Why Call Him God?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman: Jewish writers used literary devices such as anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. They used concrete thought to express abstract concepts throughout their writing - not just when speaking about God. If you believe they literally thought the God that couldn’t be seen had a human body, then He must have had wings as well.

You apparently did not either follow or read what I already said to this in this post here:

I don't think you followed very well what I mean by them seeing God anthropomorphically.

I don't mean they "used" anthropomorphic language, such as the eye of God, or the hand of God, etc

. I mean they completely understood God in anthropomorphic ways; involving itself in the destiny of a nation, their own people, raising kings, and priests up, etc. This is a God like a great big, super-powerful man, complete with human jealousy, rage, vengeance, etc. They understood the Divine as human-like, mythological being. That is what I mean by anthropomorphic, as I said.

When I hear you describe God, you yourself do so in anthropomorphic terms. "God thinks, God intends, God's plan for us," etc. Those all are ascribing human qualities to the Divine, putting a face on it and animating it in human terms, as a human-like being. Your very use of the word Him, is perhaps one of the strongest indications of this. God has a biological gender?? If you don't think so, you certainly perpetuate this residual Patriarchal mode of thinking about God. (A great example of myth creation in human evolution - God is male, not female anymore).

 

We’re made in God’s “image“, not God in ours.

It really depends on how you're thinking about that. When we assign human qualities and actions to God, then yes, God is created in our image.

 

But I could get into some very interesting discussions with you about the role of myth and the evolution of man, in fact being made in the image of God, but we'll see first.

 

I don’t think people would make up myths and gods if they weren’t sensing on some level the Reality behind the shadows of this world (which is what did happen).

Then are you willing to apply this to the totality of the entire Christian religion itself as well, that it is expressive of man's intuition of that Reality behind the shadows, and that that Reality is itself beyond the Christian system, and all systems, to the point that all systems, Christianity itself is expressive of this process toward our evolution to the Divine? (I'll give you a prize if you say yes! ).

 

Actually, myths are both expressive of present self-sense, and higher intuition, in my view. Again, let's see where this goes first.

 

I didn’t ask you questions I don’t have answers to - I asked to know what your answers would be. And I’m not mentally or spiritually drained … I’m sorry we miscommunicated.

My answers to what? Are you asking how I perceive things, how I believe? I have a great deal of thoughts about all this, and those will be exposed in further discussion hopefully.

 

Generally-speaking, it’s not God dictating to someone who wrote down His words. However, God did inspire the writers - and He spoke through their individual personalities and situations. The revelation is accurate - the second testament sometimes brings more clarity to revelation in the first.

When you say, "the revelation is accurate", are you meaning in speaking about God, or that matters of history and science that the Bible touches on, are themselves accurate in the sense that they would stand up to the tools of research into the "facts on the ground", as Biblical Archeologist or scientists and historians might call it?

 

There is a difference between claim it is "accurate" in talking about the Divine, and accurate in talking about facts of history and science. If you wish to claim the latter, you're putting yourself in a bad position and frankly taking the role of myth and misapplying it, badly.

 

 

(continued...)

[Antlerman]

(continuing....)

 

 

Can there be individual interpretation - individual thinking? Yes and no. There are foundational Truths that reveal who God is (His Nature and Character), who we are (nature and character) and how we can have relationship with God. There is also revelation that can speak individually and personally. And, there can be many layers of understanding. It’s a relationship, and relationships should be alive.

If God is infinite, then is it possible for there to be a definitive description, and a final authority, such as your Bible, on what that is? And as you say, "relationships should be alive," shouldn't that include understanding? As much as the Bible is man's expressions of his intuition of the Divine (as well as and expression of their present cultural and social evolution), then is it appropriate to Canonize it, to say this defines it and it should not move beyond it? Sort of like telling your spouse, "this is who you are, this is who I am, this is how it will always be."?

 

I say that these fundamental truths you speak of exist in all religions, and in all movements of human evolution. They are not owned, nor canonized by any religion or philosophy.

