Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Felstorm · 04-30-2003, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buy-Bull Gawd

2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

From this one can gather that god is threating Adam with death if he eats from the tree. Note that before the creation of man does it mention that man is somehow immortal or possessing of eternal life? For all intents and purposes Adam was mortal to begin with and god was threatening Adam with instantaneous death!

Quote:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

And here we can see the supposed "deception". Did the serpent really lie? No in fact they did not die as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit. Apparently Satan was telling the truth about the fruit. The in fact " became as god" knowing good and bad. This implies that god is subject to morals and not the source of them. Also it implicates god as lying to mankind to keep him stupid.

Peter Kirby · 04-30-2003, 03:23 AM

You must be aware of the standard response that the death was "spiritual" and that death became sure for Adam when he transgressed. The question doesn't interest me that much because I am sure that the whole story is made up. What is a slightly more interesting question to me is, did the writer realize the implication that could be drawn from the story, namely, that God was a liar? If so, what would explain the invention of a story where God lies?

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD · 04-30-2003, 06:46 AM

I don't know much about "standard responses," but the kind of death in question at 2:16�17 is certainly a combination of both Peter's and Felstorm's posts. In other words, we can infer that the death in view is quite the opposite of what the first man had in the garden, namely, physical and spiritual life. His earthly life truly would have been temporal, but death (or injury) would not have been his entrance into "eternity." As a result of the Fall, death stands as the final terror. So, then, the question regarding God's "deferment" of Adam's death is quite superfluous in that 1) Adam truly died the day he ate the fruit (because he truly lost all that he had had in the garden); and 2) God showed mercy by not striking him dead on the spot, instead killing animals for the two in order to cover them (a foreshadowing of the coming, final sacrifice?). The serpent, contrary to Felstorm's opinion, was indeed the liar. What our first parents came to know was that despite their attempt to know everything apart from their Creator (the seizing of the fruit), they were really not that self-sufficient after all (this was the knowledge they "gained").

I would rather think that the whole good/evil bit is a merism, Felstorm. That is, it is a compound opposite that symbolizes potentially unlimited knowledge. I am quite sure of this, given the typical usages in Hebrew to this effect. This, of course, renders moot your comments on God being subject to morals, Adam and Eve becoming as gods (not, like God, mind you), etc.

I must admit, though, that if any negative reading of the text is more probable than others, it is that God is full of malignity and envy, as if he was wishing to deprive man of his highest perfection, or, as Felstorm quipped, trying to keep mankind stupid. Ironically, this line of reasoning follows all too closely that of the serpent's.

The choice should be obvious.

Regards,

Prolapse · 04-30-2003, 09:42 AM

Why put a tree like that in the Garden anyways?

mike_decock · 04-30-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
What is a slightly more interesting question to me is, did the writer realize the implication that could be drawn from the story, namely, that God was a liar? If so, what would explain the invention of a story where God lies?

I think that is the more interesting question. Put this in light of the other part of the narrative where God is playing "Hide 'N Seek" with Adam and Eve and the depiction of "God" is far more human/fallible than the later descriptions of a more "etherial" YHWH.

-Mike..

mike_decock · 04-30-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
I must admit, though, that if any negative reading of the text is more probable than others, it is that God is full of malignity and envy, as if he was wishing to deprive man of his highest perfection, or, as Felstorm quipped, trying to keep mankind stupid. Ironically, this line of reasoning follows all too closely that of the serpent's.

In the Babylonian creation myth, Man was created to do the work of the Gods. In Genesis, he was placed in the garden to till the ground.. Keeping mankind ignorant of good and evil would have been essential for man to remain ignorant of his servitude.

-Mike...

CJD · 04-30-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by decock
In the Babylonian creation myth, Man was created to do the work of the Gods. In Genesis, he was placed in the garden to till the ground. Keeping mankind ignorant of good and evil would have been essential for man to remain ignorant of his servitude.

Ah, yes, "better to spend an eternity in hell than serve one day in heaven."

mike_decock · 04-30-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Ah, yes, "better to spend an eternity in hell than serve one day in heaven."

If I had any evidence that God existed and was worth serving, I would choose servitude over hell. I'm not a big fan of suffering.

"Love me, OR ELSE" is so blatantly morally bankrupt that I'm baffled at how people can honestly believe that God is good.

-Mike...

Felstorm · 04-30-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

You must be aware of the standard response that the death was "spiritual" and that death became sure for Adam when he transgressed. The question doesn't interest me that much because I am sure that the whole story is made up. What is a slightly more interesting question to me is, did the writer realize the implication that could be drawn from the story, namely, that God was a liar? If so, what would explain the invention of a story where God lies?

Well one would also notice how christians like to waffle between literal interperetation of the bible and a trancendental figuartive interperetation. I guess I should have specified that I was going after a litereal interpretation of the tale.

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
I don't know much about "standard responses," but the kind of death in question at 2:16�17 is certainly a combination of both Peter's and Felstorm's posts. In other words, we can infer that the death in view is quite the opposite of what the first man had in the garden, namely, physical and spiritual life. His earthly life truly would have been temporal, but death (or injury) would not have been his entrance into "eternity." As a result of the Fall, death stands as the final terror. So, then, the question regarding God's "deferment" of Adam's death is quite superfluous in that 1) Adam truly died the day he ate the fruit (because he truly lost all that he had had in the garden); and 2) God showed mercy by not striking him dead on the spot, instead killing animals for the two in order to cover them (a foreshadowing of the coming, final sacrifice?). The serpent, contrary to Felstorm's opinion, was indeed the liar. What our first parents came to know was that despite their attempt to know everything apart from their Creator (the seizing of the fruit), they were really not that self-sufficient after all (this was the knowledge they "gained").

Okay, this is the very same physical/spiritual waffling I mentioned earlier. But it still stand to reason that, one god was depriving mankind of knowledge, keeping them in ignorance. How is that "good"? But the serpent did not actually lie. It spoke the truth. They ate the fruit and did not literally die. (Assuming a literalist perspective.)From what we can ascertain mankind was mortal from when god supposedly created them, there is no indication given here that adam was somehow possessing anything other than lack of moral knowledge.

Quote:

I would rather think that the whole good/evil bit is a merism, Felstorm. That is, it is a compound opposite that symbolizes potentially unlimited knowledge. I am quite sure of this, given the typical usages in Hebrew to this effect. This, of course, renders moot your comments on God being subject to morals, Adam and Eve becoming as gods (not, like God, mind you), etc.

I dispute that god is subjective to morals. By it's own admission it is subjected to morality. This being throught the course of the bible ordered the genocide of man, woman child and beast.

This god is indeed subject to morailty. If it were truly omnipotent it would not need to use man to kill for him.

Magus55 · 04-30-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prolapse
Why put a tree like that in the Garden anyways?

Thats the tree that allowed Free will to exist.

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

04-30-2003, 03:23 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	You must be aware of the standard response that the death was "spiritual" and that death became sure for Adam when he transgressed. The question doesn't interest me that much because I am sure that the whole story is made up. What is a slightly more interesting question to me is, did the writer realize the implication that could be drawn from the story, namely, that God was a liar? If so, what would explain the invention of a story where God lies? best, Peter Kirby

04-30-2003, 06:46 AM	#3
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	I don't know much about "standard responses," but the kind of death in question at 2:16�17 is certainly a combination of both Peter's and Felstorm's posts. In other words, we can infer that the death in view is quite the opposite of what the first man had in the garden, namely, physical and spiritual life. His earthly life truly would have been temporal, but death (or injury) would not have been his entrance into "eternity." As a result of the Fall, death stands as the final terror. So, then, the question regarding God's "deferment" of Adam's death is quite superfluous in that 1) Adam truly died the day he ate the fruit (because he truly lost all that he had had in the garden); and 2) God showed mercy by not striking him dead on the spot, instead killing animals for the two in order to cover them (a foreshadowing of the coming, final sacrifice?). The serpent, contrary to Felstorm's opinion, was indeed the liar. What our first parents came to know was that despite their attempt to know everything apart from their Creator (the seizing of the fruit), they were really not that self-sufficient after all (this was the knowledge they "gained"). I would rather think that the whole good/evil bit is a merism, Felstorm. That is, it is a compound opposite that symbolizes potentially unlimited knowledge. I am quite sure of this, given the typical usages in Hebrew to this effect. This, of course, renders moot your comments on God being subject to morals, Adam and Eve becoming as gods (not, like God, mind you), etc. I must admit, though, that if any negative reading of the text is more probable than others, it is that God is full of malignity and envy, as if he was wishing to deprive man of his highest perfection, or, as Felstorm quipped, trying to keep mankind stupid. Ironically, this line of reasoning follows all too closely that of the serpent's. The choice should be obvious. Regards,

04-30-2003, 09:42 AM	#4
Prolapse New Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 4	Why put a tree like that in the Garden anyways?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.