Chris Weimer

But why did God have the Serpent? This still makes no sense? At least it doesn't literally...

Madkins007

The question was "who said Adam and Eve were punished eternally?" That is not what was answered in the above quote. We do not know Adam and Eve's eternal situation, so do not know if they are indeed still being punished. There are hints that they may be in heaven, and if so would not be being punished eternally.

Certainly they were punished during their lives, and we have not yet made it back to the Garden (although it is a bit early to say whether or not we will EVER get back there). On the other hand, certainly women are no longer "forced to bear children in great pain" universally and eternally.

I say, You atheists with your taking things out of context and jumping on one single statement that you yourself have made but fail miserably at supporting; it's impossible to discuss anything with you. But I do enjoy the give and take!

Eckz

Not to mention the fact that God KNEW that he would eat the apple and still didn't change him or do anything to stop it. What a cruel God...

CJD

Come on, cweb255, if you presume to speak you had better define the terms of your argument when asked.

Define omnibenevolent.

Chris Weimer

omnibenevolent - all good...rather you prefer an other definition?

Magus55

How were Adam and Eve punished eternally? Adam and Eve were banished from the garden for the extent of their life. Eve wasn't required to bear children in pain eternally, only for the time she was alive.

Angrillori

But, rather obviously, he had no way to know whether disobedience was a good or an evil act, nor any way to know what death was.

To Adam, pre-fruit, disobedience was as much a GOOD act as it was an EVIL act. Death, having not existed before, was as meaningful a word to him as gribblefritz is to us.

Even our mortal, human, flawed, system of justice has means of dealing with those who can not tell whether what they did was right or wrong. But apparently to god...


But, he did have to know what evil was to know that disobedience wasn't a good thing.

Heck, for all he knew, for all he knew disobedience was a good thing, and death was like getting a chocolate cake.

But you would be derelict for turning the oven on, leaving a toy on the burner, leaving a baby sitter with your son who constantly encouraged him to touch the stove, after you expressly tell him that touching the stove will result in his gibblefritz, and making sure he knew that disobeying your command not to touch the stove was neither good nor bad.

Hmm, that would make you a pretty shitty father. Makes the hypothetical YHWH god a pretty shitty god.


But, to make the analogy correct, this must NOT be what you do. The correct analogy would be above, but I'll repeat:

Lock your son in the kitchen.
Turn the oven on.
Make sure your son doesn't know that disobeying you is bad.
Tell your son he will be gibblefritzed if he touches the stove.
Leave a toy on the stove.
Leave a babysitter there who will continually encourage your son to touch the stove.

Then, and only then, will you have an analgous situation to the one in which:

God locked A+E in the garden.
He put the tree in the garden.
He made sure A+E didn't know disobedience was evil.
Told A+E something they couldn't understand would happen if they ate.
Put edible fruit in the tree.
Put a serpent in the garden to tempt A+E.

Same here.

KevinE

Given that this is the Biblical Criticism and History forum, I would think that the best way for a Christian to make this apology work would be to answer "No" to Q6. I would think that someone like an Alvin Plantinga, who would push a free-will theodicy, either would or should acknowledge that it's not a good idea to take the first chapters of Genesis literally. Using this move, one doesn't end up with a literal Adam as a counterexample to the notion that people avoid sinning in paradise. I'm not personally convinced by the free-will theodicy, but wouldn't this be the obvious move for Christians to make?

Admittedly, though, my suggestion wouldn't help out the Christians who insist on taking the early chapters of Genesis as straightforward history, and those seem to be the folks whom you're addressing.

Chris Weimer

I can accept a non-literal Genesis, like Origen, but almost as much as I can accept a non-literal gospel of Jesus Christ, a non-literal account of the Apocalypse, and a fictional account of the Old Testament Exodus-Chronicles.

whichphilosophy

You are confusing two arguements. This is a common point since the Garden of Eden does not have anything to do to evaluating whether there is a God or there is not.

The concept of whether matter energy time and space originated from existing items or from a power source is equally right to assume.

What you are talking about is the Garden of Eden. Whether or not the Garden of Eden existed or not is nothing to do with whether or not there is a diety.

Einstein believed there is not such thing as time and space The ancient religions believe the same thing.

So the dilema remains the same. It is equally right to say that God does or does not exist or that the energy or its earlier equivalent was always there, ie never began. :wave:

Regards