Matrioshka_Brain

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Anyways:

It is my understanding that in the bible's creation myth, man is constructed psycologically in the predominant god charicter's image. It is also my understanding that, prior to the fall, man had no capacity for good-evil distinction ie. lacked alturism/empathy, and possibly cognitive capacity to construct even an egoist standard of conduct.

Now, given the charicter Jaweh's apparent Emotional Immaturity, egomania & vanity, and general overall lack of concern for others like itself (ie. humans {flood, hell, Job, Philistiens, ect.}, implied cognitive dissonance and jealousy regarding other gods), and finally that it never has anything to fear, its charicter seems consistent with someone created without a good-evil distinction, as the human charicter Adam was (who, incidentially, was made using Yhwh as a model). Thus, if Adam was modled after the god and lacked morals, it follows the god does not have a sense of good and evil.

Post fall, man had a sense of good-evil distinction, and always was tagged with a "sin", which its unwitting participants did not commit. If the only thing that stuck with man post-fall was a sense of good and evil (and intelligence), then it is arguable that the "origional sin" is morality; alturism, empathic awareness of others, intellectual capacity to form a code of conduct that encourages happieness. What makes us good.

_____________________________________-
The Xian may argue by bringing into discussion the passage about it "drawing the line between light and dark"; one may counter that, by implication, they (Yhwh's concept of good and evil) are mere settings, to which it thinks itself exemt (ie. creates evil and identifies itself as good). In addition, it's code/settings are typically Orwellian in nature (overly restrictive to the point of pointlessness, give lots of power over others {ex: Leveticus}), and egoist (demanding of worship).

Thus, the Xian has no excuse to call the god charicter Jaweh good, bibiblically.

Thoughts, comments? Am I right?

Amaleq13

As an atheist, I am the obvious choice to offer the Christian perspective.

I think you will be criticized for equating "in the image of" with "exactly like" God.

What I think is a more difficult question for Christians to answer is why one shouldn't consider the entire fable a set-up to ensure that A&E would eat the forbidden fruit.

After all, God is assuming that A&E know that obeying God is "right" even though they have yet to eat from the tree that is alleged to provide an understanding of what "right" is. They are condemned for doing something when the "something" is the only way they could know what they were doing was wrong. They wuz screwed. The talking snake was right!


The ways of the Lord are dark but never pleasant.

Ellis14

Wow. That is an excellent point that I've never considered before!:

How could Adam and Eve make a decision whether to disobey God or not based on whether it was right or wrong to do so, if they didn't have the knowledge of right or wrong, or good and bad??

Lol. I'm using that one on the next theist I meet!

Amos

Slow down Ellis because the bible does not say that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. The woman did and she gave some to her husband and he ate it. The knowledge created here is what caused their eyes to be opened and as a result of this they felt shame (cf "no shame in Gen.2:25). This shame implied an ego and that ego is later called Adam and his wife was the serpent he later called Eve.

Ellis14

Haha! What?? Are you taking the p*ss or have I misunderstood?

Amos

Well read it again, slowly and use your finger if you have to .

Ellis14

sorry. used my finger and even used a nice big ruler to make sure i didn't mix the lines up...

Amos

So let me help you. The word Adam should not appear until Gen.3:9 "The Lord God then called the man and asked him: "where are you." The reply was: . . . I was naked and the Lord asked "who told you you were naked?"

The "who told you" introduces the ego identity without which there can be no shame (try out hypnosis here). Adam was therefore created in Gen.3 as the ego identity of man and he took the slithery serpent to teach him her ways and that is why they were paired up with each other to go out into the world where only the fittest can survive.

Amaleq13

Ellis10,

You may do so at absolutely no charge. I foolishly opened the door by giving Doctor X "Paulinate" without charging him so now all my "wisdom and witticisms" are free to any who appreciate them.

I think the argument is legitimate and effective against anyone claiming the story to be literally true but you will clearly have difficulty if your opponent shares Amos' views.

Speaking of which...
Could you explain how your second sentence is not a contradiction of your first?

Then, could you explain how Genesis 3:6 does not directly contradict your first claim?

"And the woman seeth that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;" (YLT)

Ellis14

No offence, but this is a completely unfounded and absurd interpretation of Genesis. The "man" or " Adam" was no more an avatar of human ego than the serpent and the women were the same!