Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[blü 2]

This decree was given after he rebelled, not before. Big difference.

Now talk me through this step by step.

1. She has this piece of advice: DON'T eat that particular fruit BECAUSE if you do, you'll die the same day.

2.Eve sees that "the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6)

3. Eve doesn't know the difference between good and evil. This is because God has deliberately withheld the knowledge from her.

4. So she has no concept of wrong. For example, if disobedience is wrong, she has no way of knowing that.

5. She eats the fruit.

What sin has she committed?

In particular, how is sin possible if you have no concept of right and wrong? In that condition, you have no way of forming an intention to do wrong.

If you don't intend to do wrong, there can't be sin or guilt or blame.

Indeed in this case there can't even be negligence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only problem is, NONE of that is in Genesis.

It's all Christian retrofitting nonsense.

Nope, it's just like Jesus said, many didn't see what was before their eyes. Furthermore, again I say, the day a person is infected with Creutzfeld disease, he WILL die. No turning back. The infection will kill him. From that day onward, even though we die anyway. Too bad you just want to keep saying that the serpent, later identified as the devil, told the truth to Eve, and she believed the lie. Oh well. Have a nice day? or evening? which? In my grandfather's 'day,' there was not so much discussion about these things. How about in your grandfather's day? Was there a lot of discussion about Bible texts, in his day?

 

[YoursTrue]

@blu2, on the day a person steals and the authorities catch him, and it is brought to court, he WILL suffer the penalty if that is what the authorities decide to do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Funny that all of that's from Paul and none of it is from Genesis.

But ─ so it goes.

Try looking at Genesis 2:4 for the word day and how it is used. It's flexible. (small smile here.)
Yes, in or on the day they did what God told them not to die, they were bound to die. Yup. No doubt about it. And die they did. It's kind of like building a house on a an unsteady foundation if you don't get that point and can't agree that the word 'day' there does not mean they would drop dead that day.

 

[blü 2]

Nope, it's just like Jesus said, many didn't see what was before their eyes. Furthermore, again I say, the day a person is infected with Creutzfeld disease, he WILL die. No turning back. The infection will kill him. From that day onward, even though we die anyway.

The cure for this kind of ─ ahm ─ misunderstanding is a basic of knowledge of science. Science is the study of reality, whereby you observe nature with an open mind, and seek, describe and endeavor to explain its phenomena by reasoning honestly and transparently from examinable evidence. I emphasize that you try at all times to maximize objectivity so as to make the most accurate statements possible ─ you publish your results in reputable journals of science after peer-review, so they're always potentially open to expert criticism, hence that a dialectic of understanding can result.

In this way you learn not just that we think the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, but why we think that; how we determine that the earth and sun formed 4.5 bn years ago; the evidence that shows there has been life on earth for about 3,7 bn years, from which evolved all species now seen on earth, including us; how we derived the rules that describe consistencies in the way matter and forces interact; the counterintuitive aspects of the quantum world; and a great deal more.

And if you add a knowledge of history to your knowledge of science, you come to see that the bible is a set of ancient books recording the beliefs, practices and laws, folk histories, and occasional real histories, of a particular Semitic tribe who had a tribal god we know as Yahweh who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon, and evolved to be a monogod and then the Christian god, and presently the triune god.

The truth will, in all those senses, set you free. Including the truth that outside this sentence there are no absolute statements.

Too bad you just want to keep saying that the serpent, later identified as the devil, told the truth to Eve, and she believed the lie.

There's one example of your error right there ─ "later identified as the devil". You import into the story things that aren't in the story. You don't notice it never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death', the need for a redeemer, and so on. You just wish these later ideas onto the text, as though that's what the story really says ─ when in fact as I keep pointing out, it says nothing of the kind, and you can't point to any places in the text where it does.

Above, in #121, I asked Hockeycowboy to talk me through the following, step by step ─

1. Eve has this piece of advice: DON'T eat that particular fruit BECAUSE if you do, you'll die the same day.

2.Eve sees that "the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6)

3. Eve doesn't know the difference between good and evil. This is because God has deliberately withheld the knowledge from her.

