Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[YoursTrue]

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.

Let's suppose I understood your comment. God, being who He is, could have taken back his proposed punishment, and said, "Don't worry. I forgive you so it'll all be ok. No one will ever die from rabies or anything else. All is forgiven."

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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.

She did not believe or listen to God. That's it. He told her in her innocent mind right from wrong. He was her lifegiver. She did not appreciate it, deceived, innocent or not. She didn't appreciate her creation and Lifegiver.

 

[blü 2]

Let's suppose I understood your comment. God, being who He is, could have taken back his proposed punishment, and said, "Don't worry. I forgive you so it'll all be ok. No one will ever die from rabies or anything else. All is forgiven."

It is NOT a proposed punishment in the story. God alleges, in the form of a warning, that it's a quality of the fruit itself, since [he] says 'you will die the same day' and NOT 'I'll kill you the same day'.

She did not believe or listen to God.

She had no way of knowing that not believing God was wrong. She had no way of knowing that not listening to God was wrong. She was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong. She COULD NOT SIN. This condition was deliberately imposed by God.

That's it. He told her in her innocent mind right from wrong.

In the story, your statement is 100% wrong, pure error. The whole point about eating the fruit is that before she eats it SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It is impossible for her to sin.

Nor does the story say at any point that she'd sinned.

Nor is the expulsion from the Garden related to any idea of sin. Instead it's specifically stated that it's to protect God from potential rivals. (The idea of God protecting [him]self from potential rivals is also the key part of the Tower of Babel tale.)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is NOT a proposed punishment in the story. God alleges, in the form of a warning, that it's a quality of the fruit itself, since [he] says 'you will die the same day' and NOT 'I'll kill you the same day'.
She had no way of knowing that not believing God was wrong. She had no way of knowing that not listening to God was wrong. She was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong. She COULD NOT SIN. This condition was deliberately imposed by God.
In the story, your statement is 100% wrong, pure error. The whole point about eating the fruit is that before she eats it SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It is impossible for her to sin.

Nor does the story say at any point that she'd sinned.

Nor is the expulsion from the Garden related to any idea of sin. Instead it's specifically stated that it's to protect God from potential rivals. (The idea of God protecting [him]self from potential rivals is also the key part of the Tower of Babel tale.)

I'm not addressing every point and insinuation you make. So there we go again, as if you think Eve was continually innocent and God put her to death anyway. The serpent told her that God was a liar. He didn't use those exact words, but by now I'm beginning to wonder about your ability to determine right from wrong. Translations or versions differ, but many say "in" the day, not "on" the day, and for someone who thinks, there is a difference in exactitude, but many realize that God meant the day they disobeyed, there were goners.

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”

English Standard Version
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Berean Study Bible
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

New American Standard Bible
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

New King James Version
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

(Some get it, others don't. She didn't misunderstand what she was not supposed to do, she clearly enunciated it to the devil. Like I say, some get it, some don't.)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is NOT a proposed punishment in the story. God alleges, in the form of a warning, that it's a quality of the fruit itself, since [he] says 'you will die the same day' and NOT 'I'll kill you the same day'.
She had no way of knowing that not believing God was wrong. She had no way of knowing that not listening to God was wrong. She was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong. She COULD NOT SIN. This condition was deliberately imposed by God.
In the story, your statement is 100% wrong, pure error. The whole point about eating the fruit is that before she eats it SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It is impossible for her to sin.

Nor does the story say at any point that she'd sinned.

Nor is the expulsion from the Garden related to any idea of sin. Instead it's specifically stated that it's to protect God from potential rivals. (The idea of God protecting [him]self from potential rivals is also the key part of the Tower of Babel tale.)