 

To address your hypothetical question, if no god or supernatural existed I don’t think people would create stories or myths to try to make sense of their world.

I disagree with this as not all myths are about God! Myths, are symbolic ways humans create frameworks of understanding and we use them today, every day, and they stand as background truths to us we aren't even aware of. That myths also speak of higher nature, and create gods and the god's will, is in fact expressive of what you say, in my opinion, but to be certain, it can clearly be demonstrated how those understandings evolve in time, expression of human evolution over time.

 

The world would just be what it is. Evil - good - injustice would have no meaning outside of personal preference or benefit … they’d just be fluid concepts.

There you are speaking from your mythology, not reality as it is. The world is not Evil, even if there are destructive actions and forces in it. Instead everything is mostly drawn to order, towards survival, towards balance, equilibrium, etc. If it were Evil if as your Augustinian mythology says, we wouldn't be here. We'd all be dead. Instead the very opposite is true. We seek to overcome death, we seek life. That is by definition in your words, "Good".

 

Why would anyone wonder why suffering exists? It just does - someone wanted something someone else had and they killed him to get it.

I actually have a great deal of thoughts to this. Let's see where you go with the rest first.

 

Am I religious or spiritual? That’s hard to answer because I don’t know your definitions for these two words. By my definitions I’m spiritual, not religious - and I don’t fit well into any group. There are many Christian boxes (denominations/churches/theological approaches). I’ve had too many different influences to fit nicely in a box.

Good, keep going. It's an Infinite Reality. Don't cling to any thing that puts a ceiling on it, such as your sealed 'revelation'.

[bdp]

Why would anyone wonder why suffering exists?

 

This is the stupidest question I have ever seen on these boards. Walker, you're an idiot.

[walker]

The tree of knowledge - “knowledge” (noun) is from the root word “yada” - a verb meaning “to know, to perceive, to discern”. So “knowledge” carries the sense of “perceiving, discerning, defining” what is “good” (bringing benefit and welfare) and what is “evil” (bringing misery and injury). Eating from the tree was the desire to discern/define what is good and what is evil independently,

So the tree or the fruit didn't change them. They already had the knowledge and ability to choose wisely (discern) before they ate. The fruit didn't really change that fact? Is that what you're saying?

 

So why did they suddenly realize they were naked if they already had that ability to discern it?

 

thereby not accepting, trusting, and obeying God’s definitions/guidance. Adam’s action of taking the fruit was a result of his decision that he could independently discern what is beneficial and what is harmful. This decision brought consequences. No punishment from God - their action brought consequences on its own. No magic in the fruit. And “wisdom” is not the best meaning, for it misses the sense of “discerning, defining”.

My understanding from any lecture or sermon I've heard in the past regarding this topic is that the fruit brought about the ability and knowledge, not that they had the ability and knowledge before they ate.

 

If they already knew they were naked, why did they realize they were naked after eating the fruit?

 

Other interpretations I've heard is that the fruit gave them a conscience, the ability to know what is good and evil.

 

Basically two different views: 1) the fruit gave them knowledge (science), which can be used for good and evil, or 2) the fruit gave them knowledge about what good and evil is and discern it (conscience).

 

But I never heard before that the fruit didn't do anything at all...

The tree or the fruit didn’t change them. Nothing magical there - just philosophical/psychological. The important thing about the tree is that God said don’t eat of it. As Adam and Eve learned from Him they would be tempted to think they could better decide what is good (beneficial) and what is evil (harmful). They would not trust God’s decisions, knowledge, guidance - and would think they knew better. (We see this played out in children growing into the teenage years all the time - we say “a little knowledge is dangerous“!) The moment Adam and Eve decided on their own and acted on it, the relationship between them and God would change - trust would be broken. Taking the fruit showed what had already gone on in their thoughts - it was the action their thoughts led to.

 

Many times we don’t really know how we’ll feel and how things will be after we do something. Experiential knowledge is important, and Adam and Eve had never experienced choosing their way over God’s Way before. They felt “naked” - exposed and helpless - they wanted to “cover up” and hide what they had chosen to do.

