|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:55 pm
Genesis: 3rd Chapter, verse 22 (22) And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." I know this is going into theology more than philosophy, but it's an interesting point to bring up none-the-less. This was directly quoted from the New International Version (or NIV) bible. The translation into "one of us" could possibly acknowledge the idea of many gods, which is taboo in the Christian system of belief. Another thing I would like to ask is why this God lied to us? God specifically tells Adam never to eat from the tree of good and evil or he shall die. The serpant tells Eve later that the fruit will give her knowledge akin to God. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit they indeed do not die, but are given godly knowledge. Maybe this is telling us that knowledge is deadly, and we are better off living in ignorant bliss. Regardless, this lie is a great contradiction, because one book later, God directly imparts the ninth commandment of "Thou shall not bear falce witness against thou neighbor". Is God exempt from his own laws and ideals? I've probibly brought up some interesting points, but points that people have already brought up. Not many questions were asked, so.... I suppose this is a discussion of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testiment. Even if you don't believe in the bible, there are interesting points to take up in Genesis from an analytical view point. For example. Eve's punishment from God: Genesis: 3rd chapter, verse 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Favoritism in the eyes of God: Genesis: 4th chapter, verses 3-5 (3) In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. (4)But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, (5)but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast." The list could go on, including the cursing of the tribes of Canaan, the division of people by language, ect. Just a basic discussion of Genesis.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:40 pm
Well, there's one major flaw in all of this and that's the fact that you're using a translation. To truly understand what was written in The Bible you would have to have it in it's original format and language. And even so, it would still be an interpretation on your part.
However, the favoritism part you bring up is quite interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:31 am
First of all, that statement did not show a lie. God said eat the fruit and you will die. They did, eventually. That statement makes no mention of when they would die, just that they would die. As for Eve getting the harsher punishment, if one kid got into the cookies when they weren't supposed to, then convinced all the other kids to eat some, they would get the harsher punishment.
I do believe God had favorites. He created Eve in the first place to be the companion of Adam, so he wouldn't be lonely. God created the humans, in my opinion, so that he wouldn't be alone and BORED.
And so what if God like meat better than fruit? Is that any reason to kill your brother than lie about it?
Also, I think the Tree of life was very very important for people of that faith. The christian god was all about free will. If they didn't have the option to do something bad, then they wouldn't trully be free. It would be like telling someone they have a choice of clothes to wear: blue jeans and a t-shirt, oooorrrrr blue jeans and a t-shirt. You dont really have freedom of choice if there is only one option.
There was nothing really bad at that time besides Satan, according to The Bible, God made this and that and the other and it was all good. How else was he supposed to give them the option of screwing it all up?
Here's something I find interesting: In the Old testament god is all about slaughtering lambs. Go on the mountain, kill me a lamb; on this date, kill me a lamb; to honor me, kill me a little lamb, and so on. Then in the New testament, all of the sudden you are a lamb.... eek Does that frighten anyone other than me?
Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:14 am
Wirekittin the nefarious Genesis: 3rd Chapter, verse 22 (22) And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." I know this is going into theology more than philosophy, but it's an interesting point to bring up none-the-less. This was directly quoted from the New International Version (or NIV) bible. The translation into "one of us" could possibly acknowledge the idea of many gods, which is taboo in the Christian system of belief. My take on that is that there is one God manifested in many ways. In the Christian tradition, we hold that the Trinity existed before the birth of Jesus. However, I take a more Universalist approach. Quote: Another thing I would like to ask is why this God lied to us? God specifically tells Adam never to eat from the tree of good and evil or he shall die. The serpant tells Eve later that the fruit will give her knowledge akin to God. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit they indeed do not die, but are given godly knowledge. Maybe this is telling us that knowledge is deadly, and we are better off living in ignorant bliss. It wasn't that they would die immediately. Tradition holds that the first sin is how death entered into the world. Had they not eaten the tree, they would have lived forever in Eden. Quote: Regardless, this lie is a great contradiction, because one book later, God directly imparts the ninth commandment of "Thou shall not bear falce witness against thou neighbor". Is God exempt from his own laws and ideals? No. Quote: I've probibly brought up some interesting points, but points that people have already brought up. Not many questions were asked, so.... I suppose this is a discussion of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testiment. Even if you don't believe in the bible, there are interesting points to take up in Genesis from an analytical view point. For example. Eve's punishment from God: Genesis: 3rd chapter, verse 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Favoritism in the eyes of God: Genesis: 4th chapter, verses 3-5 (3) In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. (4)But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, (5)but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast." The list could go on, including the cursing of the tribes of Canaan, the division of people by language, ect. Just a basic discussion of Genesis. I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't take Genesis literally. Like most holy books, the importance of stories in the Bible never was to relay an accurate history, but to provide a guide for living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am
The Rogue Doll Here's something I find interesting: In the Old testament god is all about slaughtering lambs. Go on the mountain, kill me a lamb; on this date, kill me a lamb; to honor me, kill me a little lamb, and so on. Then in the New testament, all of the sudden you are a lamb.... eek Does that frighten anyone other than me? Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Kill the lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb. Your a lamb. But in the New Testament, the need for living sacrifice is done away with through the death and ressurection. The lambs are a metaphor for those cared for by the Good Shepard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:43 am
Mallorys Wedgie Friend Well, there's one major flaw in all of this and that's the fact that you're using a translation. To truly understand what was written in The Bible you would have to have it in it's original format and language. And even so, it would still be an interpretation on your part. Ah, well that is true. The NIV is hardly the best source for the actual Bible. The Rouge Doll First of all, that statement did not show a lie. God said eat the fruit and you will die. They did, eventually. That statement makes no mention of when they would die, just that they would die. As for Eve getting the harsher punishment, if one kid got into the cookies when they weren't supposed to, then convinced all the other kids to eat some, they would get the harsher punishment. Ok. But why did God test them then? He obviously put the snake and the fruit in the garden; He just assumed that humans wouldn't be tempted to eat it? I also brought up the punishment of Eve not to show the severity of the punishent, but the "curse" that God put upon her. This is the moralization of a Patriarchy in God's eyes. But then again, this is coming from a translation of The Bible that was written in America around the time that the Equal Rights Amendment was brought into the constitution. Also, the idea of Satan is exempt from Genesis. Some say that the serpent represents Satan, but The Bible states the serpent as what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:02 pm
Wirekittin the nefarious The Rouge Doll First of all, that statement did not show a lie. God said eat the fruit and you will die. They did, eventually. That statement makes no mention of when they would die, just that they would die. As for Eve getting the harsher punishment, if one kid got into the cookies when they weren't supposed to, then convinced all the other kids to eat some, they would get the harsher punishment. Ok. But why did God test them then? He obviously put the snake and the fruit in the garden; He just assumed that humans wouldn't be tempted to eat it? I also brought up the punishment of Eve not to show the severity of the punishent, but the "curse" that God put upon her. This is the moralization of a Patriarchy in God's eyes. But then again, this is coming from a translation of The Bible that was written in America around the time that the Equal Rights Amendment was brought into the constitution. Also, the idea of Satan is exempt from Genesis. Some say that the serpent represents Satan, but The Bible states the serpent as what it is. Why wouldn't God test them? I mean, it's kind of illogical either way. Did he want them to show that they believed in their creator, or something, when they were supposed to be naiive as children? Or was it to teach them what rules were, never expecting them to break one? Dunno. Well, I'll give you a hint as to why moralization of patriarchy was probably included in the original version, too. The Bible was written by men in ancient times. Think about it. wink Besides that, the guy has to work all his life, sweating in the dust, according to God. I wouldn't exactly be pleased by that one. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:16 pm
Honestly, I'm thinking that there is on power in the universe, and God is one facet of this power and perhapse the devil and other dieties make up other facits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:58 pm
Just one thing, what about the trinity aspect of God in Christian theology, also what of the angels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:56 pm
Quote: Also, the idea of Satan is exempt from Genesis. Some say that the serpent represents Satan, but The Bible states the serpent as what it is. Quote: But why did God test them then? He obviously put the snake and the fruit in the garden; He just assumed that humans wouldn't be tempted to eat it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:42 pm