Again, you don't get it. She disobeyed. Period. Whether you think she didn't know right from wrong, or good from bad is not the question right now, although -- you fail to realize what the situation was. Now let's say a benefactor gave you a fortune, but told you not to tell anyone who gave it to you, or else you would forfeit the money. And someone came along and said, "Hey, is it true that you shouldn't tell anyone who gave you this money?" And you say, yes, it's true, I am not supposed to tell anyone who gave me this money, or else I'll lose it. (You take it from there...)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is NOT a proposed punishment in the story. God alleges, in the form of a warning, that it's a quality of the fruit itself, since [he] says 'you will die the same day' and NOT 'I'll kill you the same day'.
She had no way of knowing that not believing God was wrong. She had no way of knowing that not listening to God was wrong. She was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong. She COULD NOT SIN. This condition was deliberately imposed by God.
In the story, your statement is 100% wrong, pure error. The whole point about eating the fruit is that before she eats it SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It is impossible for her to sin.

Nor does the story say at any point that she'd sinned.

Nor is the expulsion from the Garden related to any idea of sin. Instead it's specifically stated that it's to protect God from potential rivals. (The idea of God protecting [him]self from potential rivals is also the key part of the Tower of Babel tale.)

OK, what do you think this means about day? You think maybe it's a 24-hour period spoken of at Genesis 2:4 - English Standard Version
"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

 

[blü 2]

I'm not addressing every point and insinuation you make. So there we go again, as if you think Eve was continually innocent and God put her to death anyway.

No, in the story, God never "puts her to death". She was always going to die. The text is very plain on the point ─ both because Adam and Eve are familiar with the concept eg in the warning about the tree, and because God expressly kicks them out of the Garden to stop them becoming immortal and thus becoming [his] rival. That's what the text explicitly says.

The serpent told her that God was a liar. He didn't use those exact words, but by now I'm beginning to wonder about your ability to determine right from wrong.

And I'm wondering about yours ─ your determination to convict Eve of sin, when she was incapable of sin and when sin is never mentioned, your determination that she must have been immortal when the evidence says exactly the opposite.

These ideas don't originate with Paul, but he's to blame for their becoming popular in Christianity. Stop saying the Garden story has those ideas ─ it doesn't, and the text is there to prove it.

Translations or versions differ, but many say "in" the day, not "on" the day

I'm happy with "in the day". If it doesn't mean "on the day" then it's meaningless in context, not least, as I keep pointing out, that they were always going to die some time.

She didn't misunderstand what she was not supposed to do, she clearly enunciated it to the devil. Like I say, some get it, some don't.)

She did not know it was wrong.

She could not know it was wrong.

God had withheld from her knowledge of right and wrong.

She was thus incapable of intending to do wrong.

She was thus incapable of sin.

NOR IS THE STORY ABOUT SIN. SIN IS NEVER MENTIONED. NOT ONCE. NOT ANYWHERE.

 

[oldbadger]

Why are you bothered that they would like society to have a freedom of religion based laws?

Which laws?
Please quote some laws that you think should be included in any country's legislation which are not already included?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, in the story, God never "puts her to death". She was always going to die. The text is very plain on the point ─ both because Adam and Eve are familiar with the concept eg in the warning about the tree, and because God expressly kicks them out of the Garden to stop them becoming immortal and thus becoming [his] rival. That's what the text explicitly says.
And I'm wondering about yours ─ your determination to convict Eve of sin, when she was incapable of sin and when sin is never mentioned, your determination that she must have been immortal when the evidence says exactly the opposite.

These ideas don't originate with Paul, but he's to blame for their becoming popular in Christianity. Stop saying the Garden story has those ideas ─ it doesn't, and the text is there to prove it.
I'm happy with "in the day". If it doesn't mean "on the day" then it's meaningless in context, not least, as I keep pointing out, that they were always going to die some time.
She did not know it was wrong.

She could not know it was wrong.

God had withheld from her knowledge of right and wrong.

She was thus incapable of intending to do wrong.

She was thus incapable of sin.

NOR IS THE STORY ABOUT SIN. SIN IS NEVER MENTIONED. NOT ONCE. NOT ANYWHERE.

Whàt do you mean she was always going to die?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, in the story, God never "puts her to death". She was always going to die. The text is very plain on the point ─ both because Adam and Eve are familiar with the concept eg in the warning about the tree, and because God expressly kicks them out of the Garden to stop them becoming immortal and thus becoming [his] rival. That's what the text explicitly says.
And I'm wondering about yours ─ your determination to convict Eve of sin, when she was incapable of sin and when sin is never mentioned, your determination that she must have been immortal when the evidence says exactly the opposite.