4. So she has no concept of wrong. For example, if disobedience is wrong, she has no way of knowing that.

5. She eats the fruit.

What sin has she committed?

In particular, how is sin possible if you have no concept of right and wrong? In that condition, you have no way of forming an intention to do wrong.

If you don't intend to do wrong, there can't be sin or guilt or blame.

Indeed in this case there can't even be negligence.​

What is your step by step reply to that?

 

[YoursTrue]

The cure for this kind of ─ ahm ─ misunderstanding is a basic of knowledge of science. Science is the study of reality, whereby you observe nature with an open mind, and seek, describe and endeavor to explain its phenomena by reasoning honestly and transparently from examinable evidence. I emphasize that you try at all times to maximize objectivity so as to make the most accurate statements possible ─ you publish your results in reputable journals of science after peer-review, so they're always potentially open to expert criticism, hence that a dialectic of understanding can result.

In this way you learn not just that we think the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, but why we think that; how we determine that the earth and sun formed 4.5 bn years ago; the evidence that shows there has been life on earth for about 3,7 bn years, from which evolved all species now seen on earth, including us; how we derived the rules that describe consistencies in the way matter and forces interact; the counterintuitive aspects of the quantum world; and a great deal more.

And if you add a knowledge of history to your knowledge of science, you come to see that the bible is a set of ancient books recording the beliefs, practices and laws, folk histories, and occasional real histories, of a particular Semitic tribe who had a tribal god we know as Yahweh who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon, and evolved to be a monogod and then the Christian god, and presently the triune god.

The truth will, in all those senses, set you free. Including the truth that outside this sentence there are no absolute statements.
There's one example of your error right there ─ "later identified as the devil". You import into the story things that aren't in the story. You don't notice it never mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death', the need for a redeemer, and so on. You just wish these later ideas onto the text, as though that's what the story really says ─ when in fact as I keep pointing out, it says nothing of the kind, and you can't point to any places in the text where it does.

Above, in #121, I asked Hockeycowboy to talk me through the following, step by step ─

1. Eve has this piece of advice: DON'T eat that particular fruit BECAUSE if you do, you'll die the same day.

2.Eve sees that "the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6)

3. Eve doesn't know the difference between good and evil. This is because God has deliberately withheld the knowledge from her.

4. So she has no concept of wrong. For example, if disobedience is wrong, she has no way of knowing that.

5. She eats the fruit.

What sin has she committed?

In particular, how is sin possible if you have no concept of right and wrong? In that condition, you have no way of forming an intention to do wrong.

If you don't intend to do wrong, there can't be sin or guilt or blame.

Indeed in this case there can't even be negligence.​

What is your step by step reply to that?

The step by step approach is on the day, or in the day, or the day that a person gets rabies, and it is not treated, he will die. That's step number 1. In, on, or when. Step 2 may follow in time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The whole idea of selling Christianity to the pagans, and the abandonment of the covenant of circumcision, would be a good place to start, especially as a ─ ahm ─ remodeling of the covenant in a manner totally opaque to Jewish thought and indeed to mine. It isn't something supported anywhere by Jesus, so far as I can see.

Of course the result was the good luck of Christianity to resonate with some of the pagans all the way up to Constantine's mom, and with the backing of Empire they went on to world success. Even so, Christianity never took off among the Jews (except later at spearpoint during the various pogroms and inquisitions).

oh, I see where you’re going with this. About Paul’s words. Yes, some changes were made to procedures. But see, I look at Paul’s letters differently than most of Christendom does....they think he was promoting a new “God,” a “trinity”.
That wasn’t the case, though.....his God, as was all Christians in the first century, was Yahweh. - see Acts of the Apostles 4:24-30 (where they call Jesus, God’s “Holy Servant “), 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:9-11. Etc.

See, God didn’t change...the only thing that changed, was the way to worship Him — through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.
Which brings up another issue, the issue of redemption. You say it wasn’t mentioned in Genesis. Without using Genesis 3:15, there’s not much else I can point in Genesis, but I certainly can with the rest of the Pentateuch....