d e s d e m o n o Wirekittin the nefarious The Rouge Doll First of all, that statement did not show a lie. God said eat the fruit and you will die. They did, eventually. That statement makes no mention of when they would die, just that they would die. As for Eve getting the harsher punishment, if one kid got into the cookies when they weren't supposed to, then convinced all the other kids to eat some, they would get the harsher punishment. Ok. But why did God test them then? He obviously put the snake and the fruit in the garden; He just assumed that humans wouldn't be tempted to eat it? I also brought up the punishment of Eve not to show the severity of the punishent, but the "curse" that God put upon her. This is the moralization of a Patriarchy in God's eyes. But then again, this is coming from a translation of The Bible that was written in America around the time that the Equal Rights Amendment was brought into the constitution. Also, the idea of Satan is exempt from Genesis. Some say that the serpent represents Satan, but The Bible states the serpent as what it is. Why wouldn't God test them? I mean, it's kind of illogical either way. Did he want them to show that they believed in their creator, or something, when they were supposed to be naiive as children? Or was it to teach them what rules were, never expecting them to break one? Dunno. Well, I'll give you a hint as to why moralization of patriarchy was probably included in the original version, too. The Bible was written by men in ancient times. Think about it. wink Besides that, the guy has to work all his life, sweating in the dust, according to God. I wouldn't exactly be pleased by that one. confused I think the better question is why did he test them if god is omnipotent? If he is the one w ho knows all the "Alpha and the Omega" (I know Im using that a bit out of context but you get my gist) why would he test them? I think its better to say that god didnt really test them as much as that he wanted it to happen and knew it would and then of course it would make for a good moralistic tale to explain things in a very patriarchal point of view. This give me one of two answers: 1. God is a writer and history is the play. 2. Some guy rolling around in the dirt saying that hes talking to god wrote it as a means of justifying his cultures ways by tying them to god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:52 pm
has anyone here ever read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? I ask, because in it he gives a possible explanation of what the story of the Fall and of Cain and Abel means that does tend to make a bit of sense.
basically, they're metaphorical stories of how at the dawn of civilization one culture (the Takers) decided to take their lives out of the 'hands of the gods' and into our own hands (this is what is described in the story of the Fall), which facilitates the rise of our agricultural revolution. the metaphor of the tree of good and evil is a representation of how we presume to be wise enough to decide who/what lives and who/what dies, which before hand was something only the gods were wise enough to decide.
the persons of Cain and Abel each represent populations of 2 different cultures.. those of our culture.. the takers (Cain).. partaking in mass agriculture, and those cultures of the earlier hunter-gatherer societies.. those of tribal cultures.. the Leavers (Abel). he proposes that the story of Cain and Abel is a Leaver story, which is why we.. a Taker society.. have some problems understanding it. according to the story, god is happy with Abels sacrifice of blood (because these are people who are content living in the hands of the gods) and spurns Cains sacrifice (of the sweat of his brow.. living in his own hands rather than the gods), so Cain kills Abel. this killing is a representation of that Taker society conquering the lands of other cultures and making them live the taker way... which is what we do.
really, it's a helluva book. there's a lot more to the book than just that, but that's the part that seems to apply to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:37 am
First point: Many people believe god meant we would "die" as in to die as pure beings. obviously we as humans are no longer pure.
one other point is bring is to say who says we really are alive. maybe this life is hell and we have to fight for our lives back. (not that i necessarily believe this it's just a thought and good discussion piece)
Another point funny enough something i wrote on a similar matter. a while back. it actually resides in my profile also
That which brings us closer to god is that with which we fell from grace.
knowledge is what we got when adam and eve ate the apple. with it we were banned from heaven and seen as sinful. But what do we get back to heaven with. it is belief, it is hope it. (or so the bible says) but how to we believe in something with out knowledge of it in the first place. think of it this way most ignorant people are non-believers in the churches eyes (not to say all non-believers are ignorant it's just a the common view, which is the main reason i'm not catholic anymore) you have to have some sort of knowledge to be seen as faithful and a true child of god. We have to "KNOW" the difference between what is seen as good and evil and choose the right path to even get back to where we were. with the knowlege we were shot from heaven with we slowly build our way back there.
It's the freaking paradox of the ages mrgreen I just love this saying of mine.
The only problem is this brings up the whole question of what was truly in the apple and what kind of knowledge it is suppose to be. some people believe that it wasn't godly knowledge in the apple but the knowledge of sin. however i cannot speek of this at this time as i don't have a bible. it would be sort of sacaligious of me to have one xp I love being strongly nondenominationaly Christian.
-if anyone wants to help me quote on this it would be greatly appreciated.
...and that brings me to my third point. you have to realize that the bible was written by man and man alone NOT GOD as many believe on man's interpretation on the word of god so you have to take man's interpretation on such thing as effect and not take every word to governed law
btw for all yall out there interested in this type of thinking check out my favorite anime and manga Neon Genesis Evangelion. it'll bring up this whole genesis idea with a twist and brings up many interesting views upon why how we exists in this world and why god put us here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
