given that having sex can bring about a significant change of things - ie. new members of the population. That brings along moral/value judgments.


In an old Ingmar Bergman film, it could be "Wild Strawberries," one character, a young woman says as she is in a flirtatious conversation with an older man, in roundabout - "I speak with you so openly, freely and gladly because I am still a virgin."
Although I don't know any studies on the topic, the experience of having had sex for the first time does seem to change people, make them more mature, at least by the standards of this society.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

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

What don't you understand about that?

I understand that, but I don't understand your implication. Please clarify.

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.

That wasn 't God's command.
Try again.

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.

If Cain was Adam's son, he would be part of his geneology.
Adam is known to have to sons Seth and Abel.

If Cain was of God, like Adam, he would know (like Abel) how to offer to God. He clearly didn't.

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

Yes, Abel.

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.

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

a) the underworld

b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return

2) without praise of God

3) wicked sent there for punishment

4) righteous not abandoned to it

5) of the place of exile (fig)

6) of extreme degradation in sin

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

We all have, but that's not what I meant.
Have you witnessed one type of creature transform into another type 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.

The fact that you feel offended when this idea is singled out as different from evolution isn't my problem.

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:

Thought is an act according to scriptures.

And where does God make it clear that intent has nothing to do with it?

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

Huh!!

You are flip-flopping again:

I stated the difference between the two statements...

All notions of ''sin'', ''original sin'', or ''origin of sin'', have there foundations in the scripture. If we are serious in discussion of these topics,
that is where we must start.

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.

Based on the evidence, I know.

You have no evidence, only belief, and faith in your system.

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

Is that all you have?

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:

No, it's not what the scripture says, that's what you've been told it 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.

It's not about ''metaphors'' it's about language and context.

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.

Was Darwin proposing a real tree when expressed phylogeny as a ''tree of life''?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

I understand that, but I don't understand your implication. Please clarify.

Clearly you don't understand that, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking me that question. If you were to describe your day today, you wouldn't begin it with "I saw this computer sitting on my desk, and it had this clean and shiny monitor that worked perfectly, and saw that it was connected to the internet, so I logged on and here I am!" You'd simply say "I logged onto the internet." The fact taht we see the tree through Eve's eyes suggests that she had either never seen it before, or never noticed it.

That wasn 't God's command.
Try again.

Erm, yes it was. The command was to not eat of the tree.

If Cain was Adam's son, he would be part of his geneology.
Adam is known to have to sons Seth and Abel.

Oh, I see what's going on. You're half-remembering a rather fringy sect of Christianity that believes Cain is the son of Satan. There's nothing in the text that actually suggests this, however. And as for the bit about not mentioning Cain in the geneology, this is a red herring. Know who else isn't mentioned? Abel. Reason being, the object of the geneology in Genesis is to draw a line from Adam to Noah. There was no need to mention Cain or Abel, because neither of their lines lead to Noah. It was Seth's line that did.

If Cain was of God, like Adam, he would know (like Abel) how to offer to God. He clearly didn't.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Cain was Adam's son. And that logic doesn't work anyway, because Adam didn't know not to listen to his wife instead of God.

Yes, Abel.

And Cain.

We all have, but that's not what I meant.

What do you mean we all have?

Have you witnessed one type of creature transform into another type directly?

We have witnessed speciation, yes. Not often, but yes.

The fact that you feel offended when this idea is singled out as different from evolution isn't my problem.

I'm not offended. I have no personal stake in your level of education. I'm just pointing out that your lack of understanding is glaring, and if you wish to discuss such a topic, you should at least attempt to learn something about it. I know this falls on deaf ears, since you'd much rather pretend to know than actually better yourself as a human being, since it's easier, but I feel obligated to let you know the option is always available to you. Living in the dark is a choice, Jan, not something you have forced upon you.

Thought is an act according to scriptures.

And?

And where does God make it clear that intent has nothing to do with it?

I already pointed it out to you. The fact that they were tricked by the snake or that they may have wanted the fruit didn't factor in. All that mattered was that the command was ignored. He says "Because you have done this..." It can't be any clearer. I'm sure you'll see conflicting messages elsewhere in the bible, but nobody ever accused it of being consistent. What we're talking about is is the Eden story.

Huh!!

Yeah, over your head. As I figured.

I stated the difference between the two statements...

No, you tried to say they were the same. You got busted, get over it.

You have no evidence, only belief, and faith in your system.

I have plenty of evidence. I already told you.

Is that all you have?

If you don't want to say it here, just PM me.

No, it's not what the scripture says, that's what you've been told it says.

How do you figure that, when I'm quoting directly from scripture?