That’s what all those Israelite animal sacrifices, a main part of their worship, were about. Why do you think God required the Israelites to offer them? It all pointed to the Messiah’s sacrifice, outlined in Isaiah 53.

Once that was completed — the sacrifice of perfect life to match the perfect life that Adam lost, no longer were animal sacrifices needed.... the way to worship, changed....exercising faith in Jesus’ sacrifice was the key to acceptable worship now.

To be fair to the story, it doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply it, or include animals in their diet; not till Abel had grown up and taken to herding do we get a thought of dead critters.

It’s the only way to account for God not elaborating about death. They knew what it was!

Our family custom is cremation, so atomically speaking, we might get to float around for a bit afterwards. But yes, Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 is a perception I completely agree with.

Good, you’re one of the few. Everybody (most) thinks, “we’re going to heaven immediately, when we die!” That is not the hope that the Scriptures hold out....it’s for a Resurrection at a future time. (Job 14) And Jesus agreed. - John 6:44

No, not me. My wife was never concerned with things of that kind.

I’m glad, because I don’t want to offend you by any comments I might make on that issue.
There’s a lot of paranormal occurrences that certain ones right here on RF, routinely experience....many thinking it is caused by the spirits of dead people.

What’s your view of that?

 

[blü 2]

The step by step approach is on the day, or in the day, or the day that a person gets rabies, and it is not treated, he will die. That's step number 1. In, on, or when. Step 2 may follow in time.

So you can't address the moral question built into the story? Or you realize that if you do, you'll undermine your whole position? Which of those is the case here?

And speaking of moral questions, you didn't get to say whether you thought Eve did an entirely admirable thing in bringing the knowledge of good and evil to humanity.

What's your view on that?

 

[blü 2]

About Paul’s words. Yes, some changes were made to procedures. But see, I look at Paul’s letters differently than most of Christendom does....they think he was promoting a new “God,” a “trinity”.
That wasn’t the case, though.....his God, as was all Christians in the first century, was Yahweh. - see Acts of the Apostles 4:24-30 (where they call Jesus, God’s “Holy Servant “), 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:9-11. Etc.

Certainly not a trinity ─ that's not an idea that exists for another two or three hundred years. But a gnostic, or gnostic-flavored, view of Yahweh, that puts Jesus in the role of the demiurge, and accounts for why Paul says Jesus created the material world (as does the author of John, though not the others). Gnosticism, as I understand it, is a fairly broad tent, but in there are ideas saying that God is pure pure spirit, so pure it would never occur to [him] to create something as impure as the material world; so it fell to one of the beings [he]'d created, the 'demiurge' (Greek 'artisan', 'craftsman') to bring the material world into being, and then to mediate between it and (the very remote) God. John's Jesus in particular elaborates on that second point, but it's in Paul too. The others have a version of it, of course. Forgive me if I'm telling you what you already know.

See, God didn’t change...the only thing that changed, was the way to worship Him — through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.

Yes. An idea that I've never been able to get my mind around, an omnipotent god needing to sacrifice [his] son to [him]self.

Which brings up another issue, the issue of redemption. You say it wasn’t mentioned in Genesis. Without using Genesis 3:15, there’s not much else I can point in Genesis, but I certainly can with the rest of the Pentateuch....

But that's an entirely different kind of redemption to the redemption Paul &c speak of, much closer to the idea of a savior who's the real-word rescuer of the Jews collectively, the liberator of the nation of Israel ─ the context in which the Jewish idea of the messiah is most usually found.

That’s what all those Israelite animal sacrifices, a main part of their worship, were about. Why do you think God required the Israelites to offer them? It all pointed to the Messiah’s sacrifice, outlined in Isaiah 53.

Well, I don't think God required the Isrealites to offer them. I think instead that the priesthood and nobles liked to dine on meat. This idea is found in Egypt, among the Phoenicians (Canaanites), through the Classical world of Greece and Rome, and I dare say other places. In pagan culture the local magnate bought the whole town a barbecue on particular days in the name of sacrificing to the gods. (For instance, Prometheus, meeting with Zeus to decide the apportioning of the sacrificed animal, tricked him into choosing the heap with the bones and offal, hidden under a thin layer of the good stuff.)

