stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Quite a bold claim you make here for an Atheist
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did God Show Himself Insecure? (Garden Story)
- Thread starter thomas t
- Start date
-
- Tags
- adam and eve garden
Thief
Rogue Theologian
neither
it was done to be sure....the alteration of mind and heart had taken hold
Man would have SPIRIT
sufficient to be curious even as death is pending
while I still believe every single aspect of the story, let's have a look at this:
The tree meant knowing good from evil.
You make it look like meaning right from wrong.
To me, it comes across as knowing good from bad.
After, they knew that they were naked. Nakedness, as I see it, can be seen as little elegant which is bad. As opposed to being clothed. And they knew it all of a sudden.
Some also might think that nakedness is a (minor) wrong.
Well, it seems to be both bad and wrong to some then?
Anyway: if you want to make an accusation: please make sure you provide the evidence for it.
In this case, since knowing right from wrong constitutes such a vital element in your argument, make sure that you can back it up.
See #8 for the link to the meaning of the Hebrew word used for "evil" in this story.
However, God only created freedom of choice. Not the sinful act, as I see it.
EDITED the paragraph in the middle
this is your interpretation.
The tree meant knowing good from evil.
You make it look like meaning right from wrong.
To me, it comes across as knowing good from bad.
After, they knew that they were naked. Nakedness, as I see it, can be seen as little elegant which is bad. As opposed to being clothed. And they knew it all of a sudden.
Some also might think that nakedness is a (minor) wrong.
Well, it seems to be both bad and wrong to some then?
Anyway: if you want to make an accusation: please make sure you provide the evidence for it.
In this case, since knowing right from wrong constitutes such a vital element in your argument, make sure that you can back it up.
See #8 for the link to the meaning of the Hebrew word used for "evil" in this story.
He created a snake. The snake made choices that seem to be nasty.
However, God only created freedom of choice. Not the sinful act, as I see it.
EDITED the paragraph in the middle
Last edited:
Man was created in God's image, it says, and my conversation partner wondered about what in God's image means.
Since some sort of knowledge that God had wasn't in man's mind yet, and yet man was said to be of God's kind.
So my conversation partner asked how this can be reconciled then.
I offered my view, but wanted to add a second one. Yours in this case.
The article had more than just those five quotes.
Strictly speaking, there's no proof for God's existence at all in any of this. But I won't quibble over that right now. But if there are those who read the same book and conclude that God is omniscient, than the verses in question would indicate where they're getting that idea from. You suggested that it didn't exist in the Bible and that they were making it up out of the blue, which was clearly not the case.
I noticed that you said you were an artist which I think helps in a limited sense,
Through your art we get an expression of who your are. There are attributes that the painting has that can be relegated to the creator of that art. The art is not you completely but is an expression of who you art. (Many psychologist ask children to create a picture of their family to locate problems in that child - an expression of what is going on the inside).
So when God created Adam and Eve - there were attributes that came from God.
Spirit - mankind are spirits who happened to be encased in bodies to operate in this physical world.
Creativity - Imagination has the root word of image. Mankind has the capacity to imagine things and then create what they imagine like God imagined this world and then created it.
Dominion - We can see the innate desire of man to fix or control circumstances. God has dominion.
Free will - God created man with free will even as He has free will
In that we are the artistic rendering of "in His image and in His likeness" - many emotional attributes comes from Him... like love, joy et al.
Our desire to get knowledge is part of His design but, as you said, "When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?"
I agree. It is a position of trust and love not to use 1 item. However, He did give the motive, "I don't want you to be separated from fulness of life".
Like someone saying, "Don't take the money that is in that bank or you will go to prison". You don't have to go to prison to gain the knowledge of what prison life is like.
I hope I made sense.
What through me off a little was the part where you mentioned spirit, soul and body. Didn't quite get how that applied.
But if the owner of that home said to the guests, "you are no longer just guest here, you live here. I built this house for you. It's yours," then that changes the expectations a little. If it's your home, you can put your feet up on the furniture inside your own house. Right?
First the Genesis accounts of Creation are based on the evolved mythical accounts from more ancient cultures such as the Sumerians, Babylonians and Canaanites, oral traditions reflecting the ancient cultural views of God.
This has nothing to do ith the ultimate nature of God when only refers to an ancient human view of God.
37818
Active Member
What you only show in this link text "adversity" is only a translation in the KJV 3 times, Psalms 10:6, Psalms 94:13 and Ecclesiasties 7:14. The the Hebrew occurs in it various forms some 669 times. In the KJV is translated "evil" 426 times.