These ideas don't originate with Paul, but he's to blame for their becoming popular in Christianity. Stop saying the Garden story has those ideas ─ it doesn't, and the text is there to prove it.
I'm happy with "in the day". If it doesn't mean "on the day" then it's meaningless in context, not least, as I keep pointing out, that they were always going to die some time.
She did not know it was wrong.

She could not know it was wrong.

God had withheld from her knowledge of right and wrong.

She was thus incapable of intending to do wrong.

She was thus incapable of sin.

NOR IS THE STORY ABOUT SIN. SIN IS NEVER MENTIONED. NOT ONCE. NOT ANYWHERE.

Sin brings about death. It doesn't have to be in the account where you want it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, in the story, God never "puts her to death". She was always going to die. The text is very plain on the point ─ both because Adam and Eve are familiar with the concept eg in the warning about the tree, and because God expressly kicks them out of the Garden to stop them becoming immortal and thus becoming [his] rival. That's what the text explicitly says.
And I'm wondering about yours ─ your determination to convict Eve of sin, when she was incapable of sin and when sin is never mentioned, your determination that she must have been immortal when the evidence says exactly the opposite.

These ideas don't originate with Paul, but he's to blame for their becoming popular in Christianity. Stop saying the Garden story has those ideas ─ it doesn't, and the text is there to prove it.
I'm happy with "in the day". If it doesn't mean "on the day" then it's meaningless in context, not least, as I keep pointing out, that they were always going to die some time.
She did not know it was wrong.

She could not know it was wrong.

God had withheld from her knowledge of right and wrong.

She was thus incapable of intending to do wrong.

She was thus incapable of sin.

NOR IS THE STORY ABOUT SIN. SIN IS NEVER MENTIONED. NOT ONCE. NOT ANYWHERE.

If you're going to stick to the account, then stick to it, nowhere does it say she was incapable of sin, in fact, looking at it logically, sure she was capable of sin.

 

[blü 2]

If you're going to stick to the account, then stick to it, nowhere does it say she was incapable of sin, in fact, looking at it logically, sure she was capable of sin.

So in your theology, intention to do wrong is irrelevant to guilt, eh?

Even when God in person has determined to withhold knowledge of right and wrong from you?

When it comes to justice and fairness and straightforward common sense, you and I seem to be on different planets.

Paul the misleader ...


And as I said, the story is not about sin, and sin is NEVER mentioned, not even once.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is NOT a proposed punishment in the story. God alleges, in the form of a warning, that it's a quality of the fruit itself, since [he] says 'you will die the same day' and NOT 'I'll kill you the same day'.
She had no way of knowing that not believing God was wrong. She had no way of knowing that not listening to God was wrong. She was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong. She COULD NOT SIN. This condition was deliberately imposed by God.
In the story, your statement is 100% wrong, pure error. The whole point about eating the fruit is that before she eats it SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It is impossible for her to sin.

Nor does the story say at any point that she'd sinned.

Nor is the expulsion from the Garden related to any idea of sin. Instead it's specifically stated that it's to protect God from potential rivals. (The idea of God protecting [him]self from potential rivals is also the key part of the Tower of Babel tale.)

He didn't say you'll die on the SAME day you eat from the fruit. Again -- the FRUIT didn't kill her. The fruit was not poisonous. You keep getting it wrong.
Further, this is what the account says:
Genesis 3
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?’”
(Do you think the serpent knew what God said, or did he just figure it up?)

 

[YoursTrue]

So in your theology, intention to do wrong is irrelevant to guilt, eh?

Even when God in person has determined to withhold knowledge of right and wrong from you?

When it comes to justice and fairness and straightforward common sense, you and I seem to be on different planets.

Paul the misleader ...


And as I said, the story is not about sin, and sin is NEVER mentioned, not even once.

Ignorance of the law is not a real good defense. But she was NOT ignorant. She was TOLD that if she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she will die 'in' or 'on' the day she ate it. She just didn't believe it. She found out.

