Hell no

[Thumbelina]

There's more I want to say but too tired now.

I have to address the child rapist analogy but not now.

The person who mentioned it had a good point too.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It's interesting that god told the serpent that he would "put enmity between your seed and her seed", given that, according to the most basic principles of genetics, the "seed" actually comes from the male of the species.  An omniscient god would have known that; the men who wrote the bible obviously did not.

[mwc]

6 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Prior to sin the law was basically stated in the affirmative; in Genesis it shows this when God gave Adam and Eve simple commands. First He stated His commands in the affirmative--- of every tree you can freely eat (ahem, freedom to choose) --- and then He stated His command in the negative without giving too much detail and putting ideas in their heads---  of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat ... or you will surely die (more choice).

     So are you saying that Adam and Eve knew good from evil, meaning the difference between things that were good and things that were evil, before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

     Understanding that if a person had no knowledge of the difference of good from evil then any and all choices, no matter the source, appear alike.  They're equal.  Identical.  They're equally good.  They're equally evil.  Although those terms would have no meaning whatsoever to the person in question.  The whole thing would just be too foreign since they simply do not possess any knowledge of the whole concept at all.  The same with any and all choices.  There's no indication that something would, or could, be perceived as good or bad.

 

     About the best we can do to try to understand this for ourselves is compare these fully grown people to newborns but that's hard for us to grasp since the only sort of adults that are anything like this have some sort of mental issues.  So fully capable adults, that are knowledgeable in nearly all areas except this one.  That's novel.

 

     So a command to not eat?  Why not?  If there is no good nor bad then this command has no real meaning.  "Just because" god said so is the actual answer.  And god is good?  Good has no meaning.  So god is then?  No better or worse than the serpent.  Without knowledge of good or evil they are equals.

 

     Which means the threat of death has to hold some meaning.  But does it?  There's no indication that it did or would.  Death to us is considered undesirable.  But there's no indication there had been death at that time.  Any death of anything.  It was another foreign concept.  And the serpent, who was equal to god, said that it wouldn't happen.  And perhaps death was desirable?  How could anyone know until it actually happened?

 

     The only way the story could make any sense is if there was already some sort of knowledge of good and evil.  That god was good.  That the serpent was bad.  And obeying god would lead to continued good while listening to the serpent would change all that.  The tree of knowledge of good and evil would then have to contain additional knowledge and not simply be the only repository of knowledge of good and evil as it is portrayed in the story.

 

6 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Btw. check out Exodus 16:28 and its CONTEXT; did they get to Sinai YET when God asked what He asked?

     God gave them the Sabbath commands.  Some didn't obey.  God made a stink.

 

     The bigger question, not that I care about the apologetics, is when Moses got the ten commandments, he immediately broke them when he came down the mountain.  He went up and got a new copy that didn't match the original.  But three versions are in the bible.  He apparently memorized them before breaking them.  Makes sense, never know when you'll smash god's own law written by god's own hand in a fit of rage (just don't hit a rock twice with your walking stick because god won't tolerate that shit).  Got them down once then couldn't quite recall them when he wrote them down the second time (which one's which is anyone's guess but let's just say the Jews have it wrong).  Then just sort of decided the rewrite was stupid and never pushed those too hard even though they were actually called the "ten commandments."

 

          mwc

 

 

[midniterider]

Welcome back, Thumby.

 

Thumby says: "When reading the bible one has to be a deep sea diver and not just a mere water skier-- figuratively speaking. You have to prayerfully and humbly study the texts and you'll discover their rich mean in. 

The Holy Spirit reaches people who are as meek as little children (one can't depend on preconceived ideas to understand scripture). Just because the bible doesn't say the law was not written down before Sinai, it does not mean the law didn't exist. I did say that the aim of the law is loving God, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. Prior to sin the law was basically stated in the affirmative; in Genesis it shows this when God gave Adam and Eve simple commands. First He stated His commands in the affirmative--- of every tree you can freely eat (ahem, freedom to choose) --- and then He stated His command in the negative without giving too much detail and putting ideas in their heads---  of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat ... or you will surely die (more choice)."

