The Garden of Eden Story!

[ch4rl3s]

@begbert2

It’s pretty clear in the text that they didn’t understand the consequences going in- making it logically impossible for them to have meaningfully ‘chosen’ them. If I place an apple and simply tell you not to eat it, and then when you do I bludgeon you half to death with a hammer with no prior warning that that would happen, you did not choose to get bludgeoned with the hammer.

People keep using the claw hammer mis-analogy. And then there’s the “no prior warning” mis-argument. Do people really just make up bad arguments so they can continue to believe their pre-conceived notions?

1. no claw hammer. natural consequences of their own actions. Even if they couldn’t comprehend completely what that would mean. Even if a child doesn’t understand how hot the stove is, they will get burned. They may even be scarred for life. Consequences are part of learning.

2. the “no warning” argument has no basis. They were warned. It says they were.

[Jragon]

@ch4rl3s

Does your dog know the difference between good and evil? I’m guessing even the most irrational, confrontationalist just trying to goad theists isn’t going to say “yes, it does.” So, I’ll assume the answer is no.

Does your dog know not to pee on the carpet? Might be a bad example… Can a dog be taught not to pee in the house? Yes. Does the dog know it’s going to be punished if it does? Yes. Does the dog now know the difference between good and evil? Still no.

But, your view of the bible story takes an irrational view that if the dog doesn’t know good and evil, it can’t possibly be taught not to pee on the carpet. ridiculous.

Taught not to pee on the carpet. For it to learn not to pee on the carpet, something we both agree it can’t comprehend in a sapient sense, it has to make the fall and then be dissuaded from doing it. This is bringing a puppy into the house before it’s been housebroken and then forcing it to live outside forever because it didn’t know better. God didn’t see us do it, punish us, and then hope we learned from our mistake. He just removed us from the problem altogether and acted like it was our fault. It’s not just that we couldn’t comprehend good and evil, you’re right, we could be trained that way. It’s that we had absolutely no frame of reference, we had no prior training. I think we both can agree that a dog will not do something (or avoid doing something) unless it has been trained beforehand.

In addition, since we couldn’t comprehend good and evil, we also had no way of knowing whether to obey God or the Serpent.

@ch4rl3s

People keep using the claw hammer mis-analogy. And then there’s the “no prior warning” mis-argument. Do people really just make up bad arguments so they can continue to believe their pre-conceived notions?

1. no claw hammer. natural consequences of their own actions. Even if they couldn’t comprehend completely what that would mean. Even if a child doesn’t understand how hot the stove is, they will get burned. They may even be scarred for life. Consequences are part of learning.

False comparison, stoves can’t make the conscious decision to burn you in retaliation. They’re on or off, you’ll get burned or you won’t and the stove’s will has nothing to do with that. God clearly can make the decision to throw them out, give them a spanking, scold them, sigh and kill them, or do absolutely nothing. He’s not a device with an on/off switch.

2. the “no warning” argument has no basis. They were warned. It says they were.

“No warning” does have a basis, it says they would die. Metaphorical or not, “dying” is not the whole story. It’s like telling you you’ll get a $15 penalty for jaywalking, and then when you go down to the station to pay it… oh, by the way, it’s a capital offense now!

Not to mention, read the NIV translation of it:

@NIV Gen 2:16-17

You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

I’m sorry, but this sounds like a suggestion. He’s saying “Oh yeah, that’ll prolly kill you. Jus’ sayin’.” Other translations sound similar (to me at least). Now before you call me on it, here’s the full verse which I omitted for effect.

@"NIV Gen 2:16-17

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

The only point in which we get that it’s a commandment is that the narrator says so. Like I said, I omitted it for effect of the actual quote, if I’d heard someone say that I’d have thought it was merely friendly advice. (I’ll step down on this point if anyone can provide evidence for the Hebrew or Greek or something being in an imperative form or something similar).

[Locrian]

Frank, I have always used the A&E story as my opening challenge to anyone who tells me about a “loving god and his sweet breath.” :rolleyes: Yes, it was a set up of major proportions. ( I think biblegod was most outed as being gullible in the book of Job. )

And it appears that this story, much like most in the bible, is a mish-mash of many legends, most likely Summerian mythology as Unca Cece tells us.

The story is hardly original and tells me that this god prefers an ant farm over cognizant bipeds ending up being punished for desiring knowledge. Since my DNA shows no signs of incestuous nature, I know I am not a descendant of Adam & Eve.