 

I don’t know from what sources you heard what you heard.

[Galien]

Fine, so put money on a table then tell your kids to leave it alone. See how long they last before your entrapment sucks them in. Personally I think it unjust to hold me accountable for someone else's decision.

[walker]

However, God did inspire the writers - and He spoke through their individual personalities and situations. The revelation is accurate - the second testament sometimes brings more clarity to revelation in the first.

Did you come to the first conclusion by purely personal conviction or did you accept it by following the conclusion of another person?

And if you accepted the authority of another person in this, then who was he/she?

My conclusion is from years of reading, study, walking with God and seeing how He works, personal experience, reading what others thought … all of the above. I’m sorry but I can’t give you a specific person or source - there have been too many of them to remember.

[Galien]

I notice walker how you never answer the hard questions. Why is that?

[walker]

A baby, a “soul” will meet God and respond with his/her heart. Sure, others believe this. And, I’ve attended many different churches and none of them believed babies go to hell.

 

Well, my mother was told (by a catholic church) that her dead miscarried babies were in limbo or purgatory or something - but, definitely not heaven. That was in the 1950's, but still.

I understand. I don’t think that teaching was consistent with God’s Character. Apparently the Catholics have revised their thinking on this subject - in 2007 (I believe) they moved away from “limbo” and they now say they can only entrust unbaptized children to the Mercy of God (CCC 1261). That’s a bit better. Most churches I’ve been to teach infants go to heaven automatically. I don’t agree with that teaching either (I think they have free choice) - but it is a kinder teaching.

[walker]

I don't believe in the "burn in hell" thing. I believe that particular language in scripture is not literal. Scripture is Jewish literature so I believe it should be read with an understanding of Hebraic thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics, etc. "Hell" is separation from God, created for those who don't wish to spend eternity with God.

 

I haven't read Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger". And (of course!) I don't think we're playthings for God! He created us for relationship.

 

Its a shame it is such a one sided "relationship". No different from the shallow bullshit that passes for love in most churches, the kind that disappears the minute your ass walks out those double doors.

 

Never ceases to amuse me how christians speak for god like they sit and have coffee with him every week. Even as a christian I never had the balls to be THAT arrogant, or that much of a liar.

Why do you say it’s a one-sided relationship?

 

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

[walker]

My “knowledge” definition is not my own - you can look up the Hebrew. Adam was told to not eat the fruit, but he chose to decide what would be good for him for himself. The decision was to obey God or to decide that he could know what was good for him. He chose to make his own decisions.

 

Yeah, well I didn't eat the fucking fruit, did you? And here am I supposedly stuck with an evil nature I didn't ask for and never wanted. Then I am meant to be thankful to a god who gave me the fucking thing in the first place. Where is the justice, mercy or love in that?

 

Why would god create people in the first place with the capacity to do what he didnt want them to do, then punish them for it? Why bother at all if he knew what would hapen?

 

The whole box and dice makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Christians suck and god does nothing. Why bother?

Actually we both ate the fruit. And if we were the first human created we would have done the same thing. God gave us choice and choice comes with the opportunity to decide we know what’s good for us - the opportunity to not trust God’s guidance. God didn’t want robots - He wanted people who chose to love Him and walk with Him. The opportunity for deep, real relationship comes with the opportunity to reject Him. God didn’t punish Adam and Eve - He didn’t have to. The consequences of their choice would bring natural “punishment”. And God not only didn’t punish them - He gave them Loving Grace. He made a way for relationship to be restored, for the “garden” to be restored, and for Life in all its Fullness to be restored.