Once that was completed — the sacrifice of perfect life to match the perfect life that Adam lost, no longer were animal sacrifices needed.... the way to worship, changed....exercising faith in Jesus’ sacrifice was the key to acceptable worship now.

Nope, I really don't follow the reasoning, the necessity.

It’s the only way to account for God not elaborating about death. They knew what it was!

Or else, as I keep saying, it's not there because that's not what the story is about,

(As to what the story is about, the best I can make of it is that it's metaphorical, about the infancy of humankind, us as dependent babes protected by our parents, the eating of the fruit as the dawn of sexual awareness at adolescence, and the expulsion as the leaving of home to make our own way in the world and start our own family. That seems to map onto the tale fairly well, and occurs at the right part of the larger storyline.)

Good, you’re one of the few. Everybody (most) thinks, “we’re going to heaven immediately, when we die!” That is not the hope that the Scriptures hold out....it’s for a Resurrection at a future time. (Job 14) And Jesus agreed. - John 6:44

A resurrection at a future time is something I'm confidently expecting not to happen ─ not that my saying so will surprise you.

I’m glad, because I don’t want to offend you by any comments I might make on that issue.

I like straight talkin'. I don't offend easily, and ─ I don't include you in this ─ I've been posting on sites like this for a long time and the claim of offense and indignation instead of a reasoned reply doesn't impress me. Should I, for my part, offend, just say so, and may we continue to enjoy our conversations!

There’s a lot of paranormal occurrences that certain ones right here on RF, routinely experience....many thinking it is caused by the spirits of dead people.

What’s your view of that?

I think it's wishful thinking. After hundred of millions of dollars spent on research, both military and civil, since the 1950s or earlier, there's no persuasive evidence for it anywhere. Randi's million bucks was never won, and more strikingly there weren't many even willing to try. The landscape is littered with endless frauds like Uri Geller and Doris Stokes and friends. Taking one step back, there's not even a feasible hypothesis as to how such things might work, telepathy, or telekinesis, or clairvoyance, or foretelling, on and on ... and not a single repeatable experiment anywhere. (If you ever go to a Ouija board session, you'll find, as I did, how quickly the skeptical mind discovers how to invisibly manipulate the upturned glass or whatever.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Only problem is, NONE of that is in Genesis.

It's not in Genesis either that if a person doesn't get treatment for rabies he will die of the disease.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you can't address the moral question built into the story? Or you realize that if you do, you'll undermine your whole position? Which of those is the case here?

And speaking of moral questions, you didn't get to say whether you thought Eve did an entirely admirable thing in bringing the knowledge of good and evil to humanity.

What's your view on that?

She DIDN'T bring the knowledge of good and evil to what you call humanity. She brought to ADAM (who is the one held very accountable) the fruit, and he ate. Now you can say I add to things, but here's yes, how I see it. Adam knew he was killing himself. Why, because he loved Eve so much. And was not deceived by the serpent. He knew what it meant to eat the fruit. Note: the serpent didn't speak to Adam. So there are certain fundamentals that are very important before we get to other things. The BIBLE (not I) says that Eve was deceived. And it was because of ADAM that all mankind is under the penalty of death. 1 Timothy 2:14 - "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." Since you are very concerned with details and veracity (and I don't blame you for that -- but common sense is common sense when analyzing), then before I touch on knowledge of good and evil with you, the discussion must have a basis towards conclusion.
However -- many of us know innately that there is right and wrong. Anger and rebelliousness can overtake decent bahavior, such as the recent violent protests and behaviors of many. So what I am saying is that at a certain point fhe authorities in certain civilizations can get weak, cannot control wicked behavior. Wicked is up to those observing, I venture to say, not always those performing dastardly actions.
So going back to good and evil, evidently not all know the difference, or do bad things when they think they are doing good things.

 

[YoursTrue]

Certainly not a trinity ─ that's not an idea that exists for another two or three hundred years. But a gnostic, or gnostic-flavored, view of Yahweh, that puts Jesus in the role of the demiurge, and accounts for why Paul says Jesus created the material world (as does the author of John, though not the others). Gnosticism, as I understand it, is a fairly broad tent, but in there are ideas saying that God is pure pure spirit, so pure it would never occur to [him] to create something as impure as the material world; so it fell to one of the beings [he]'d created, the 'demiurge' (Greek 'artisan', 'craftsman') to bring the material world into being, and then to mediate between it and (the very remote) God. John's Jesus in particular elaborates on that second point, but it's in Paul too. The others have a version of it, of course. Forgive me if I'm telling you what you already know.
Yes. An idea that I've never been able to get my mind around, an omnipotent god needing to sacrifice [his] son to [him]self.
But that's an entirely different kind of redemption to the redemption Paul &c speak of, much closer to the idea of a savior who's the real-word rescuer of the Jews collectively, the liberator of the nation of Israel ─ the context in which the Jewish idea of the messiah is most usually found.
Well, I don't think God required the Isrealites to offer them. I think instead that the priesthood and nobles liked to dine on meat. This idea is found in Egypt, among the Phoenicians (Canaanites), through the Classical world of Greece and Rome, and I dare say other places. In pagan culture the local magnate bought the whole town a barbecue on particular days in the name of sacrificing to the gods. (For instance, Prometheus, meeting with Zeus to decide the apportioning of the sacrificed animal, tricked him into choosing the heap with the bones and offal, hidden under a thin layer of the good stuff.)
Nope, I really don't follow the reasoning, the necessity.
Or else, as I keep saying, it's not there because that's not what the story is about,

(As to what the story is about, the best I can make of it is that it's metaphorical, about the infancy of humankind, us as dependent babes protected by our parents, the eating of the fruit as the dawn of sexual awareness at adolescence, and the expulsion as the leaving of home to make our own way in the world and start our own family. That seems to map onto the tale fairly well, and occurs at the right part of the larger storyline.)
A resurrection at a future time is something I'm confidently expecting not to happen ─ not that my saying so will surprise you.
I like straight talkin'. I don't offend easily, and ─ I don't include you in this ─ I've been posting on sites like this for a long time and the claim of offense and indignation instead of a reasoned reply doesn't impress me. Should I, for my part, offend, just say so, and may we continue to enjoy our conversations!
I think it's wishful thinking. After hundred of millions of dollars spent on research, both military and civil, since the 1950s or earlier, there's no persuasive evidence for it anywhere. Randi's million bucks was never won, and more strikingly there weren't many even willing to try. The landscape is littered with endless frauds like Uri Geller and Doris Stokes and friends. Taking one step back, there's not even a feasible hypothesis as to how such things might work, telepathy, or telekinesis, or clairvoyance, or foretelling, on and on ... and not a single repeatable experiment anywhere. (If you ever go to a Ouija board session, you'll find, as I did, how quickly the skeptical mind discovers how to invisibly manipulate the upturned glass or whatever.)

Even though that is true about Uri Geller and other such ones, this does not mitigate the validity of the Bible. So, I was looking at a picture of a beautiful bird today. With gorgeous colors. How did it get that way? By evolution? No, I say. Also, beautiful music. Why are some songs so sad? And beautiful? Especially when the hero is dying. Why? If religion often teaches that the good go to heaven, and the bad to hell, why are people so very sad when a loved one dies, if, in fact, they think he's in heaven?

 

[blü 2]

It's not in Genesis either that if a person doesn't get treatment for rabies he will die of the disease.

Quite right. So why pretend it is?

She DIDN'T bring the knowledge of good and evil to what you call humanity. She brought to ADAM (who is the one held very accountable) the fruit, and he ate. Now you can say I add to things, but here's yes, how I see it. Adam knew he was killing himself.

