"And They Were Both Naked"

[blü 2]

Question, should anyone be ashamed of their nakedness?

Depends what the mirror reports.

But everyone should be careful with their nakedness, in case they're misunderstood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're not reading your own text.

It wasn't a command, it was a warning:

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil BECAUSE if you do you'll die the same day.​

Not

BECAUSE I [expletive] SAID SO.​

Nor is disobedience, sin, original sin, the fall of man or death entering the world mentioned anywhere in the tale. Nor does the snake tell any lies.

If you disagree, specify the part of the tale that says so.

And of course Eve did an essentially good and necessary thing in bringing knowledge of good and evil to her partner. She and the snake deserve to be blessed (at least to the extent that any fictitious character deserves to be blessed).

To rebel against God is to die spiritually. Everyone knows that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In as much as you insist in substituting "rebelling against God's expressed command" for "nakedness," turning the sentence into

"They went from [not being] ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command to being ashamed of rebelling against God's expressed command."​

obviously before the apple incident they were rebelling against God's expressed command and were not ashamed of it. And this makes sense to you, which is fine with me; although, I doubt you'll find many who'll agree with you.

.

You must have misread my last post.

They went from obedient (name some animals, spend time with one another in love) to disobedient.

How do you miss this when millions of theists and atheists knew this in grade school?

 

[Skwim]

You must have misread my last post.

They went from obedient (name some animals, spend time with one another in love) to disobedient.

How do you miss this when millions of theists and atheists knew this in grade school?

Have a good day.

.

 

[blü 2]

To rebel against God is to die spiritually. Everyone knows that.

The text of Genesis gives you not the tiniest support.

Like disobedience, sin, original sin, fall of man, and death entering the world, 'spiritual death' is never mentioned in Genesis either.

Since you use only your own tales, why pretend the bible has anything to do with it at all?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The text of Genesis gives you not the tiniest support.

Like disobedience, sin, original sin, fall of man, and death entering the world, 'spiritual death' is never mentioned in Genesis either.

Since you use only your own tales, why pretend the bible has anything to do with it at all?

Okay, you have the mic. Why did Adam and Eve walk with God pre-"apple" and why were the expelled post-"apple"?

 

[blü 2]

Okay, you have the mic. Why did Adam and Eve walk with God pre-"apple" and why were the expelled post-"apple"?

Goodness, you really really really don't read your own text, do you.

Where are they described as 'walking with God'? God walks in the Garden 'in the cool of the day' in 3:8 but not with A&E.

As to why they were expelled from the Garden, this is expressly stated in Genesis 3:22:

Then the Lord God said, 'Lo, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' ─ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden ...​

As you can see, not a peep about disobedience, sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, the requirement for a subsequent redeemer, death entering the world ─ nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero, there or anywhere else in the tale.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Goodness, you really really really don't read your own text, do you.

Where are they described as 'walking with God'? God walks in the Garden 'in the cool of the day' in 3:8 but not with A&E.

As to why they were expelled from the Garden, this is expressly stated in Genesis 3:22:

Then the Lord God said, 'Lo, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' ─ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden ...​

As you can see, not a peep about disobedience, sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, the requirement for a subsequent redeemer, death entering the world ─ nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero, there or anywhere else in the tale.

Since you are unable/unwilling to offer one shred of proof that you exist, why are we having a discussion online?

 

[blü 2]

Since you are unable/unwilling to offer one shred of proof that you exist, why are we having a discussion online?

So you can learn that your texts don't say what you think they say, and it's a good idea to read them for yourself instead of others dictating a meaning to you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you can learn that your texts don't say what you think they say, and it's a good idea to read them for yourself instead of others dictating a meaning to you.

I read the texts and discern doctrine for myself. I take with a grain of salt what non-illuminated persons say (you say there is no light in these texts, so you are not illuminated).

 

[blü 2]

I read the texts and discern doctrine for myself. I take with a grain of salt what non-illuminated persons say (you say there is no light in these texts, so you are not illuminated).

I say that you're wishing on the text a story entirely unsupported by the text.

By any standard of scholarship, that's grotesque error, a murdering of the past.

