An argument against Adam and Eve

[Violet]

And off you go again into your land of invention.

Don't worry about that by the way... it's quite common amongst atheists. People often are what they accuse others of being.. in this case delusional.

That isn't to say the inventions aren't entertaining: I laughed

My point is, they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. God punished them for doing something that they did not know was wrong until they did it. Thats not entirely fair.

The interesting questions here are 'what is good and evil?' and 'what is right and wrong?'. Depending on interpretation of these... the story goes between either quite understandable or rather logically impossible. Obviously... fr0d0 interprets these such as to be easily understood

[Godscreated]

@ Killman, I agree with Fr0d0 you are reinventing the story, you should read it and know the facts of the story. First the serpent was not a snake, where did you get that idea, second like Fr0d0 said they did have knowledge and they even knew right from wrong. God showed them the tree and asked them not to eat of it or they would surely die, Eve told the serpent that they would surely die if they ate the fruit from the tree, to do this Eve had to know right from wrong and the same goes for Adam. How is it you see that God is not being fair to them, He gave them freewill to choose how to go about their lives, sure He could have keep the tree out of the garden and allowed them to be zombie slaves or robot like, He did not do that though because He loved them and He wanted them to love Him through the freedom of choice that He gifted them with. The only way they had freedom of choice is if they were given a rule to choose to break. There is so much more to the story of Adam and Eve, I believe it's one of the really beautiful storys of God's love.

[edk]

First of all, Godschild, Eve did no such thing. She quoted God directly; she didn't need to know right and wrong to do that, just be able to remember one sentence.

From Wikipedia: Serpent is the term used to translate a variety of words in the Hebrew bible, the most common being Hebrew: נחש‎, (nahash), the generic word for "snake".

OH I KNOW! Maybe Killman got that idea because the word means snake. Just a thought.


So you're saying because God loved Adam and Eve, he put a tree in the Garden of Eden with fruit on it that got them kicked out and cursed along with their entire species. Yeah, sounds likely.


"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
They didn't realize they were naked until they ate the fruit. Why not? Is nudity evil?


Also, why is knowledge such a bad thing? In the context of a church trying to control people I can understand why suggesting that knowledge should be punished is desirable, but I can't think of another reason.

[fr0d0]

My point is, they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. God punished them for doing something that they did not know was wrong until they did it. Thats not entirely fair.

Right.

They knew full well that they shouldn't eat the fruit, and snake boy had to talk them around, mentioning the rule. They knew the rule and they knew the consequence. Knowledge of good and evil is something else. God told them they would die if they ate it, and they did: spiritually.

You say it isn't fair because they didn't know... yet they knew fully the consequence. Nothing was hidden. If I say don't put your hand in the fire because you will get burned, and you put your hand in the fire and get burned: is it not fair that you didn't have the prior experience of being burned?

[Kayenneh]

If I say don't put your hand in the fire because you will get burned, and you put your hand in the fire and get burned: is it not fair that you didn't have the prior experience of being burned?

I understand your point Frodo, but what is the reason behind that tree being in the garden anyways?

If god is like a parent, and Adam and Eve children, I have to say that he's quite a shitty parent. Everyone knows that when you get a baby into the house, you baby proof it. No sharp corners, no toxins in sight, no knifes in reach and gates to the parts of the house that you don't want the child to get to. Just saying that it'll hurt won't save the child from getting burned, curiosity will force most children to try, even if their parents said so. To think two steps ahead is quite vital, actually.

[fr0d0]

Hehe... well the point of the story is to describe the human condition. That's us, in a nutshell.

[Faith No More]

There is so much more to the story of Adam and Eve, I believe it's one of the really beautiful storys of God's love.

I find this sentiment rather disturbing considering it's the reason that god saw fit to create eternal damnation.

[Ace Otana]

Couldn't answer that one could ya?