[Galien]

Actually we both ate the fruit. And if we were the first human created we would have done the same thing. God gave us choice and choice comes with the opportunity to decide we know what’s good for us - the opportunity to not trust God’s guidance. God didn’t want robots - He wanted people who chose to love Him and walk with Him. The opportunity for deep, real relationship comes with the opportunity to reject Him. God didn’t punish Adam and Eve - He didn’t have to. The consequences of their choice would bring natural “punishment”. And God not only didn’t punish them - He gave them Loving Grace. He made a way for relationship to be restored, for the “garden” to be restored, and for Life in all its Fullness to be restored.

 

 

 

Complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what I would or would not have done. This is how I know its crap because I wouldn't have done it. If you don't believe that then you don't know any neurotic people do you? You know walker I have been listening to this bullshit since 1970, it's not like I haven't heard it all before mate. It still remains that if god knew we would all eat the fruit he had no business setting us up in the first place. I wanted god to be true more than anyone. 36 years of watching what goes on amongst christians and churches has made me sick to the botoom of my soul with the hypocrisy and dishonesty of it all. Most christians wouldn't know what humility was if it jumped up and bit their ass.

 

And so much for the loving grace, churches are full of sociopaths who get off on controlling others and using the bible to do it. What a mess.

[Galien]

I don't believe in the "burn in hell" thing. I believe that particular language in scripture is not literal. Scripture is Jewish literature so I believe it should be read with an understanding of Hebraic thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics, etc. "Hell" is separation from God, created for those who don't wish to spend eternity with God.

 

I haven't read Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger". And (of course!) I don't think we're playthings for God! He created us for relationship.

 

Its a shame it is such a one sided "relationship". No different from the shallow bullshit that passes for love in most churches, the kind that disappears the minute your ass walks out those double doors.

 

Never ceases to amuse me how christians speak for god like they sit and have coffee with him every week. Even as a christian I never had the balls to be THAT arrogant, or that much of a liar.

Why do you say it’s a one-sided relationship?

 

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

 

Yeah I used to do this too. I finally worked out that I was talking to myself. If there is a god, which I doubt more with every passing day, he doesn't give a shit.

[LivingLife]

I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

 

And here folks is a quotable quote of the day!

 

This sentence, ironically explains in a nutshell everything yo want to know about buybull gawd.

 

Coming down to "your level" fully indicates that the "god" you think you know is nothing more than a figment of your imagination and particularly, a projection of your "inner self". Your gawd is only real between your ears in a part of your brain that controls dreams and thoughts and imagination, very human I might add.

 

Don't you find it odd that this gawd of yours so omni-frigging-everything is relegated to "occupy" only the "hidden dimension" of our biological/chemical thought processes (something that science has a better handle on btw)? Why would any god, not perceivable via indoctrination (read:brainwashing) or reading text from a beeg book be worthy of worship/adoration anyway? Not to mention that if you really studied your beeg book, it is nothing more than a conflagration of myths and man-made ideas.

 

buybull gawd is a system for people to have a sick relationship with their imaginary inner self.

 

Everything you know of this god of yours is as you say self induced and experiential; meaning, that everything you "know" of this god is/was influenced by external NATURAL stimulae even down to the goosebump holy spook "anointing" or speaking in tongues prophesy, interpretation of prophesy, (the 9 gifts shit). Speaking of which, that holy spook anointing I still feel everyday with my first morning urination, boy does that feel guud.

 

The cop out of not being able to describe gawd outside of human terms surely proves that IT is a figment of a collective imagination. Any god as thought to be by xians would require no description. IT would be self evident and this discussion would be moot. Beautiful sunsets don't count, we all know how that works and has buggerall to do with any deity. Man probably contributes more to pretty sunsets by his own "efforts" in pollution than any fictitious deity.

Oh and the free willy argument vs robots, well all the well trained (indoctrinated) robots regularly attend their temples of adoration to their imaginary friends every week, don't go to church, feel guilt? Where does that come from? God?

 

We call it mass delusion knowing of course that most of us here were under IT's spell for a very long time.

[NaturalMary63]

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

 

 

But don't you see how arrogant it is in the first place to believe that the supreme omnipotent, supernatural deity takes a personal interest in you and comes to your level for a visit?