It's not about ''metaphors'' it's about language and context.

And what is it, exactly, about the language and context that makes you think I'm wrong?

Was Darwin proposing a real tree when expressed phylogeny as a ''tree of life''?

Darwin wasn't crafting mythology, so you're not comparing like with like. Didn't you just say something about context?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Clearly you don't understand that, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking me that question. If you were to describe your day today, you wouldn't begin it with "I saw this computer sitting on my desk, and it had this clean and shiny monitor that worked perfectly, and saw that it was connected to the internet, so I logged on and here I am!" You'd simply say "I logged onto the internet." The fact taht we see the tree through Eve's eyes suggests that she had either never seen it before, or never noticed it.

In other words you're going to continue to evade, and obfuscate. Fine.

Erm, yes it was. The command was to not eat of the tree.

Yes, but not where the tree was located.
Do try and keep up.

Oh, I see what's going on. You're half-remembering a rather fringy sect of Christianity that believes Cain is the son of Satan. There's nothing in the text that actually suggests this, however. And as for the bit about not mentioning Cain in the geneology, this is a red herring. Know who else isn't mentioned? Abel. Reason being, the object of the geneology in Genesis is to draw a line from Adam to Noah. There was no need to mention Cain or Abel, because neither of their lines lead to Noah. It was Seth's line that did.

Genesis 5

The word ''Seth'' means to substitute.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Yes you do.

Cain was Adam's son. And that logic doesn't work anyway, because Adam didn't know not to listen to his wife instead of God.

How do you know?

And Cain.

Wrong.
Read the link I posted.

What do you mean we all have?

We see evolution in drug resistance for antibiotics. The bacteria evolve to be less sensitive to the drugs

The selective breeding of domestic plants and animals is another example.

We have witnessed speciation, yes. Not often, but yes.

They all look like birds to me. I'll pretend you misunderstood the question, and invite you to
try again. Please read and understand the question before your attempt.

I'm not offended. I have no personal stake in your level of education. I'm just pointing out that your lack of understanding is glaring, and if you wish to discuss such a topic, you should at least attempt to learn something about it.

So you're saying only those who are educated can understand darwinian evolution, and those that aren't cannot understand anything about it?

I already pointed it out to you. The fact that they were tricked by the snake or that they may have wanted the fruit didn't factor in. All that mattered was that the command was ignored. He says "Because you have done this..." It can't be any clearer. I'm sure you'll see conflicting messages elsewhere in the bible, but nobody ever accused it of being consistent. What we're talking about is is the Eden story.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, on this subject matter.
Congratulations! You've reached an all time low.

No, you tried to say they were the same. You got busted, get over it.

:roflmao:

I have plenty of evidence. I already told you.

And I'm the King of England, consider yourself told.

How do you figure that, when I'm quoting directly from scripture?

Sure you are, but you have no comprehension of it, or you comprehend it but choose to stick with the mainstream version because it justifies your religion, DE the basis of which is materialism.

And what is it, exactly, about the language and context that makes you think I'm wrong?

What do you mean?

Darwin wasn't crafting mythology, so you're not comparing like with like. Didn't you just say something about context?

Just answer the question.
Was the tree of life literal or figurative?

If the latter, why did he use it in that manner?

Thanks in advance.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Syne,

They're supposed to multiply by having sex.

Yes, that is my point.

However, there was no such instruction given to the man, Adam or is his wife Eve.

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​

This has already been pointed out to you, so you must have one hell of an attentional bias going on. And before this, god separately commanded the sea and air creatures to do the same.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. -Genesis 1​

Sure, given that having sex can bring about a significant change of things - ie. new members of the population. That brings along moral/value judgments.


In an old Ingmar Bergman film, it could be "Wild Strawberries," one character, a young woman says as she is in a flirtatious conversation with an older man, in roundabout - "I speak with you so openly, freely and gladly because I am still a virgin."
Although I don't know any studies on the topic, the experience of having had sex for the first time does seem to change people, make them more mature, at least by the standards of this society.

So you are trying to say that carnal knowledge of the opposite sex is the basis for morality? Are you serious?! That is ridiculous, and it is a false dilemma to say that the possibility for having children makes the act of sex itself more significant to moral judgment. Not every act of sex results in children, and if you have ever seen a teen mother, you would know how little it actually changes them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syne,

Yes, that is my point.

Yes and no.
If I'm not mistaken, you think that the (6th day crew) ''mankind'' came about via the biological route.
They didn't.
At least not according to the Bible

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​

This has already been pointed out to you, so you must have one hell of an attentional bias going on. And before this, god separately commanded the sea and air creatures to do the same.

