where did the fall come from?

[Atreyu]

Obviously God put the tree of knowledge within Adam and Eves reach just to test his own creation and see just how good he actually created an image of himself. Obviuosly he failed to make us as good as he would have liked to. Now he is stuck with us and loves us like that ornery little puppy that nobody else is going to take care of and euthanizing seems to inhumane.

 

[tomasortega]

Obviously God put the tree of knowledge within Adam and Eves reach just to test his own creation and see just how good he actually created an image of himself. Obviuosly he failed to make us as good as he would have liked to. Now he is stuck with us and loves us like that ornery little puppy that nobody else is going to take care of and euthanizing seems to inhumane.

lol. if god is omniscient no tests are needed. he would have had this knowledge in the first place. and if god is also omnipotent then no failiures either. as far as inhumane treatment dont u worry god is capable of far greater evil. he didnt think twice on drowning his little puppies in the flood.

so if you want to make a case. make the case that god is evil his plan was to create all this suffering to begin with

 

[Atreyu]

lol. if god is omniscient no tests are needed. he would have had this knowledge in the first place. and if god is also omnipotent then no failiures either. as far as inhumane treatment dont u worry god is capable of far greater evil. he didnt think twice on drowning his little puppies in the flood.

so if you want to make a case. make the case that god is evil his plan was to create all this suffering to begin with

he he, Ya, then he felt bad and promised not to drown them again, but he didn't promise not obliterate humankind in another fashion.

 

[s3v3n]

lol. if god is omniscient no tests are needed. he would have had this knowledge in the first place. and if god is also omnipotent then no failiures either. as far as inhumane treatment dont u worry god is capable of far greater evil. he didnt think twice on drowning his little puppies in the flood.

so if you want to make a case. make the case that god is evil his plan was to create all this suffering to begin with

Weren't those puppies guilty of peeing of the carpet though? Hoping over the neighbors fence and creating big angry puppies with the neighbors poodle?

Guess the whole pre-newspaper thing really made that a serious spanking..

s3v3n

 

[Dunemeister]

Obviously God put the tree of knowledge within Adam and Eves reach just to test his own creation and see just how good he actually created an image of himself. Obviuosly he failed to make us as good as he would have liked to. Now he is stuck with us and loves us like that ornery little puppy that nobody else is going to take care of and euthanizing seems to inhumane.

Well, your conclusions are not so obvious to me, even if I grant the premise. This whole discussion seems premised on the view that if Adam and Eve sinned, it's because of some flaw in God's design. I just don't see why we should believe that. Perhaps the design was fine but that part of the design involved a certain sort of autonomy for the creation. If that's so, then no matter which way they had chosen, the choice would have vindicated God's design.

Really, people will resort to all kinds of specious reasoning (if "reasoning" is even the right word) and distortion simply to find fault with God. It's an old trick, and ironically, the serpent exemplifies the sort of twisted reasoning offered by those who have been disparaging the texts.

 

[s3v3n]

Well, your conclusions are not so obvious to me, even if I grant the premise. This whole discussion seems premised on the view that if Adam and Eve sinned, it's because of some flaw in God's design. I just don't see why we should believe that. Perhaps the design was fine but that part of the design involved a certain sort of autonomy for the creation. If that's so, then no matter which way they had chosen, the choice would have vindicated God's design.

Really, people will resort to all kinds of specious reasoning (if "reasoning" is even the right word) and distortion simply to find fault with God. It's an old trick, and ironically, the serpent exemplifies the sort of twisted reasoning offered by those who have been disparaging the texts.

Specious reasoning? Hmmm, okay, perhaps the thread, my own comments certainly guilty, fell short of measured reason, but the path the thread took was a reference to the genocide of essentially every person not spared, there is no measure or mercy, only destruction and violence. So to say that it is distortion to find fault isn't reasonable. Violence, murder, genocide, this is the punishment for non-compliance in the passages that are being referred to. How does this equate to free will? If a creatures choice is obedience or death, it has not been granted free will. Is that direct and measured reasoning? No twisting of the text or disparaging of the "facts"?

s3v3n

 

[Atreyu]

Well, your conclusions are not so obvious to me, even if I grant the premise. This whole discussion seems premised on the view that if Adam and Eve sinned, it's because of some flaw in God's design. I just don't see why we should believe that. Perhaps the design was fine but that part of the design involved a certain sort of autonomy for the creation. If that's so, then no matter which way they had chosen, the choice would have vindicated God's design.

Really, people will resort to all kinds of specious reasoning (if "reasoning" is even the right word) and distortion simply to find fault with God. It's an old trick, and ironically, the serpent exemplifies the sort of twisted reasoning offered by those who have been disparaging the texts.

I certainly find no fault with God, how can I when I have no belief in his existance. I am however very knowledgable in the greatest fairytale ever written. In this book called the Bible, he is not flawed, he meant for all the suffering and torment. It is part of the natural design of creation within the mythical tale.

