MagicBrowser

I had always interpreted it as the snake being part of Eve Still though, if they don't know right from wrong yes, the story falls apart. Even if you accept it as not being literal, you would think an omnipotent god could do better than that. Or at least I would

dado

they didn't choose to know "evil", they chose to know both good and evil. they didn't know either one before the fruit incident: they were amoral in the strictest sense of the word: without even the ability to make moral choices.

sin isn't a state of being, it is an outcome. before the fruit they had neither sinned, nor acted "good".

dado

nowhere in there does it say - or even imply - an omnipotent G-d. if anything, the story argues for non-omnipotence.

Javaman

I agree completely. It is one of the stances of some Christian sects that he is all-powerful. My Hebrew is non-existant but Almighty (from "El-Shaddai" I believe) doesn't actually mean "all powerful" I don't think.

I'm a weak-atheist with regard to a non-omnipotent deity.

dado

"multiply powerful" would be closer, but thousands of years removed from the writing it's safe to say we'll never know just how nuanced the usage was. there certainly were - still are - streams of Judaism that read it as "omnipotent" in the full sense of the word. over the millenia the great sages have been more or less evenly divided between the 8 possible combinations of mystical/rationalist, immanent/transcendent, limited/omnipotent, so whichever viewpoint you take there is ample theological weight to back it up.

SiliconWolf

That seems like a decent analogy, which I tend to agree with. But many sects strongly view the expulsion as a punishment (Original Sin). How do they account for that? I'm curious about that, because my profound disagreement with the Original Sin doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church was one of the key reasons for my own deconversion.

dado

the same way i account for the popularity of the Jon Benet Ramsey twin that survived, Britney Spears.

gregor4

dado wrote:
You're logic baffels me...I sense dishonesty in it.
Given the being of life, it's unavoidable that life would surely
know good; the being of life is itself the very knowledge of
good, no matter that knowledge is limited.

The amoral/ignorant state is actually a political construct
based on a theoretical legal arguement that if one is not
aware of consequences, they cannot be held politically
responsible.

Given the premise God PERFECTLY KNOWS such issues and
Genesis's God did indeed hold Adam and Eve responsible...

sin as an outcome...what?

The name sin is created as one of two moral categories
where ones actions of will are either lawful or unlawful,
otherwise named as 'good' or not, hence are a sin.

The issue here is one of LAW. The premise is God surely
knows such issues and did infact issue a law and duty to
that law...

Even so, the larger issue here is that I've shown Genesis
is false, and my intent was to argue our original life was
not a material life.

I sense you're a christian. If so, you're obssession for belief
has blinded you, but you know it not. Likewise, you will be
driven to deny/oppose, corrupt and confuse all meanings of
facts and ideas which conflict with your beliefs.

A will determined to believe is fundamentally unfit for the
pursuit and debate of knowledge.


:banghead:

gregor4

The premise God is knowing and loving and honest and equal
does anchor all of God's acts to those which are only loving,
honest, and equal/just. Omni-potent is a baseless idea.

dado

strike one.

'fraid not. the text says very clearly the tree held the key to knowledge of both good and evil. the other tree held (implicity eternal) life. there was neither good nor evil content to their actions until they ate the fruit.

strike two.

it has nothing to do with consequences, it has to do with choices: without knowledge there is no informed choice, without choice, there is no moral content to actions.

a sin is a bad choice.

strike three.

you're out.