According to the scripture God created their bodies simultaneosly.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. -Genesis 1​

Yes he created ''the great whales, and every living creature that moveth, and they were all brought forth by the water in abundance, then they were instructed to multiply.
Not that He create a male and a female whale.

My point is that Adam, according to the Bible and Qu'ran, is a special creation of God's, after the 6th day crew.



jan.

 

[Syne]

No, I am approaching the story as if it can be made sense of. Whether it is a myth does not matter one whit as to whether we can apply our reason to it.

Of course it does. In several places, your argument amounts to "That couldn't have been what it means, because that's not the way the world is." In other words, you rely on the idea that it must be true.

That is called using reason. If you refuse to make comparisons to what is otherwise known then why bother examining it at all? You do not seem like you have any interest in bringing any critical reasoning to bear, aside from just blind criticism.

Reason, is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. -wiki​

Like Jan, you seem to completely ignore parts of the story that are inconvenient to your argument (see below).

In the context of the story, it certainly seems that way. Prior to God's command, there were no children (evidently). Afterwards, there are. That seems to be the internal logic. Am I saying it's perfectly consistent? Obviously not, since it's an ancient myth that has roots in tradition predating their ability to write. What I'm saying is that as the story is presented, that seems to be what it says.

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm saying that God gave them the ability to reproduce in the fall. Just as he gave her childbearing pains and made the snake slither on its stomach, he changed the nature of humans when he ousted them from Eden.

What command? The one two chapters before the fall, where they are commanded to multiply? And yet again, you want to skirt applying reason by dismissing it as only myth. So why all the arguing? If you are going to dismiss something then do so and move on.

Again, god gave them the ability to multiply two chapters after he commanded them to do so? That is not even consistent with the story, taken at extremely naive face value. That is unless you are bringing your view of "the way the world is" to bear, and that view includes a preconceived bias. Any rational reader would assume that when they are commanded to multiply they also have the ability to follow that command.

Again, all extremely simple logic that keeps seeming to elude you.

You're either suggesting that the Nephilim were the one's being referred to as "sons of God" and "daughters of men," you are suggesting that they are three different peoples. In either case, you're wrong, as the Nephilim are clearly referred to as "sons of God," and the "daughters of men" are the female offspring of humans.

1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. -Genesis 6​

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God#Interpretations

In most, the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of god and the daughters of men, the sons of god being the only mythical creature in only one interpretation.

Well, it is a myth. Earlier in Genesis, God creates the universe in 6 days, creates man from a lump of dirt, and woman from man's rib. Later in Genesis, we get a "modern" retelling of Gilgamesh's flood tale. I have no reason to believe that the Nephilim are any less mythological than anything else in Genesis.

Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you bother to quibble over a myth if you have no interest in applying any reason to it?

No, you were trying to say that "desire" is not an animal trait. For example:

This is why you brought out the dictionary. You wanted to "prove" that desire is not of the subconscious. I proved that wrong by highlighting two alternative definitions.

I have already clarified what I meant. I pointed out the definitions that applied to what I said. Trying to attach definitions I did not is only a straw man and pedantic red herring. Obviously, I meant "sexual desire" in the sense that it applies to humans, and you have yet to make any case for there being no such distinction.

Well, it is a myth, I just happen to have forgotten about the "Be fruitful and multiply" part. Simply mistake. It apparently took a re-reading by you, otherwise you would have brought this up sooner.

It took no rereading, as I have pointed this out many times recently (even in other threads).

That's fair, though the absence of children does still suggest that there was no sex. In the context of "be fruitful and multiply" it could simply mean that they hadn't gotten around to it yet, but there's no suggestion that either of them were trying and failing.

How would "trying and failing" advance a story that is told like more of a historical account than a drama? You keep making unsupportable assumptions. I have already mentioned that a very simple explanation is that there was not a significant lapse of time between the command and the fall, hence not children. Hell, would these naive people even been able to associate sex to pregnancy until she started showing? Sometime it does not show until the second trimester.

This is a straw man seemingly meant only to justify an appeal to ridicule. Where have I said any of this "actually happened"? I am saying that this is a story that we can find some sense in, if we bother to look. I really do not know why you argue, as it really does not seem that you are interested in bothering to look at all.

See, there's no point to having this discussion if you're going to use weasel tactics. You know damn well you're approaching this from the position of it actually happening. This is why you've tried to say my arguments necessitate animals needing to know good and evil, and attempting to apply modern logic as a roadblock against particular meanings. You're assuming that the tale is true. This is also why you're so vehemently against the idea of it being a myth. You even put the word in quotes. Clearly, you believe this happened.