 

[YoursTrue]

So in your theology, intention to do wrong is irrelevant to guilt, eh?

Even when God in person has determined to withhold knowledge of right and wrong from you?

When it comes to justice and fairness and straightforward common sense, you and I seem to be on different planets.

Paul the misleader ...


And as I said, the story is not about sin, and sin is NEVER mentioned, not even once.

I have explained to you that if someone gives you a large amount of money and tells you not to tell anyone who gave it to you, but someone else comes along and says, nah -- you can tell me, don't worry about it, are you saying that you would feel no guilt whatsoever if you told him who gave it to you??? Are you kidding? (Yes, I think you are. But then maybe you're not...)

 

[blü 2]

He didn't say you'll die on the SAME day you eat from the fruit. Again -- the FRUIT didn't kill her. The fruit was not poisonous. You keep getting it wrong.

[He] said, 'for in the day that you eat of it you shall die' ─ and since they were going to die anyway, that has to mean 'you'll die the same day you eat it

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?’”
(Do you think the serpent knew what God said, or did he just figure it up?)

Didn't I answer that earlier? I said the story seemed to me to read as though the Snake already knew what God said. And I added that the Hebrew word in the text also means 'subtle' as well as 'crafty' and is translated 'subtle' in the KJV and my preferred RSV.

Ignorance of the law is not a real good defense. But she was NOT ignorant. She was TOLD that if she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she will die 'in' or 'on' the day she ate it. She just didn't believe it. She found out.

She was not ignorant of what God said (since we can assume Adam told her).

She simply had no way of knowing right from wrong, and that was because God chose to keep them both ignorant.

So if you're looking after a four-year old, and you say, 'Don't run out on the road because you'll get killed by a car', and the five-year old runs out on the road anyway, though doesn't get hit by a car, is the running out on the road the four-year-old's fault, or is it your fault as Person In Charge? I can tell what the law will say about that.

Neither Eve nor our four-year-old knows right from wrong.

And as I repeat endlessly, the story isn't about disobedience, never once mentions sin, never once says death entered the world as a result, never once touches on the concept of 'the fall of man' or 'spiritual death', never once mentions a need for redemption.

They're simply not in the story, and Paul is simply wrong on the face of the record when he suggests otherwise.

And the reason why God booted Adam and Eve out the Garden is in the text loud and clear, except you're too busy trying to impose Paul on the text to notice:

Genesis 3: 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, 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 for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

Quick quiz: Why, according to the account in Genesis, did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

 

[YoursTrue]

[He] said, 'for in the day that you eat of it you shall die' ─ and since they were going to die anyway, that has to mean 'you'll die the same day you eat it
Didn't I answer that earlier? I said the story seemed to me to read as though the Snake already knew what God said. And I added that the Hebrew word in the text also means 'subtle' as well as 'crafty' and is translated 'subtle' in the KJV and my preferred RSV.
She was not ignorant of what God said (since we can assume Adam told her).

She simply had no way of knowing right from wrong, and that was because God chose to keep them both ignorant.

So if you're looking after a four-year old, and you say, 'Don't run out on the road because you'll get killed by a car', and the five-year old runs out on the road anyway, though doesn't get hit by a car, is the running out on the road the four-year-old's fault, or is it your fault as Person In Charge? I can tell what the law will say about that.

Neither Eve nor our four-year-old knows right from wrong.

And as I repeat endlessly, the story isn't about disobedience, never once mentions sin, never once says death entered the world as a result, never once touches on the concept of 'the fall of man' or 'spiritual death', never once mentions a need for redemption.

They're simply not in the story, and Paul is simply wrong on the face of the record when he suggests otherwise.

And the reason why God booted Adam and Eve out the Garden is in the text loud and clear, except you're too busy trying to impose Paul on the text to notice:

Genesis 3: 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, 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 for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

Quick quiz: Why, according to the account in Genesis, did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

I looked it up in the account in Genesis, chapter 3, and guess what Eve said to the serpent? When you find it, let me know, ok? (Hint: Genesis 3:3.)