In the story, Eve is the first human to know good and evil, and only after she'd sinlessly eaten the fruit. And in the story she goes on to be the mother of humanity, who also know good and evil, implicitly by inheriting it from her. Adam is irrelevant to that part of the tale, and he too sinlessly ate the fruit.

If you're saying nothing in the story says or implies that Adam associated eating the fruit with death entering the world, then I entirely agree. If you wish to think that's the case anyway, then please attribute it to Paul, not to Genesis.

However -- many of us know innately that there is right and wrong.{/quote] Yes. I think I mentioned above that we're a mix of evolved moral tendencies, evolved moral tools (empathy, conscience) and learnt moral behavior. All social animals ─ dogs, rats, meerkats, dolphins, us and nearly all of our fellow-primates &c ─ have evolved social / moral behaviors.

Even though that is true about Uri Geller and other such ones, this does not mitigate the validity of the Bible.

In the entirety of known history we have not one single authenticated example of magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing ─ and miracles are a subset of magic.

So, I was looking at a picture of a beautiful bird today. With gorgeous colors. How did it get that way? By evolution? No, I say.

Why do you say, no? The evidence is out there and extremely strong and coherent.

Also, beautiful music. Why are some songs so sad? And beautiful? Especially when the hero is dying.

These are good questions. Note that music as a form of communication is non-verbal and pre-verbal, and much closer to the communication by sounds found in the animal kingdom and various insects.

But like the appreciation of beautiful sunsets, a great deal of it is cultural. Not all cultures fell in love with western music, just as we in the west don't always respond to the music of other cultures.

Why? If religion often teaches that the good go to heaven, and the bad to hell, why are people so very sad when a loved one dies, if, in fact, they think he's in heaven?

It can only be because some part of them understands what death is, no?

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite right. So why pretend it is?
In the story, Eve is the first human to know good and evil, and only after she'd sinlessly eaten the fruit. And in the story she goes on to be the mother of humanity, who also know good and evil, implicitly by inheriting it from her. Adam is irrelevant to that part of the tale, and he too sinlessly ate the fruit.

If you're saying nothing in the story says or implies that Adam associated eating the fruit with death entering the world, then I entirely agree. If you wish to think that's the case anyway, then please attribute it to Paul, not to Genesis.

You just didn't get the illustration about rabies. The mandate (injunction) was given to Adam. Eve knew she was not to eat the fruit, or else she said she would die. The serpent told her she would not die.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”2The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”4“You will not surely die,” the serpent told her.

(You will not surely die? Maybe he meant you will not surely die the moment you touch it. Or maybe he meant you will not certainly die. But you could...)

5“For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves."

Primary questions: when their eyes were opened, why did they knoiw at that point they were naked? Was there something wrong with being naked? Or maybe you figure they were cold? Questions for you to see what you get from this, if you're honest: do you think the serpent knew what God told Adam, and what Adam must have told Eve about the tree? You think maybe Adam told the serpent and so that's how the serpent knew?

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite right. So why pretend it is?
In the story, Eve is the first human to know good and evil, and only after she'd sinlessly eaten the fruit. And in the story she goes on to be the mother of humanity, who also know good and evil, implicitly by inheriting it from her. Adam is irrelevant to that part of the tale, and he too sinlessly ate the fruit.

If you're saying nothing in the story says or implies that Adam associated eating the fruit with death entering the world, then I entirely agree. If you wish to think that's the case anyway, then please attribute it to Paul, not to Genesis.

She didn't sinlessly eat the fruit. She knew what God said. The fact she was deceived, thinking she could be like God, does not make her sinless when she disobeyed. God, not the serpent, was her creator. Do you think she knew that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite right. So why pretend it is?
In the story, Eve is the first human to know good and evil, and only after she'd sinlessly eaten the fruit. And in the story she goes on to be the mother of humanity, who also know good and evil, implicitly by inheriting it from her. Adam is irrelevant to that part of the tale, and he too sinlessly ate the fruit.

If you're saying nothing in the story says or implies that Adam associated eating the fruit with death entering the world, then I entirely agree. If you wish to think that's the case anyway, then please attribute it to Paul, not to Genesis.