This is all your bias talking. I have no problem with it being considered a myth, so long as that is not used to dismiss and evade what you seem like you actually want to discuss. I actually think it is a metaphor for the evolution of man in general, so no, I do not believe it to be a literally true story. Perhaps you should also refresh your memory on what a myth is:

myth
1
a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
3
: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence -merriam webster​

For discussion, the first definition is more useful than the third (which you seem to favor). Again, why bother with something you think is wholly imaginary and has no relevance to anything? Can you say trivial?

No doubt. But no one said that myths have no purpose, or that they aren't meant to be read a certain way or convey a certain message. I'm sorry that I can be right while also understanding that the story is simply mythology. If that upsets you, I apologize, but I'm not going to stop talking about it just because it makes you uncomfortable.

This is a straw man appeal to emotion, and a premature victory to boot. I am not upset, as I have no vested interest in this story being in any way literally true. If you were not so busy claiming I was some believer, your bias might clear long enough to see that I have been examining it as metaphor while you have been missing crucial parts. See your "I just happen to have forgotten about the "Be fruitful and multiply" part." above.

"Two sexless humans"? Where do you get that crap? If animals can have sex without knowledge of good and evil, it follows that humans could as well, as both have two sexes and were commanded to multiply. Very simple logic. I am asking you ridiculous questions because you have not seemed to follow the simplest of reasoning.

There you go again, except now that you've remembered the command to multiply, your question seems less ridiculous. Previously, your appeal was simply to the fact that birds multiply without said knowledge, so presumably humans can too. That is not a logical argument.

Yes, we get it, you like to erect straw man arguments ("now that you've remembered") to cover your own errors ("I just happen to have forgotten"). Grow up. You made an error. Not a big deal, so long as you do not get petty about it.

It is very logical that if one species can multiply without special knowledge then another can as well. Unless there is an explicit exception given, which there is not, there is no reason to assume that man should be exempt from the logic that holds for every creature on earth. Very simple, but then, you have shown some trouble grasping simple logic.

I'm not conceding anything, I simply made you aware of your straw man argument.

Really?

Or is it just more likely that environmental stimuli (pheromones, season, etc.) trigger innate mating behavior?

Yes, obviously.

So are you now claiming that it is not more likely? Try to keep up.

This makes no sense. Even if it were true that Adam and Eve were sexless prior to the fall, the world these nomads were supposedly living in was after the fall, meaning that conditions pre-fall were of no consequence. But again, even if they were having sex, the concept of Eden--with talking serpents and an earth-bound God--are well beyond their experience.

But according to the illiterate nomads who concocted this story...

The experience of these "illiterate nomads" very much is of consequence. Superstition was obviously a common part of their life, and fantastic serpents and gods have no direct bearing on their personal experience, other than to explain the inscrutable. Sex, man, and wife were not inscrutable.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. -Genesis 2​

I love how you argue against the sexual meaning of "desire" yet freely assume that cling and cleave could not be suggestive of a union rather than sex. Especially since "join" is precisely the Hebrew term used.

Your research is sorely lacking. The root of wə·ḏā·ḇaq is dā·ḇaq, which means to cling, cleave, keep close. But that is what happens when you are satisfied by the first thing that seems to validate your foregone conclusion. Also, where does woman lacking desire, even sexual (as they are often known to), preclude the sexual desire of man or sex in general? Sex among animals is very often rapacious. It this light, her desire would simply be consent.

Wow. Absolute drivel, and a poor attempt at a "Gotcha" moment. Clearly the tale isn't meant to be heard by Adam and Eve themselves, but by people who live in the post-fall world and know exactly what a mother and father are. I mean, come on.

So now you do admit that we can use more contemporary knowledge when examining such a story?

It's not a straw man, it's what you're suggesting.

You need to distinguish between what is implied and what you infer. Big difference.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil only changed their knowledge, hence the name. Everything else can easily be understood as a natural consequence of that change of awareness. You know what, never mind. I have tried to explain all this to GIA, but I have no greater hope that you could understand.

Ah, now comes the ad hom. It took you longer than usual this time. By all means, allow me to return the favor: You clearly have a problem admitting that you're wrong, which is why you construct straw man arguments all while accusing me of doing the same. It's an old routine, and one I have no interest in reliving. But we both know you're wrong, and I'm comfortable in that knowledge. This "discussion" is over.

There is no ad hominem implied. Many people are probably incapable of following my reasoning. You are just using this accusation as your excuse to eject from a discussion you are at a disadvantage in. Claim a premature victory and run away. Typical.