 

.......

 

When you say 'deep sea diver' I think you mean 'believe what someone else tells you about the bible. Imagine that all this nonsense is true. Ignore common sense and reason and logic while reading this baloney.'

 

'Prayerfully and humbly study the texts' means 'don't criticize them for Jesus is watching you!'

 

"Just because the bible doesn't say the law was not written down before Sinai, it does not mean the law didn't exist." Pulling more crap out of the air, I see. if God didn't give them knowledge of good and evil then how would he expect them to follow his command of not eating from the tree? How would they know he was (supposedly) good and that they should pay attention to him?

 

It's like some guy off the street takes a can of spray paint and paints a line on the ground. Then says, "Hey, don't cross that line over there." You have no idea who this guy is and there is apparently no reason that you can see not to cross it. Tell someone they can't do something and that's like an invitation to do it. It's human nature. I guess God didnt know anything about human nature or logic.

 

And then there's that "you'll surely die" BS. "Cross my line and you'll surely die....(cough) in 50 years or so..."

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Imagine for a moment the following scenario:

 

You go into the most remote jungles of Africa or South America and come across a tribe of natives that remains completely untouched by the modern world.  You take the chief of the tribe, who has never even seen a paved road, into a major city.  You tell the chief that you are going to teach him how to drive a car; but first, he has to choose what kind of car he will be driving.  You show him a boxy looking Rolls Royce; then you show him a candy apple red Ford Fiesta.  You tell him he has to choose between these two cars; but he must choose wisely, because whichever car he chooses, his children, and his children's children, and his children's children's children will all have to drive that same kind of car until the generations of his family are wiped from the face of the earth...

 

Is this a ridiculous scenario?  Of course it is.  There is no possible way the chief could even begin to make the choice put before him; and no rational person would expect him to.  He has never even seen a paved road, has no concept of fuel efficiency, no idea what automotive safety involves, no clue what quality is when it comes to motorized vehicles.  He might be the most intelligent, skillful, wise, and capable member of his tribe; but that is his world.  In our world, he is simply not capable of understanding things we take for granted.

 

Now consider the choice god gave to Adam and Eve concerning the fruit.  It is clear from the scriptures that they had no understanding of the difference between good and evil, just as our chief would have no understanding of the difference between a Rolls and a Ford.  Yet god hung the fate of the entirety of humanity, until the generations of man are wiped from the earth, upon the choice that Adam and Eve would make.  Perhaps the difference between good and evil was knowledge that god simply took for granted, much like we take for granted that a Rolls is in many ways superior to a Ford; but god shouldn't have assumed that such knowledge was commonplace or that his still naive creation would have understood it.

 

Isn't the creation myth just as ridiculous? 

[Aries256]

Morality comes from “god”? The judeo-xtian “god” is one of the most immoral characters besides mohammad. This fictional character commits genocide, was alright with innocent people being tortured and murdered, raped, robbed, etc. the judeo-xtian “god” is the construct of a demented, sick, and twisted mind. From the same region where islam is from. The judeo-xtian “god” isnt a character worthy of anything but imprisonment. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thumby, you really need to learn how to properly use the quote function. I didn't get a notification of your reply because you did it wrong.

 

On 6/19/2018 at 3:04 AM, Thumbelina said:

When reading the bible one has to be a deep sea diver and not just a mere water skier-- figuratively speaking.

 

I snipped the rest of your mumbo jumbo to save space. You provided zero evidence whatsoever, so it's not really even worth addressing anyway. Your so-called "deep sea diving" is all just a bunch of nonsensical rambling. You've demonstrated in your time here that you couldn't put a coherent logical argument together if your life depended on it.

 

Enjoy your delusion....