Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[blü 2]

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.

They were always going to die.

They were kicked out of the Garden to make sure they didn't become immortal.

That's what the story says.

Paul's view doesn't alter what the story actually says. That's the ;point of this conversation.

Don't forget to give direct clear answers to the two questions in my previous post.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

If I can't get to a common ground with you about basics, why bother? I'm not talking about "original sin." I am saying that there is a meaning to 'in' the day that you are not attributing to it. And, have you said why Eve was going to die anyway?

 

[YoursTrue]

They were always going to die.

They were kicked out of the Garden to make sure they didn't become immortal.

That's what the story says.

Paul's view doesn't alter what the story actually says. That's the ;point of this conversation.

Don't forget to give direct clear answers to the two questions in my previous post.

OK, they were not "always going to die," that's where you're getting confused. But, be that as it may, it's so basic that I really don't think you can absorb any more.

 

[YoursTrue]

They were always going to die.

They were kicked out of the Garden to make sure they didn't become immortal.

That's what the story says.

Paul's view doesn't alter what the story actually says. That's the ;point of this conversation.

Don't forget to give direct clear answers to the two questions in my previous post.

Who's talking much about Paul? Paul wasn't around when the event occurred. Further, they weren't "always going to die." I'm surprised you don't get that point, or rather don't want to get that point, but then, that's the way it goes. As I said, if you can't understand the basics, why go further?

 

[YoursTrue]

They were always going to die.

They were kicked out of the Garden to make sure they didn't become immortal.

That's what the story says.

Paul's view doesn't alter what the story actually says. That's the ;point of this conversation.

Don't forget to give direct clear answers to the two questions in my previous post.

You mean they were going to die from the time, moment, day, etc., when they disobeyed God by eating the fruit. Isn't that what you mean? From that moment on, they were going to die. Not before.

 

[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
...

No. 1 - they weren't going to "die anyway."
No. 2 - they would die from the moment (the day) they ate from the tree. In, or on the day, the sentence was passed. Not before. There was no turning back once they ate from the tree. Bye, bye. The march toward death began. For them, there was no turning back. From dust they came, and to dust they were to return.

 

[blü 2]

If I can't get to a common ground with you about basics, why bother? I'm not talking about "original sin." I am saying that there is a meaning to 'in' the day that you are not attributing to it. And, have you said why Eve was going to die anyway?

That's immaterial, because Adam and Eve were never going to be immortal.

Who's talking much about Paul?

You are.

You're selling the line that Adam sinned and that as a result death entered the world.

The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

Those ideas come into Christianity through Paul, though as I mentioned, my recollection is that they originated about a century earlier, among the much more Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.

You mean they were going to die from the time, moment, day, etc., when they disobeyed God by eating the fruit. Isn't that what you mean? From that moment on, they were going to die. Not before.

See? That's Paul. The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

To remind you of the mantra, the story makes NO MENTION ANYWHERE of sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death' or the need for a redeemer. It's not about sin. It's not about the fall of man. It's not about death entering the world.

It's about God getting scared that Adam and Eve are not only going to gain knowledge of good and evil but also become immortal; and that's the only reason anywhere in the story that [he] expels Adam and Eve from the Garden.

I've also pointed out to you the possibility that the story is about the (imagined) childhood of humanity, where Adam and Eve are like infants, innocent, not knowing good and bad; and the adolescence of humanity, the coming of sexual awareness in the form of the fruit; and the maturing of humanity till it's time they dang well got out there and earned their own living.

Whether that's right or not, it has an overwhelming merit compared to your view / Paul's view that it uses only elements found in the story, whereas Paul only uses elements not found in the story.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's immaterial, because Adam and Eve were never going to be immortal.
You are.

You're selling the line that Adam sinned and that as a result death entered the world.

The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

Those ideas come into Christianity through Paul, though as I mentioned, my recollection is that they originated about a century earlier, among the much more Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
See? That's Paul. The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

To remind you of the mantra, the story makes NO MENTION ANYWHERE of sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death' or the need for a redeemer. It's not about sin. It's not about the fall of man. It's not about death entering the world.

It's about God getting scared that Adam and Eve are not only going to gain knowledge of good and evil but also become immortal; and that's the only reason anywhere in the story that [he] expels Adam and Eve from the Garden.

I've also pointed out to you the possibility that the story is about the (imagined) childhood of humanity, where Adam and Eve are like infants, innocent, not knowing good and bad; and the adolescence of humanity, the coming of sexual awareness in the form of the fruit; and the maturing of humanity till it's time they dang well got out there and earned their own living.

Whether that's right or not, it has an overwhelming merit compared to your view / Paul's view that it uses only elements found in the story, whereas Paul only uses elements not found in the story.