 

[Dunemeister]

Specious reasoning? Hmmm, okay, perhaps the thread, my own comments certainly guilty, fell short of measured reason, but the path the thread took was a reference to the genocide of essentially every person not spared, there is no measure or mercy, only destruction and violence. So to say that it is distortion to find fault isn't reasonable. Violence, murder, genocide, this is the punishment for non-compliance in the passages that are being referred to. How does this equate to free will? If a creatures choice is obedience or death, it has not been granted free will. Is that direct and measured reasoning? No twisting of the text or disparaging of the "facts"?

s3v3n

To be honest I missed that turn in the thread. I was focussing on the account of the fall and the original question. So if your comments were directed elsewhere, then yes, I was talking past you, and for that I apologize.

But are you seriously suggesting that Eve had no free will because the consequences of her possible actions were immortality or mortality? How in the world does that follow, especially since, in the end, her mortality was delayed by several hundred years? Besides, she was allowed to eat of everything else in the garden. We're not told how many other things there were in the garden, but everything in the tradition suggests the garden was a paradise of delights. So Eve had several hundred (say) options for life, but instead chose the one thing that brought death. How does this show that she had no free will?

So no twisting of the text in this case, but the reasoning is still specious.

 

[Dunemeister]

I certainly find no fault with God, how can I when I have no belief in his existance. I am however very knowledgable in the greatest fairytale ever written. In this book called the Bible, he is not flawed, he meant for all the suffering and torment. It is part of the natural design of creation within the mythical tale.

Your analysis of the text suggests otherwise.

 

[arimoff]

Specious reasoning? Hmmm, okay, perhaps the thread, my own comments certainly guilty, fell short of measured reason, but the path the thread took was a reference to the genocide of essentially every person not spared, there is no measure or mercy, only destruction and violence. So to say that it is distortion to find fault isn't reasonable. Violence, murder, genocide, this is the punishment for non-compliance in the passages that are being referred to. How does this equate to free will? If a creatures choice is obedience or death, it has not been granted free will. Is that direct and measured reasoning? No twisting of the text or disparaging of the "facts"?

s3v3n

what free will do you want? to do anything you want? including murder, violence and genocide? it is not a punishment it is nature reacting, men make violence, murder and genocide, it laws of nature for us to act like humans when we don't, nature reacts as a result you get everything you mentioned, on one side people don't want to act fare towards each other and when it comes back to hunt us we blame G-D. G-D did not tell you you will be punished for such and such, He gave people a way to survive and its your free choice to take the advice or not, but to not want to take the advice and be unhappy with the results is not smart neither, to blame someone you don't believe in is absurd, for if there is no G-D according to you who are you going to blame for all the violence? I will give you a hint, non-believers for there is nothing to make them want to act fare, since a sin doesn't exist its ok to steel. So before blaming G-D it is always good to look in the mirror and realize in who's image you were created, in G-D's or just another living creature from animal kingdom.

what is so bad about G-D's message anyways? a world where men don't steel is a lot better then a world where men do, and yet you blame G-D. Don't look at those who claim to be believers and blame G-D they are same as you trying to survive, they are not perfect either (at least some of them try), but if everybody tries it becomes a better world. If you want to stop violence don't start with G-D, start with your self and this world will become better and you won't have excuses to blame G-D.

 

[Atreyu]

Your analysis of the text suggests otherwise.

Again, I have no reason to be angry with something that does not exist. Sometimes I am however sometimes angry with those who claim to follow a certain teaching, yet never do. It just does not make any sense to claim to be something you are not.

 

[Dunemeister]

Again, I have no reason to be angry with something that does not exist. Sometimes I am however sometimes angry with those who claim to follow a certain teaching, yet never do. It just does not make any sense to claim to be something you are not.

Fair enough.

 

[s3v3n]

To be honest I missed that turn in the thread. I was focussing on the account of the fall and the original question. So if your comments were directed elsewhere, then yes, I was talking past you, and for that I apologize.

But are you seriously suggesting that Eve had no free will because the consequences of her possible actions were immortality or mortality? How in the world does that follow, especially since, in the end, her mortality was delayed by several hundred years? Besides, she was allowed to eat of everything else in the garden. We're not told how many other things there were in the garden, but everything in the tradition suggests the garden was a paradise of delights. So Eve had several hundred (say) options for life, but instead chose the one thing that brought death. How does this show that she had no free will?

So no twisting of the text in this case, but the reasoning is still specious.

Actually the thread had followed on to the case of the flood, inclusive of the OP, this was to what i specifically referred, but I don't think the point matters, at this point it would be both unreasonable and unfair of me to speculate that the argument has not taken a turn toward misdirection. I can't support the speculation without restating what has already been said, it is a tale of infinite interest to me, and I'll discuss it endlessly, but nothing will be proven one way or the other.

S3V3N