But if scholarship doesn't come into it, if you like playing games, if you want to pretend Sophocles' Antigone is about King Herod and Abe Lincoln driving the Martians out of the Yukon, then just make it clear that this sort of thing is your intention and I'll leave you to it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I say that you're wishing on the text a story entirely unsupported by the text.

By any standard of scholarship, that's grotesque error, a murdering of the past.

But if scholarship doesn't come into it, if you like playing games, if you want to pretend Sophocles' Antigone is about King Herod and Abe Lincoln driving the Martians out of the Yukon, then just make it clear that this sort of thing is your intention and I'll leave you to it.

Are you able to prove that you exist? If not, wouldn't that make this reply above from you apply to everything you write?

 

[blü 2]

Are you able to prove that you exist? If not, wouldn't that make this reply above from you apply to everything you write?

Where did I allege that I exist?

It's not even on the agenda.

Deal with the issues.

 

[Milton Platt]

A really odd turn of events here.

Genesis 2:24-25
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

BUT THEN

Genesis 3:6-7
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.

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.​

So what happened here? Were A&E mistaken in their lack of shame and then after having eaten the apple have their eyes opened?

Or

Did god change the state of nakedness from being inherently shameless to something shameful?


What's your conclusion:

1. God deliberately or by mistake planted the misconception that nakedness was alright in A&E's innocent minds at the beginning. (Good thing they ate the apple and discovered their mistake.)

2. God deliberately changed nakedness from being shameless to shameful after the apple incident. ("Do you really have to wear that bra and pantie outfit, Eve?")


For extra credit: Why would god focus on such an inconsequential thing as nakedness in the first place? Why not make eating fatty foods shameful? Or getting tattoos shameful?

.

.

Good questions. My question was always.......If they did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit, then how can they be held responsible for something they could not have known UNTIL they ate the fruit?

 

[Skwim]

Good questions. My question was always.......If they did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit, then how can they be held responsible for something they could not have known UNTIL they ate the fruit?

I think it was simply a matter of not following orders.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”
​

And because of A&Es' naivety everyone who followed them, millions upon millions of people, suffered for it.

God is good.

.

.​

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did I allege that I exist?

It's not even on the agenda.

Deal with the issues.

You asked me for proof God exists. As mentioned, please demonstrate your existence and I'll demonstrate God's.

Once I've demonstrated Jesus exists, since I have a relationship with Him, we have quod erat demonstrandum proven I'm correct about Adam and Eve, a real time saver for us both!

DO YOU EXIST?

 

[blü 2]

DO YOU EXIST?

I plead the fifth.

But you asserted God's objective existence so you already have that can to carry.

Show us God, out there in reality where things with objective existence are found.

That'll be a lot easier than demonstrating that any particular human exists, since (like the ads say) God is all over the place, no?

 

[Milton Platt]

I think it was simply a matter of not following orders.

Genesis 2:16-17
16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”
​

And because of A&Es' naivety everyone who followed them, millions upon millions of people, suffered for it.

God is good.

.

.​

So, they did not sin, then, if there is a difference between disobeying a direct order from god and sinning. If what they did was not a sin, then what is the point of the story, and why is it characterized as the original sin?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I plead the fifth.

But you asserted God's objective existence so you already have that can to carry.

Show us God, out there in reality where things with objective existence are found.

That'll be a lot easier than demonstrating that any particular human exists, since (like the ads say) God is all over the place, no?

Your best evidence that you exist is "I plead the fifth amendment?"

Not to make you uncomfortable, but the end result of atheism/agnosticism is existential crisis because of your tendency toward solipsism. But even here you seem to have doubts.

 

[blü 2]

Your best evidence that you exist is "I plead the fifth amendment?"

On the exact contrary, I offer no argument at all on whether I exist or not.

So it's time to live up to your bold words and give us a satisfactory demonstration of a real god.

Not to make you uncomfortable, but the end result of atheism/agnosticism is existential crisis because of your tendency toward solipsism. But even here you seem to have doubts.

I make three basic assumptions. Each is an assumption because I can't demonstrate its correctness without first assuming it's true. The first assumption is that a world exists external to the self. The second is that the senses are capable of informing the self about that world. The third is that reason is a valid tool. It will already have occurred to you that the first rules out solipsism.

Now: that demonstration please.