I'm not selling any line. I'm going with the account in the Bible, which you can read in English but then apparently can't read it. Adam and Eve sinned before they had children. You keep talking about Paul.
Sin: they did what God told them not to do. Don't like the word sin? Try disobedient. They had one command to observe lest they D-I-E. They did not obey the direction not to eat. The death sentence was imposed on them after--not before-- they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had consciences. They weren't really dumb. They were probably smarter than anyone today. Let's start with Eve in the account. She knew she was not supposed to eat of that tree, but she did anyway. You're implying Eve was stupid, dumb, or ignorant. I'm saying she was none of those. She knew the injunction. I'm not buying the idea that she was stupid, or ignorantly naive. So without going into the commentary about death coming through ADAM (not Eve), I'll ask you if you think they had consciences?
Besides, now that you mention it, do you believe there is right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's immaterial, because Adam and Eve were never going to be immortal.
You are.

You're selling the line that Adam sinned and that as a result death entered the world.

The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

Those ideas come into Christianity through Paul, though as I mentioned, my recollection is that they originated about a century earlier, among the much more Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
See? That's Paul. The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

To remind you of the mantra, the story makes NO MENTION ANYWHERE of sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death' or the need for a redeemer. It's not about sin. It's not about the fall of man. It's not about death entering the world.

It's about God getting scared that Adam and Eve are not only going to gain knowledge of good and evil but also become immortal; and that's the only reason anywhere in the story that [he] expels Adam and Eve from the Garden.

I've also pointed out to you the possibility that the story is about the (imagined) childhood of humanity, where Adam and Eve are like infants, innocent, not knowing good and bad; and the adolescence of humanity, the coming of sexual awareness in the form of the fruit; and the maturing of humanity till it's time they dang well got out there and earned their own living.

Whether that's right or not, it has an overwhelming merit compared to your view / Paul's view that it uses only elements found in the story, whereas Paul only uses elements not found in the story.

The account was penned for posterity by Moses. And further accounts were penned by others regarding the history of the Jews.

 

[blü 2]

I'm not selling any line. I'm going with the account in the Bible, which you can read in English but then apparently can't read it. Adam and Eve sinned before they had children.

Quote me the part of the text that says they sinned.

Don't give me your reconstructions designed to say things that aren't there.

Just point to one place where it says 'sin'.

Besides, now that you mention it, do you believe there is right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil?

Of course. We humans are born with a kit of moral instincts, plus empathy, plus a conscience, and we acquire the rest of our morality from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

So we naturally think some things are right and wrong. We dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to our group or groups, we approve of child nurture and protection and deplore their neglect. We can also get a kick out of self-denial.

Otherwise, and generally, 'good' is what is beneficial to me, or to mine, or to causes I support, 'Bad' is what is adverse to me, or mine, or to causes I support. Evil is simply an Old English word for bad, which through its use in the bible has come to mean bad with a sense of being morally bad.

The account was penned for posterity by Moses. And further accounts were penned by others regarding the history of the Jews.

That's extremely doubtful as a fact of history. There may not have been a real Moses, an Egyptian captivity or an Exodus at all. Instead the Egyptian part may come from interacting with Egyptians when they occupied parts of the eastern end of the Mediterranean for a while, not least the coastal lands of the Canaanite tribes. As you know, no one ever discovered anything in Egyptian records, or in archaeology, that shows a Canaanite tribe as a slave class in Egypt, and the events described in the bible don't match any known Pharaoh (and that's after a LOT of looking by a LOT of folks).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's immaterial, because Adam and Eve were never going to be immortal.
You are.

You're selling the line that Adam sinned and that as a result death entered the world.

The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

Those ideas come into Christianity through Paul, though as I mentioned, my recollection is that they originated about a century earlier, among the much more Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
See? That's Paul. The Garden story says nothing of the kind.

To remind you of the mantra, the story makes NO MENTION ANYWHERE of sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, 'spiritual death' or the need for a redeemer. It's not about sin. It's not about the fall of man. It's not about death entering the world.

It's about God getting scared that Adam and Eve are not only going to gain knowledge of good and evil but also become immortal; and that's the only reason anywhere in the story that [he] expels Adam and Eve from the Garden.

I've also pointed out to you the possibility that the story is about the (imagined) childhood of humanity, where Adam and Eve are like infants, innocent, not knowing good and bad; and the adolescence of humanity, the coming of sexual awareness in the form of the fruit; and the maturing of humanity till it's time they dang well got out there and earned their own living.

Whether that's right or not, it has an overwhelming merit compared to your view / Paul's view that it uses only elements found in the story, whereas Paul only uses elements not found in the story.

