Everybody's wrong.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 08:26 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(20-11-2016 08:14 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 10:23 PM)socialistview Wrote:  He said don't eat the fruit so there is a restriction to this free will. So god did not make man to commit evil. Hell wasn't made for man but gods anger doesn't last forever there was no heavrn of heal in judiasm god doesn't judge the way we do his rightous judgement is a mystery but hes more compassionate than man. I take the whole bible literal.

So animals were around before Eve, I suppose Adam could have fucked some sheep. God didn't say he couldn't fuck sheep, so Adam wouldn't have known any better.

Did Adam fuck sheep in the garden?

If not, why not?


Laugh out load You're going to blow up the poor guy's head with questions like this one.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
20-11-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(20-11-2016 08:26 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 08:14 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So animals were around before Eve, I suppose Adam could have fucked some sheep. God didn't say he couldn't fuck sheep, so Adam wouldn't have known any better.

Did Adam fuck sheep in the garden?

If not, why not?


Laugh out load You're going to blow up the poor guy's head with questions like this one.

It gets worse when you realize that if there was only one man and one woman, adam and eve either A. had to have sex with their own children or B. Their children had to have sex with their own brothers or sisters. And this was AFTER they ate the apple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Celestial_Wonder's post
20-11-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(20-11-2016 11:42 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 08:26 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Laugh out load You're going to blow up the poor guy's head with questions like this one.

It gets worse when you realize that if there was only one man and one woman, adam and eve either A. had to have sex with their own children or B. Their children had to have sex with their own brothers or sisters. And this was AFTER they ate the apple.

Yeah, and the point, which I know will go completely over sc's head is that creating a human and only give them one rule, which they will break, is a silly way to do things.

This one-rule moral system that god supposedly put in place is totally inadequate and it belies the mythical nature of the whole story and illustrates quite clearly how it is a story with no depth and no underpinning reality.

But I'm sure sc will be by shortly in his drug-induced haze to make a completely irrelevant point and demonstrate zero critical thinking capacity. Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
20-11-2016, 12:30 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
God looked down at Adam having sex with every animal in creation and thought "Ahhh fuck, I knew I forgot something."

He looks around for magic dirt and he's all out.
God-"Guess I'll have to wing it."
He reaches down and feels around on Adam until he finds something good and hard, but yet sensitive. He grabs a rib and rips it from Adam's chest.

Building a fire, he slow cooks the rib for several hours.

"What did you think I was going to do with it ? Watching all that animal shagging was making me hungry."

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
20-11-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
If it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil how could they have known it was wrong to eat from it ? And if god told them not to is not an excuse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
21-11-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(20-11-2016 12:49 PM)adey67 Wrote:  If it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil how could they have known it was wrong to eat from it ? And if god told them not to is not an excuse.

This is an under-emphasized point, I think. If, according to the story, the humans in the garden were unaware of (had no knowledge of) Good and Evil, then God telling them to do it or not do it would mean almost nothing to them.

It would be like placing your three-year-old next to a hot stove and saying "Don't touch that!" and then leaving them with a malevolent babysitter who told them "You should totally touch that-- look how glowing and pretty it is!"

If the mom comes home to find her toddler with 3rd degree burns on its hand and blames the toddler (who is now very aware of how bad it is to touch a hot stove) for not listening to her, then it is still the mom who is the monster... and the babysitter, of course.



[Edit: I put in a horizontal rule line because the above is my reply to your comment, and the rest, below, turned into a sort of rant/essay. Hehe.]

On the other hand, I think the authors of the story intended to convey a totally different message than the common modern interpretation. I think the story is describing a time when mankind was hunter-gatherer and lived in harmony with nature, later deciding they could take on the knowledge that had previously been reserved for the gods: the knowledge of what lived and what died. Daniel Quinn, the author of Ishmael, explained it in a way I found interesting. He said that (according to ancient, tribal peoples) the rules of nature are that only the gods may know-- no creature on earth gets to decide for itself when it will live or die, or when other creatures will. That's because if you let the hawk decide when it will catch the rabbit, it will always catch the rabbit. That's good for the hawk who gets to eat, but evil for the rabbit, who dies. But if you let the rabbits decide, the hawks will always miss and die of hunger.

For there to be balance in nature, only beings of superhuman wisdom could make that decision. In the Garden (the whole earth), the gods provided all we could need and Life Was Wonderful™, according to the legend. Humans, in becoming agriculturalists, suddenly decided for themselves that "only Human Food may grow here", and we began to deny it to other creatures in order to feed ourselves-- we killed the things that ate our food, and drove it away. The balance was shattered.