 

I wish you could see how nonsensical your responses are to the questions posed in this thread. Twisted and circular logic. Lack of evidence beyond your own interpretation of a single ancient text of dubious creation and your own subjective thoughts.

 

I mean, just look at what you said about the dead babies: <paraphrase on> The Catholic Church used to say {one thing} but now say {another}. Many Xian churches preach {this other thing}, and but I believe {this fourth thing}. <paraphrase off> It's obvious that none of you know. All of that is just guesswork or wishful thinking or something with no shred of evidence. But none of you like to admit that.

 

There is no evidence that anything happens to one's consciousness (soul, spirit, whatever) after death. The only thing we can know for sure is that once the consciousness is extinguished in the physical body, it's gone. There is no evidence to support any speculation beyond that.

 

So, to me, all the religious speculation about limbo, purgatory, heaven, hell, angels, demons, ghosts, etc, is no more substantial than stories of Santa with his elves and reindeer at the North Pole or any other fictional realm you could name. It's like discussing how many elves work in Santa's workshop, or how his reindeer find enough hay to eat in the Arctic.

[buffettphan]

I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

 

And you don't see the arrogance in that statement?

 

 

[Ouroboros]

The tree or the fruit didn’t change them. Nothing magical there - just philosophical/psychological. The important thing about the tree is that God said don’t eat of it. As Adam and Eve learned from Him they would be tempted to think they could better decide what is good (beneficial) and what is evil (harmful). They would not trust God’s decisions, knowledge, guidance - and would think they knew better. (We see this played out in children growing into the teenage years all the time - we say “a little knowledge is dangerous“!) The moment Adam and Eve decided on their own and acted on it, the relationship between them and God would change - trust would be broken. Taking the fruit showed what had already gone on in their thoughts - it was the action their thoughts led to.

So the tree was more of a symbol than actual. God just put a regular tree there, and it was the symbol for obedience, and the name of the tree was just arbitrary. The name and the tree didn't really matter, it was the symbolic action of disobedience only. Interesting.

 

Does this mean that the tree of life was also just a regular tree and symbolic? If they had eaten of the tree of life it would not have been a miracle eating it, but just the fact they ate from just a tree that God had put a label on?

 

Many times we don’t really know how we’ll feel and how things will be after we do something. Experiential knowledge is important, and Adam and Eve had never experienced choosing their way over God’s Way before. They felt “naked” - exposed and helpless - they wanted to “cover up” and hide what they had chosen to do.

 

I don’t know from what sources you heard what you heard.

The sources I heard from was Pentecostal primarily, but also from other denominations and preachers. I've heard about a couple of thousand sermons over my life, maybe in the ten thousands, and read hundreds of books. Never did I hear that the tree of knowledge was just an ordinary tree that God just put a symbolic label on.

 

And I have not heard before that "knowledge of good and evil" really didn't matter or have any importance in the context. It says "tree of knowledge of good and evil," not "pine tree."

 

Besides, if you study any ancient religion or belief, you will see that these things were considered magical back then. Your interpretation is a very typical Christian apologist who reconstructs the story from what it originally meant.

 

Since you already are willing to admit that the tree was only symbolic, then perhaps you can also admit that Eden was only symbolic, and Adam and Eve as well?

[Ouroboros]

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

So which brand does he prefer? Does he like creamers in his coffee or sugar?

[Antlerman]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

[Ouroboros]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

[Phanta]

The tree or the fruit didn’t change them. Nothing magical there - just philosophical/psychological. The important thing about the tree is that God said don’t eat of it. As Adam and Eve learned from Him they would be tempted to think they could better decide what is good (beneficial) and what is evil (harmful). They would not trust God’s decisions, knowledge, guidance - and would think they knew better. (We see this played out in children growing into the teenage years all the time - we say “a little knowledge is dangerous“!) The moment Adam and Eve decided on their own and acted on it, the relationship between them and God would change - trust would be broken. Taking the fruit showed what had already gone on in their thoughts - it was the action their thoughts led to.