Strong's actually shows two Hebrew spellings for that word. The second one is רעה (râ‛âh)
37818
Active Member
Where in any pre non-Biblical account is the part about the reason for clothing themselves? Genesis 3:7-11. Genesis 3:21.
Audie
Veteran Member
Quite a bold claim you make here for an Atheist
?
Not at all "bold".
How do you see Lono, Batboy, The.Great
Raven etc and blah, besides characters in
stories?
How else could a atheist see the God in the bible?
well, but if the first five or the "best" five quotes don't show the claim right, it's reasonable to assume that the rest won't either.
actually "out of the blue" would be a little exaggereated. However, they can't show their point, as I see it.
Let's compare it to another Bible verse.
The Bible doesn't say God knows all things... but the Bible says he made all animals: Genesis 1:21.
If it's that simple to present the proof for the notion of God creating "all animals" why is it impossible to show that Bible says God knoweth "all things"? Because it isn't in the Bible, I'd say.
ah ok, I interpreted this to be an analogy of yours to the trinity:
we are triune in a sense of body, soul and spirit.
Similarly God is triune in a sense of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost/Spirit.
Wasn't this your analogy the other day?
But God did say to them this is your home, take your shoes off... oh wait, they were already naked. Well, who but someone who knows that it is their own home, would walk around naked like they were? The Garden of Eden was their home. Proof enough for you?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I would make the claim that these are connected. If a person don't know what is meant by something being good or evil. They wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong either. Meaning that you have no ability, when told something, to judge whether its one or the other. To be able to do that, you need to know the difference.
The same way that we do not refer to a cat playing with a mouse before eating it as being evil. A dog might be trained to do certain things and not do others, but if people think that they do it, because they have an understanding of right and wrong, I truly think that they are mistaken.
And even if they come close to remotely understanding it through reasoning and logic thinking, it can't be compared to the complexity of that in the garden of Eden.
Assuming that the story is true or even to just be understood as a moral teaching. Even people today, don't agree on the meaning of the story, so how on Earth do people that do believe the story to be true, expect Adam and Eve to be able to figure it out? They have the understanding of good and evil as a dog have at this point in time.
God created them naked and again, people seem to forget the abilities they assign to God. He is all good and all knowing. So clearly it can't be wrong when they are naked or he wouldn't do it. At least if people will maintain those things about him.
I don't think it's worth going into a discussion of whether the word means evil or bad is best. And honestly, I don't think it matters, it might even be worse in fact.
If something is bad, it's the opposite of something that is good. To me, evil in this context that we are talking, covers all these words like "bad", "wrong" or whatever similar word can be assigned to the idea of evil etc.
Or said in another way, if God say something is wrong, it's not right and therefore not good.
Yes that is correct, but then the responsibility when such being uses their free will to do things, falls on God. Especially when he doesn't give them the ability to correctly make such choices based on what they believe is right and wrong.
Let's say a cat have free will, and we observe it, do you get the impression that it is constantly consider these things before doing stuff? or do you think it does them because it feels like it or is simply curious, for lack of better description?
My point being that we do not expect animals to make rational or logical decisions based on knowing what right and wrong is.
Yes... that is the analogy. I just didn't know how that fit it to the OP.
In reference to the OP... It would appear to me that God felt very secure. If He wasn't secure, would He have planted mankind in the Garden?
Usually one starts an enterprise out of confidence and not out of fear or insecurity
Well, I think it is a good assumption. He did give them the keys to car, so to speak. "Here, this is all yours. You get to name all the animals (what else is there in your spare time in Paradise), pet all the tigers, ride on giraffes, play fetch with the elephants," and so forth. I mean, where else would their home have been?where did He say so?
(not in the Bible)
So, yeah, that was their house, and God was their parent who came to visit the house he gave them. God let them do everything they wanted there, except, quite suspiciously, that one single thing set like a beacon and announced with a spotlight right on it in the middle of the room, "don't touch this children". LOL
Seriously, it can be a funny story if you look at it that way. God knew full well we'd follow the path he set for us, and try to explore being humans, instead of quitely slumbering in Nature unawares of the toils of being human.
But, that's where we were set to evolve, being tossed out of Eden, is essentially a metaphor for saying we chose to wake up and face the Unknown, to know what it is to be an Awakened human being; a grand creation of the Divine poised somewhere between the beasts of the field, and the Gods, said Poltinus. Not one still asleep in the Womb. But one Awake.