As Ishmael.org puts it: Ishmael's paradigm of history is startlingly different from the one wired into our cultural consciousness. For Ishmael, our agricultural revolution was not a technological event but a moral one, a rebellion against an ethical structure inherent in the community of life since its foundation four billion years ago. Having escaped the restraints of this ethical structure, humankind made itself a global tyrant, wielding deadly force over all other species while lacking the wisdom to make its tyranny a beneficial one or even a sustainable one.

The descendants of proto-man (Adam is literally just the word for "man"), the hunter-gatherer, were of two types: settled farmers (agriculturalists) and shepherds (nomadic pastoralists). The group coming up with the legend of the Garden were of the latter group-- and if you look at the "children" of "Adam", Cain and Abel, the story says that the gods favored Abel, the pastoralist, who still lived more like the ancestors in the Garden, was favored by the gods, who accepted the sacrifice of slaughtered sheep while rejecting Cain's sacrifice of harvest fruits. From the perspective of Canaanite (including the ancestors of the Hebrews) pastoral tribes wandering around in the relatively hardscrabble lands in between the more-fertile farming kingdom lands of Anatolia (the Hittites), Syria, Babylon, and the Nile delta (Egypt), who were more capable of maintaining powerful armies than the nomadic Patriarchal tribes and always fighting to expand their territories, it must have seemed that their "brothers" the farmers were just plain murderers.

By the time all these legendary tales were written down in any form, it was thousands of years after the rise of agriculturalism which spawned it, and the pastoralist warrior-tribes were also largely assimilating into the new paradigm. The legends were no longer understood in their original context, but were simply passed down. That's why so many legends about "ancient" Patriarchs and their sheep were so important to the people who were by then captive in Babylon.

Finally, it reaches us, today, and the stories (which we see echoes of throughout the Fertile Crescent, among the nomadic peoples who scraped out a living on the fringes of the major empires) are totally lost to their original context: now people actually try to read it as a literal history of magical events that once actually happened, rather than the most important parable told by the ancient pastoralists to explain "how did we get to this point?" and establish their relationship with the gods... or God, by the time of the actual writing of the Torah.

So I think Creationists and other scriptural literalists are doing us a double disservice: they are not only denying the plain fact of evolution but also whitewashing a cautionary moral tale from the ancestors of the Canaanite pastoralists, even as we continue our quest to destroy the planet in service of our own self-interests.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-11-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
Great post Rocket I learned a lot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
21-11-2016, 10:45 PM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
(21-11-2016 06:26 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
So I think Creationists and other scriptural literalists are doing us a double disservice: they are not only denying the plain fact of evolution but also whitewashing a cautionary moral tale from the ancestors of the Canaanite pastoralists, even as we continue our quest to destroy the planet in service of our own self-interests.

Indeed.

And along with the planet, destroy the last vestiges of the pastorial life-style.

It has intrigued me that very few people are interested in the discussion (as evidenced in my Cain's Killing Abel ... Again thread) so perhaps the Creationists have succeeded in their whitewashing.

It seems to me that this parable is key to understanding the Murikan psyche and therefore their voting habits and their gun problem.

Oh, and, I'm going to have to correct the thread title... too unbearable!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
21-11-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(19-11-2016 10:23 PM)socialistview Wrote:  He said don't eat the fruit so there is a restriction to this free will. So god did not make man to commit evil.

But of course, man hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong yet, so man did not know that it was "wrong" (according to the god) to eat the fruit, man had no idea that it is "wrong" to disobey the god. Man did not make any choice between right or wrong, man had no idea what right and wrong even means. How can man have free will if man does not understand the difference between right and wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 11:01 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 10:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 10:23 PM)socialistview Wrote:  He said don't eat the fruit so there is a restriction to this free will. So god did not make man to commit evil.

But of course, man hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong yet, so man did not know that it was "wrong" (according to the god) to eat the fruit, man had no idea that it is "wrong" to disobey the god. Man did not make any choice between right or wrong, man had no idea what right and wrong even means. How can man have free will if man does not understand the difference between right and wrong?

If man didn't know right from wrong they would not have known disobedience and therefore they would not have needed the snake to drive them to eat the fruit, they would have likely succumbed to their own curiosity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: