Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 05-29-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

While the OP is unnecessarily combative in attributing a "lie" in a morality fable, I wonder if Mr. Schlicter would be willing to start a new thread deconstructing the DH. Feel free to start with the sticky above and defend mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as opposed to what is argued through the DH.

I will consider doing that. I might as well at this point. I am getting the impression that is the only topic I will be able to discuss regardless of the stated thread topic.

Amaleq13 · 05-29-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Is it ok if I 'retroject' a much earlier 'Adversary' into the story?

It isn't OK to retroject anything into the story.

Where do you find such a notion supported in the story? The snake is described as nothing but a snake albeit one that can talk. Just like in any fable.

sschlichter · 05-29-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Steve, if you have reason to think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (and existed), you may want to start a thread to discuss that. First, it may be useful to read some other threads on this.

As with the other topics I’ve suggested a thread on, it may be useful to learn the evidence on both sides. Without that you’ll appear both ignorant and naïve. In all of these that we’ve discussed (GoL, P52, Moses, a literal Adam & Eve, talking animals, etc,) it would seem that if you are interested in discussing the evidence point by point, a separate thread would be the way to do that.

Equinox, thanks again for the suggestion. Again, I was actually interested in discussing Gen 2. I was confronted about Mosaic authorship in an effort to do just that. However, I understand that my views may be too distracting for some to have any meaningful discussion on any topic here. So, I will consider doing that.

Also, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the idea that God did lie in Genesis 2:17, but that this was considered morally fine, since, after all, he’s God (my post, #36).

QUOTE]

I did have some thoughts and will respond from that post.

~Steve

05-29-2008, 08:04 PM

I was going to write that "God" must have been disappointed that his first man and woman used their freewill to the detriment of themselves, and all of mankind subsequently, and in defiance of "God"'s wishes, but then I realise that being omniscient, this "God" knew damned well, before he created any bloody thing, that that would be the outcome.

"God" couldn't have been disappointed, because he simply reaped what he'd sown, knowing that it was bad seed - that's according to the Bible story.

mens_sana · 05-29-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The most obvious interpretation was that YHWH was threatening dire consequences to Adam and Eve for eating from that tree....

I would have thought that the "most obvious interpretation" was that the author was threatening dire consequences — that God's part in the matter was tenuous at best.

sschlichter · 05-29-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Is it ok if I 'retroject' a much earlier 'Adversary' into the story?

It isn't OK to retroject anything into the story.

Where do you find such a notion supported in the story? The snake is described as nothing but a snake albeit one that can talk. Just like in any fable.

that is interesting. it seems evident to me that what is there is meant to be disguised as a snake. The image of the snake is used to illiustrate the type of enmity that is occurring between the woman and the serpent but it is evident that the judgment is focused on the serpent.

Gen 3:9-19 forms a chiasm where the judgment on the serpent is the focal point. Why would the author focus judgment on a snake?

Are you suggesting the seed of the snake are more little snakes? If so, then why does the Oracle say that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent vs. the head of the seed of the serpent?

Besides, a snake in a fable still has a meaning.

As far as retrojecting. The accusation was that the concept of Satan was a Christian concept. It is not. There is plenty of OT references. the word Satan is Hebrew.

If there is a consensus that it is a fable then why are people on this site looking for proof that God lied in this story.

~Steve

JCS · 05-29-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are just making stuff up. You really have no idea who the author was?

Again, you just imagine all sorts of baseless theories. You really have no idea who the author of Revelation was and you don't really know what anything in Revelation means.

You appear to be very good at imagining things, but this time you are wrong, I really do care about everything in the Bible.

I was referring to whether you care about my interpreatation of things.

Isn't that why the Bible fails on a grand scale, interpretation? One sect believes you have to take it literally another claims metaphorically or figuratively while others claim it is up to the reader to decipher. In other words it means what ever you want it to mean thus gods word is just subjective babble at best.

firebug · 05-29-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

When the bible says the great and terrible day of the Lord, do you think it is referring to one 24 hour period?

or how about something like the day of the gentiles. is this one day?

or, in modern English, if you prefer. it could be a phrase like "I was young back in the day". What 24 hour period am I referring to?

Sorry, if you want to catch God in a lie, you have to learn Hebrew for yourself.

~Steve

I don't think any of your examples quite match up with the statement under consideration. Apparently, Eve understood god the same way I did, since she needed assurances from the snake about the potentially poisonous nature of the fruit. Your point probably is that I don't know what is a metaphor.

So if you know Hebrew, why wouldn't you help me out with translation? It's just one sentence.

firebug · 05-29-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartender

It depends on who you talk to. Only those who believe in god can believe in the bible. Christians (at least those I know) don't care what the bible actually says, they take from it what they want. Many refuse to even think about some biblical passages, much less discuss them. Those who do wish to discuss them will almost always come up with an interpretation they feel will explain away any difficulties. Failing that, they can always fall back to the 'mysteries of god' argument.

Those who believe will do so unless they decide at some point in their lives to truly examine the text realistically. Sadly, those people are far and few in between.

Thanks, Bartender - that is exactly what I was getting at. I think nobody in possession of a functioning brain can keep believing in god from the bible after *reading* it. It is full of nonsense, not to mention child abuse, hatred and homophobia. Ironically, reading the book may be the best way to leave church.

firebug · 05-29-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by zavijava

I don't think Adam & Eve should be considered as having been real people.

why not?

because humans can't live that long. because there is no way that all the different races could have evolved in 6,000 years. because man and woman have the same number of ribs. because two humans alone on the planet would go extinct. because genesis is a fairy tale. because there is evidence that humans exist for more than 6,000 years.

But primarily because Adam means dust in Hebrew (I still don't understand if you know the language or just google like me), so it is really a metaphor

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2008, 08:04 PM	#64
Tuffa Nuff Guest Posts: n/a	I was going to write that "God" must have been disappointed that his first man and woman used their freewill to the detriment of themselves, and all of mankind subsequently, and in defiance of "God"'s wishes, but then I realise that being omniscient, this "God" knew damned well, before he created any bloody thing, that that would be the outcome. "God" couldn't have been disappointed, because he simply reaped what he'd sown, *knowing* that it was bad seed - that's according to the Bible story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.