(July 31, 2011 at 7:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 30, 2011 at 9:08 pm)Killman Wrote: 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?

Thats the flaw. They did not have the knowledge to tell the difference between right and wrong, so despite the threats, how were they to know that it was still the right side? Lets say you tell a toddler to not touch a hot stove for the first time, because it will burn him. This toddler probably does not understand the consequences. Then someone comes along and tells him to touch it. He touches it and he is burned, knowing now to stay clear. despite what the person who fooled him before says. He NOW knows that it is wrong to do such a thing. Instead, you throw him out your house for disobeying you. That doesn't sound too...parent-like, to me at least. I do like how you do see this just as a story though. Many see it as absolute fact.

The real point is, it is only two (Gen 1 and 2) creation myths amongst many different exclusive creation myths in many societies.

Why is this one "right" and all the others "wrong?"

James
PS: my wife BethK's Linux computer, optimised for atheism, is down. It apparently downloaded a religious virus in an update. She has been attempting to restore it to operation for two days.

In the meantime, she is stuck with my Windows XP optimised for Wicca computer, which she truly hates, because you need to know the right incantations to get it up and running. She says it runs on "FM" (f*****g magic)

ChildofGod Wrote:Now who's making deluded statments.

So you have finally realised that the stories are bullshit. Good job I must say.

(August 2, 2011 at 6:34 am)Killman Wrote:

---

Thats the flaw. They did not have the knowledge to tell the difference between right and wrong, so despite the threats, how were they to know that it was still the right side? Lets say you tell a toddler to not touch a hot stove for the first time, because it will burn him. This toddler probably does not understand the consequences. Then someone comes along and tells him to touch it. He touches it and he is burned, knowing now to stay clear. despite what the person who fooled him before says. He NOW knows that it is wrong to do such a thing. Instead, you throw him out your house for disobeying you. That doesn't sound too...parent-like, to me at least.

---

A toddler is going to touch stuff anyway because he hasn't the capacity yet to put into practice what he's told, unlike an adult. These are not toddlers, they are fully developed human beings, minus the knowledge of good and evil.

Taking the fruit isn't good or evil, and having taken the fruit and eating it doesn't make them do good or evil... they just have the knowledge of what it is. They were banished for breaking a rule, not doing good or evil.

So your premise is still failing.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 2, 2011 at 6:34 am)Killman Wrote:

---

Thats the flaw. They did not have the knowledge to tell the difference between right and wrong, so despite the threats, how were they to know that it was still the right side? Lets say you tell a toddler to not touch a hot stove for the first time, because it will burn him. This toddler probably does not understand the consequences. Then someone comes along and tells him to touch it. He touches it and he is burned, knowing now to stay clear. despite what the person who fooled him before says. He NOW knows that it is wrong to do such a thing. Instead, you throw him out your house for disobeying you. That doesn't sound too...parent-like, to me at least.

---

A toddler is going to touch stuff anyway because he hasn't the capacity yet to put into practice what he's told, unlike an adult. These are not toddlers, they are fully developed human beings, minus the knowledge of good and evil.

Taking the fruit isn't good or evil, and having taken the fruit and eating it doesn't make them do good or evil... they just have the knowledge of what it is. They were banished for breaking a rule, not doing good or evil.

So your premise is still failing.

So why did she not know it was a wrong thing to break the rule UNTIL she did it? How can she obey god's word when she does not know that his words are the 'good' ones in this scenario to begin with? Okay, lets say your loophole holds an argument. It doesn't, but lets say it does. She broke a 'rule'. Thats not good or evil, according to your loophole. Okay, who CONVINCED her to eat the fruit? The serpent. The serpent IS evil in this fairytale. She listens to the serpent and eats the fruit. WHY? Because she has no knowledge of the differences of good and evil! How is she supposed to know that this serpent is evil? She can't! And why did god punish them for doing something that an evil being who they could not have known was evil because god did not give them such knowledge, convinced them to do it? And why was that serpent even there? WOW I cannot believe that people fall for this idiotic bullshit.

On a side note, how ironic is it that it was a WOMAN who damned the entire human race? Good ol' religion.

No woman damned the entire human race in that narrative. That sir, would be god, who is decidedly a he. There was a dragon in the garden because there are always dragons in gardens. Everyone knew that.

(August 1, 2011 at 3:43 am)orogenicman Wrote:

(July 31, 2011 at 12:57 pm)Skeptic Wrote: Is there a way to tell what's meant to be just a story in the bible and what's meant to be real?

Erm, when you are reading the bible, if your sphincter tightens up, you are most likely reading bullshit. That will most likely occur most of the time.

When I read the bible, my sphincter opens up, and thereby I add to the unerring cummulative divine wisdom imparted by the christian god.

(August 2, 2011 at 9:08 am)Killman Wrote: So why did she not know it was a wrong thing to break the rule UNTIL she did it?

She clearly knew that it would be wrong to break the rule. There is no doubt about that. It's a stated observation in the text.

(August 2, 2011 at 9:08 am)Killman Wrote: How can she obey god's word when she does not know that his words are the 'good' ones in this scenario to begin with?

She doesn't know if they're good or evil, they are just the rules from the boss.

(August 2, 2011 at 9:08 am)Killman Wrote: Okay, lets say your loophole holds an argument.

It's hardly a loophole. Just a simple observation.

(August 2, 2011 at 9:08 am)Killman Wrote: She broke a 'rule'. Thats not good or evil. Okay, who CONVINCED her to eat the fruit? The serpent. The serpent IS evil in this fairytale. She listens to the serpent and eats the fruit. WHY? Because she has no knowledge of the differences of good and evil! How is she supposed to know that this serpent is evil? She can't!

She didn't have to know that the serpent was good or evil. She had full responsibility for her own actions. All she knew was that she mustn't eat the fruit. Adam bore equal responsibility. He didn't have to listen to Eve, but he did.

Having knowledge of good & evil makes no difference on your ability to do them.

(August 2, 2011 at 9:08 am)Killman Wrote: WOW I cannot believe that people fall for this idiotic bullshit.

So you think this actually happenned? Or do you fail to see the purpose?

You mean there's a purpose beyond the general need for human beings to tell stories, and our observed tendency to do so? Fascinating. Now prove it.

(August 2, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You mean there's a purpose beyond the general need for human beings to tell stories, and our observed tendency to do so? Fascinating. Now prove it.

Our observed tendancy to work things out? That we use literary techniques to communicate ideas? There's proof in bucketloads. Should A > B then a rational person should agree.
You have to try hard not to see it. It's like denying the nose on your face I guess. Religion about purpose? Nope... don't see it.