 

[YoursTrue]

[He] said, 'for in the day that you eat of it you shall die' ─ and since they were going to die anyway, that has to mean 'you'll die the same day you eat it
Didn't I answer that earlier? I said the story seemed to me to read as though the Snake already knew what God said. And I added that the Hebrew word in the text also means 'subtle' as well as 'crafty' and is translated 'subtle' in the KJV and my preferred RSV.
She was not ignorant of what God said (since we can assume Adam told her).

She simply had no way of knowing right from wrong, and that was because God chose to keep them both ignorant.

So if you're looking after a four-year old, and you say, 'Don't run out on the road because you'll get killed by a car', and the five-year old runs out on the road anyway, though doesn't get hit by a car, is the running out on the road the four-year-old's fault, or is it your fault as Person In Charge? I can tell what the law will say about that.

Neither Eve nor our four-year-old knows right from wrong.

And as I repeat endlessly, the story isn't about disobedience, never once mentions sin, never once says death entered the world as a result, never once touches on the concept of 'the fall of man' or 'spiritual death', never once mentions a need for redemption.

They're simply not in the story, and Paul is simply wrong on the face of the record when he suggests otherwise.

And the reason why God booted Adam and Eve out the Garden is in the text loud and clear, except you're too busy trying to impose Paul on the text to notice:

Genesis 3: 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, 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 for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

Quick quiz: Why, according to the account in Genesis, did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

First answer what you find at Genesis 3:3. Then perhaps we can talk later.

 

[YoursTrue]

[He] said, 'for in the day that you eat of it you shall die' ─ and since they were going to die anyway, that has to mean 'you'll die the same day you eat it
Didn't I answer that earlier? I said the story seemed to me to read as though the Snake already knew what God said. And I added that the Hebrew word in the text also means 'subtle' as well as 'crafty' and is translated 'subtle' in the KJV and my preferred RSV.
She was not ignorant of what God said (since we can assume Adam told her).

She simply had no way of knowing right from wrong, and that was because God chose to keep them both ignorant.

So if you're looking after a four-year old, and you say, 'Don't run out on the road because you'll get killed by a car', and the five-year old runs out on the road anyway, though doesn't get hit by a car, is the running out on the road the four-year-old's fault, or is it your fault as Person In Charge? I can tell what the law will say about that.

Neither Eve nor our four-year-old knows right from wrong.

And as I repeat endlessly, the story isn't about disobedience, never once mentions sin, never once says death entered the world as a result, never once touches on the concept of 'the fall of man' or 'spiritual death', never once mentions a need for redemption.

They're simply not in the story, and Paul is simply wrong on the face of the record when he suggests otherwise.

And the reason why God booted Adam and Eve out the Garden is in the text loud and clear, except you're too busy trying to impose Paul on the text to notice:

Genesis 3: 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, 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 for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

Quick quiz: Why, according to the account in Genesis, did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

Why do you say she was going to die anyway? If that's the story, then what? Genesis 2:4, I suggest you look that up for a better definition of the word day as used. It doesn't always mean a 24-hour period of time that a judgment is executed, or things are done. So you have TWO scriptures to look up to further your comprehension, if that's what you want to do. Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 3:3. Just for recognition's sake, Genesis 2:4 says, English Revised Version
"These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
In the day that YHWH made earth and heaven? It's an expression of time, with a beginning and ending. Not just a 24-hour period beginning at midnight and ending at 11:59 a.m. that very same calendar day.

 

[blü 2]

I looked it up in the account in Genesis, chapter 3, and guess what Eve said to the serpent? When you find it, let me know, ok? (Hint: Genesis 3:3.)

You love ducking questions, don't you.

We've been over that before. We've looked at 'in the day' and 'on the day'. We've seen that the Garden story is not about, and never mentions, sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death', the need for a redeemer and so on, and accordingly NEVER mentions them.

So, since I asked first, tell me ─

Why, according to the Garden tale in Genesis, did God kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden?

And when in the story Eve brought the knowledge of good and evil to mankind, is it a good thing or a bad thing she did, is it good or bad that humans know of good and evil?