Hey blü 2, hope you're well.

Just some thoughts....A&E never would have been "immortal" (where they can't die); they just could've lived forever, as long as they are, drank, and didn't fall off a cliff. If they ate rocks & dirt, that could've killed them.lol.

Regarding sin.....was wondering, what do you think sin is?
According to Jewish tradition, "The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path."

Disobeying, as A&E did, meets that criteria for sin ....Yahweh laid down a law, and Adam rebelled.

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Quote me the part of the text that says they sinned.

Don't give me your reconstructions designed to say things that aren't there.

Just point to one place where it says 'sin'.

It never says a lot of things. It never says they relieved their bladder. Are we to think they didn't? Lol. (Look at previous post.)

 

[blü 2]

Hey blü 2, hope you're well.

Thanks, and to you. So far so good, at my end.

Just some thoughts....A&E never would have been "immortal" (where they can't die); they just could've lived forever, as long as they are, drank, and didn't fall off a cliff. If they ate rocks & dirt, that could've killed them.lol.

Is there a difference in Hebrew between 'immortal' (implying invulnerability) and 'live forever' (implying no particular limit)? The translations I have to hand all say 'live forever'.

Regarding sin.....was wondering, what do you think sin is?
According to Jewish tradition, "The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path."

Please correct me if I'm wrong ─ I have to rely on translators for Hebrew ─ but I don't think any of those words occur in the Garden story.

Disobeying, as A&E did, meets that criteria for sin ....Yahweh laid down a law, and Adam rebelled.

Well, l don't think either of them 'rebelled', because I think you need a conscious act of defying the political order to rebel. And it remains the case that neither Adam nor Eve was capable of intending to do wrong when they ate the fruit; they can't even be blamed for being naive, since their naivety / ignorance was God's idea.

relieved their bladder

Paul (West Virginians 4:17) says that it was through Adam's sin that pee entered the world.

(Sorry about that.)


Masks, is the word of the day. Fingers crossed for us all.

 

[oldbadger]

Hello again @KenS

Much earlier you asked:-

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

....and I replied to you:-

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

Could you not think of any?

 

[Kenny]

Hello again @KenS

Much earlier you asked:-


....and I replied to you:-

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

Could you not think of any?

Freedom OF religion instead of freedom FROM religion?

 

[oldbadger]

Freedom OF religion instead of freedom FROM religion?

Well, that's not what you were asking before, you wanted a:-
freedom of religion based laws and that's not only different but 'dreadful', or 'to be dreaded''.

Where I live (UK) we do have 'Freedom OF religion' but what we would not stand for is any kind of 'freedom of religion based laws'. I'm always saddened when some Christians (for example) quote selected Laws of Moses to impose upon others but then ignore hundreds of others that don't suit them. We don't want that.

Many religious extremists from many different religions would be trying to reduce and criminalise sexual freedom, sexual expression, gender freedom and much more.

By all means do have rules, as long as they do not interfere with a country's legislation in any way, a bit like Club-Rules if you like......... but no more.

 

[Kenny]

Well, that's not what you were asking before, you wanted a:-
freedom of religion based laws and that's not only different but 'dreadful', or 'to be dreaded''.

Where I live (UK) we do have 'Freedom OF religion' but what we would not stand for is any kind of 'freedom of religion based laws'. I'm always saddened when some Christians (for example) quote selected Laws of Moses to impose upon others but then ignore hundreds of others that don't suit them. We don't want that.

Many religious extremists from many different religions would be trying to reduce and criminalise sexual freedom, sexual expression, gender freedom and much more.

By all means do have rules, as long as they do not interfere with a country's legislation in any way, a bit like Club-Rules if you like......... but no more.

Badger... somehow I lost the thread on the point you are trying to make (being sincere) - I'm sorry. I'm not interested in making a Theocracy. I'm not interested in making laws that force people into a religion

 

[oldbadger]

Badger... somehow I lost the thread on the point you are trying to make (being sincere) - I'm sorry. I'm not interested in making a Theocracy. I'm not interested in making laws that force people into a religion

Phew!
I must have been dozing.
I apologise for my aggressive posts.

 

[Kenny]

Phew!
I must have been dozing.
I apologise for my aggressive posts.

Hey if it happens to the best of us, it certainly can happen to the worst of us (just kidding)

 

[metis]

Logically, with the wording of the 1st Amendment, there should also be "freedom from religion". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ...".

For example, what if a state legislated that every single person in the state must attend some religious services every weekend but not specifying which? Is that "kosher"? Can anyone seriously picture the SCOTUS defending that position?