(The Bible doesn't stop at Genesis. And without the rest of the Bible, there would be no hope for the future. Unless, of course, you think that mankind and the world's governments can solve their problems. )

 

[tytlyf]

Christians are commanded by the bible to create a theocracy. Even in a secular country. Dangerous.

Dominionism Defined
Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological view, means, or timetable, Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.

Analyst Chip Berlet and I have suggested that there is a dominionist spectrum running from soft to hard as a way of making some broad distinctions among dominionists without getting mired in theological minutiae. But we also agree that:

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing biblical principles.

Of course, Christian nationalism takes a distinct form in the United States, but dominionism in all of its variants has a vision for all nations.

Dominionism Rising

 

[blü 2]

You just didn't get the illustration about rabies.

They were made with rabies. Nothing in the story suggests otherwise and God's expelling them TO STOP THEM from becoming rabies-proof underlines the point.

The mandate (injunction) was given to Adam.

But Adam was incapable of knowing right from wrong, had no way of knowing disobedience was wrong, and is never relevantly accused of disobedience anyway.

Eve knew she was not to eat the fruit, or else she said she would die.

No, God said they'd die the same day, and the Snake correctly said, No, you won't. Nor did they.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

The word you translate as 'crafty' is 'aruwm. meaning, says Strong, subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible, prudent. KJV and my favorite RSV have 'subtle'. So the meaning of the word here is not precise.

And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’” 2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her.

KJV and RSV have 3 .... lest you die. KJV has 'You will not surely die' and the RSV has 'You will not die'. I suggest that the RSV translation omits 'surely' because it can be omitted without damage to the sense of the passage, but I have no Hebrew so I'm reliant on translations.

5

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves."

Primary questions: when their eyes were opened, why did they knoiw at that point they were naked? Was there something wrong with being naked?

I assume that culturally being naked was shameful / immodest / bad (and versions of this are familiar to nearly all cultures that dress).

My own take on the Garden story (as I mentioned to Hockeycowboy above) is that it's a metaphor for Adam and Eve growing up. Thus they don't know good from evil because they're babies (standing for the babyhood of humanity), then they reach adolescence and gain sexual awareness (eat the apple and gain that awareness) and other more mature views, then they grow and get kicked out of the family home to make their own way and start their own families. The story occurs in the right part of the creation narrative for this view to be appropriate.

do you think the serpent knew what God told Adam, and what Adam must have told Eve about the tree? You think maybe Adam told the serpent and so that's how the serpent knew?

I've always assumed, just by reading the text, that the serpent already knew the answer to the question he asked Eve, because (I have the impression from the form of the narrative) the way he phrases his question implies that.

 

[blü 2]

She didn't sinlessly eat the fruit. She knew what God said. The fact she was deceived, thinking she could be like God, does not make her sinless when she disobeyed. God, not the serpent, was her creator. Do you think she knew that?

YES, she sinlessly ate the fruit BECAUSE when she ate it, she had no knowledge of good and evil, no way of knowing right and wrong, no way of knowing eg disobedience was wrong (though it's not plain to me that disobedience is ever the issue in the text) AND THEREFORE it was impossible for her to form the intention to do wrong / sin AND if you wholly lack the intention to sin you can't be said to sin.

 

[blü 2]

(The Bible doesn't stop at Genesis. And without the rest of the Bible, there would be no hope for the future. Unless, of course, you think that mankind and the world's governments can solve their problems. )

But God neither says nor does. The world behaves exactly as though God only existed as a concept in individual brains, not as though a real omnipotent being was out there.

And as I said, an omnipotent being who sits on [his] omnipotent hands while innocent people die (&c) would have a morality I find repulsive and deplore.

As for whether humans can exhibit the self-control to create a peaceful, environmentally friendly earth, I don't know how that will end; but if it all falls apart, we won't be the first species to go extinct.

I've sometimes wondered whether the successors of mankind will be Homo sapiens mechanicus, the machines in our image we'll need if we ever undertake life on other worlds, interstellar travel and the like.