Why would god put the tree there in the first place? Any parent should know not to put anything potentially harmful in front of their kids. You wouldn't put a dangerous tool in your toddlers bedroom then blame the toddler for touching it. You as the parent should know better. Same applies to god, he should of known better. Plus being all knowing means he did but did nothing.

Also what doesn't make any lick of sense is what was the purpose of the tree? Why was the snake there, how did the snake get there? Why did god do nothing? Why does god blame his creation instead of himself who designed and created it? Who even knew of it's entire future?! Seems like it was all done on purpose. Because I really could of done a far better job.
If I can do better than your god, then you can safely assume that your god was made up.

[The Grand Nudger]

Garden of Eden, S Africa? Adam, Eve, Bushfolk? No, of course not. This story doesn't have to conform to reality. Notice that one gripe is about whether the serpent was a snake, not whether or not serpents can speak. Those who accept this narrative as anything other than fiction have drawn a very deep line in the sand about what is fantasy and what is reality. Reality is not allowed inside this story. Reality stems from this story, but is otherwise unconnected. Some of our christians will argue that it is allegorical, metaphoric, or my favorite "you know nothing about purpose", however, it has to be literal, it must have actually happened. If it did not, we are not fallen.

I actually enjoy the genesis narrative quite a bit. In just this first chapter the original story teller went through the following:

Why are we here?
Where did we come from?
What is good to eat?
Why must we work?
Why do we feel pain and die?

Good questions, worth asking, and the narrator provides an answer to the best of his knowledge. In the end, how it all happened is irrelevant, the narrative serves to single out key points in the human experience at the time. This is a story, it is a good story (no matter what criticism you might level at it). It is not the sort of creation myth that modern christians believe it to be. It is the story of the origins and diverging path of one people, the god of one people. It makes no mention of where we all come from, only where the "hebrews" come from (who were these people that would kill Cain, why did he need the mark?). It also makes no mention of animals which were unknown to the culture, because they were not important. The very beginning of genesis only serves to bolster the claim that the god of the garden is the god of all. How, where, and why he created the people who were not hebrew is unimportant to the narrator, because they are not gods chosen people, nor would they have been the audience for this story. The modern believer should know this about the story, but usually does not. It leads to the unfortunate situation where the atheist criticizes the narrative on grounds that do not pertain to the narrative, all the while the believer defends it along the same grounds, believing it to be something that it clearly was never meant to be.

One of my favorite parts of Genesis, however, is the story of Cain and Abel. We can see the very beginning of a sort of elevation of the culture of the believers. Cain is a farmer, Abel a shepherd. The Lord prefers the offerings of the shepherd. It is tacit approval of the nomadic way of life. In the narrative, however we do see that these shepherds did credit Cain, and his agricultural way of life as establishing the first city. (This is taken from the Book of Jubilees "Lesser Genesis", well known to early christians, but thoroughly suppressed...nonetheless, it is part of the text of the dead sea scrolls) This is a wonderful narrative, expressing the pride that these early shepherds felt for their way of life, with the earliest cities as a comparison. They believed the cities to be filled with vice, and that the father of the cities was a murderer. The hills beyond the cities where filled with the good people, the shepherds, and The Lord looked kindly upon them. Whenever we make mention of the early hebrews as nomads, understand that they were not aimless wanderers, but shepherds, moving between natural feedlots and watering holes. They took pride in this "rural life" in the same way that people from the more familiar American Midwest do now. The theme of the righteous shepherd, the martyr, and wandering as punishment would continue throughout the entirety of the bible.

---

On the other hand, arguing over the scientific details of genesis is a bit like arguing over the luminosity of Rudolph's Nose.

"Well, speaking in the hypothetical, the average density of fog at the north pole would lead us to believe that"-scientist
"The song says Rudolph's nose was So Bright, the number is irrelevant, it was So Bright"-believer
"Just no"-non-believer

[fr0d0]

Couldn't answer that one could ya?

Point was answered.

Please don't become a Christian Ace we have enough crazy literalists


(and that's what Rhythm argues against. It's easy mocking fools)