So the tree was more of a symbol than actual. God just put a regular tree there, and it was the symbol for obedience, and the name of the tree was just arbitrary. The name and the tree didn't really matter, it was the symbolic action of disobedience only. Interesting.

 

Does this mean that the tree of life was also just a regular tree and symbolic? If they had eaten of the tree of life it would not have been a miracle eating it, but just the fact they ate from just a tree that God had put a label on?

 

Wow. Good point. Walker had me on the tree of knowledge symbolizing trust only, but then why did God need to physically hide away this other magical tree?

 

Or do you believe, walker, that Adam, Havah, and the garden are all allegory and none historical?

[Antlerman]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

I think what he's saying is God lowers itself down to human level of thought. But then my point would be that we already have human-level thought, so what's the point? God as a peer? Why don't I just have a cup of Joe with my neighbor Bill? The whole point of having a relationship with God would be to go to "His" (male gender version of God's) level, to increase your level of mind and being beyond just having a brew with your buds down at the local tavern. One does not socialize with God,

 

"Hey you old Deity, you! (slaps God on the back). I'm going to get a new rototiller for the garden this year. How about you? So how many new Stellar Nursery's you spawn out there in the Cosmos this week? Man, I wish I had that much power! Must be nice old Guy! (slaps God on the back a few more times, takes another swig of coffee)."

Yeah, Walker what was this I said about seeing God in anthropomorphic terms?

[Phanta]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

 

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

[Ouroboros]

I think what he's saying is God lowers itself down to human level of thought.

Ah.

 

Yes. God's thoughts are non-temporal, so God is thinking of at least three impossible things before breakfast.

[Ouroboros]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

 

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

You're right. Why does God wait? Why does he not prevent it right now? Why does he allow it?

 

Some Christian apologists claim that it's better somehow. That it's the better because it allows free will. To allow free will and evil to co-exist is somehow a greater good than not to do it.

 

But in Heaven, of course, the greater of two things is to have a world where evil does not exist, but somehow free will still does...

 

But then, why didn't he do that here? He could have done that from start, so why wait making the better world? It can't be that this world is the best one and Heaven is the best one, both at once!

[walker]

The tree of knowledge - “knowledge” (noun) is from the root word “yada” - a verb meaning “to know, to perceive, to discern”. So “knowledge” carries the sense of “perceiving, discerning, defining” what is “good” (bringing benefit and welfare) and what is “evil” (bringing misery and injury). Eating from the tree was the desire to discern/define what is good and what is evil independently, thereby not accepting, trusting, and obeying God’s definitions/guidance. Adam’s action of taking the fruit was a result of his decision that he could independently discern what is beneficial and what is harmful. This decision brought consequences. No punishment from God - their action brought consequences on its own. No magic in the fruit. And “wisdom” is not the best meaning, for it misses the sense of “discerning, defining”.

That's odd. Why is all this in the story?

 

12 And the man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me the fruit of the tree and I took it.

 

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, What have you done? And the woman said, I was tricked by the deceit of the snake and I took it.

 

14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life: 15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.

 

16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.

 

17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life. 18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food; 19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

 

20 And the man gave his wife the name of Eve because she was the mother of all who have life. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins for their clothing.

 

22 And the Lord God said, Now the man has become like one of us, having knowledge of good and evil; and now if he puts out his hand and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for ever. 23 So the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to be a worker on the earth from which he was taken. 24 So he sent the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden he put winged ones and a flaming sword turning every way to keep the way to the tree of life.

 

It seems there were a lot of punishments being implemented by old "god" as a result of this action. Ultimately, realizing the whole concept of "dust to dust" won't work if they get to to the tree of life, they even get booted from the garden and magical beings are employed to keep them out.

 

mwc

Both Adam and Eve did what any typical human would do - they blamed someone else for their own actions! As far as the earth, etc. being cursed because of their actions - God was telling them what now will happen - how their actions will affect them and the earth. Relationship and Trust had been broken - this had consequences.