Sorry for the double post

(June 27, 2015 at 7:41 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

I don't think they are using "good" in the context of morality, I liken that to a baby putting something shiny in there mouth because it looks appealing. Besides if they understood that obeying god was good and they understood dying was bad (which seems unlikely since they were the first two people and never experienced death.) why would they deliberately disobey god?

Because Satan deceived them.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: Lol. You certainly keep firing away with the same appeal to authority which I have obviously already addressed Randy. However, I expect nothing less from apologists since they've been using the same tiring fallacies for centuries. Why don't you try submitting some evidence. Oh that's right, you can't submit something that doesn't exist!

The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald
By Tim O'Neill

Is that supposed to be evidence that you keep using the same "authority?"  You can stop now.  We've seen your whole act.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: Lol. You certainly keep firing away with the same appeal to authority which I have obviously already addressed Randy. However, I expect nothing less from apologists since they've been using the same tiring fallacies for centuries. Why don't you try submitting some evidence. Oh that's right, you can't submit something that doesn't exist!

The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald
By Tim O'Neill

Randy, I'll read your suggestions, if you'll read what i've been through on the subject:


G.R.S. Mead, Did Jesus live 100 B.C.?: An Enquiry into the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius, Being a Contribution to the Study of Christian Origins
 
Alvar Ellegard, Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ
 
Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Foundations & Facets Series)
 
Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
 
Theodore J. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict
 
Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics;: An Examination of Lucan Purpose
 
Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm
 
C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
 
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary
 
Benjamin W. Bacon, The Gospel of the Hellenists
 
J.C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting
 
Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts
 
Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts : Between the Evangelists and the Apologists
 
Hyam Maccoby, Myth Maker
 
Hyam Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism
 
Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford Classics in the Study of Religion)
 
Arthur Drews, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus
 
Bruno Bauer, Christ & the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture
 
Paul M. Couchoud, The Creation of Christ: An Outline of the Beginning of Christianity,  (2 vols)
 
William Benjamin Smith, The Birth of the Gospel: A Study of the Origin and Purport of the Primitive Allegory of the Jesus
 
William Benjamin Smith, Ecce Deus,: Studies of Primitive Christianity,
 
L. Gordon Rylands, Did Jesus Ever Live?
 
James M. Robertson, Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology
 
James M. Robertson, Christianity And Mythology
 
Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ
 
G.A. Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians: A Study in Christian origins
 
G.A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist?
 
G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus
 
G.A. Wells, Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record
 
G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth
 
G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend 
 
Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
 
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? 
 
Acharya S., Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
 
Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light
 
Barbara G. Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, why we may have reason to Doubt

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus

Robert M. Price, The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems

(June 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

Remind me... which character is supposed to have made the fruit in the first place, put the fruit within easy reach and then specifically pointed it out..? "God" as depicted in this trash is at least as sick as a parent who puts a plate of 'Daddy's special brownies', slathered in chocolate sprinkles and topped with Smarties, in his children's bedroom, on top of the bookcase, with a sign they can't read yet saying "hands off or Daddy will pop a cap in your skull".

(June 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

So basically you're going to equivocate between good in the qualitative sense ("this tree excels at the quality of gaining knowledge") and good in the moral sense ("it is good to obey god") like a fuckin' idiot, and expect that the rest of us won't notice?

(June 27, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

Remind me... which character is supposed to have made the fruit in the first place, put the fruit within easy reach and then specifically pointed it out..? "God" as depicted in this trash is at least as sick as a parent who puts a plate of 'Daddy's special brownies', slathered in chocolate sprinkles and topped with Smarties, in his children's bedroom, on top of the bookcase, with a sign they can't read yet saying "hands off or Daddy will pop a cap in your skull".

Since neither you nor I believe that there was literally a tree in the middle of a garden from which Eve took a piece of forbidden fruit, what's your point?

Since the proof by minimal facts was so simple, we might consider going to the next level and attempt a factless one.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:38 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

So basically you're going to equivocate between good in the qualitative sense ("this tree excels at the quality of gaining knowledge") and good in the moral sense ("it is good to obey god") like a fuckin' idiot, and expect that the rest of us won't notice?

No, Equislax, in what is quite possibly my last response to you, I'm going to point out that in response to a few idiots who keep trying to say that Eve had NO knowledge of "good" whatsoever prior to eating the apple in a blatant attempt to place ALL the blame for her disobedience on God, I'm saying that Eve was intelligent enough and endowed with sufficient understanding of right and wrong to know that disobeying God was a VERY BAD THING.

Stop and think for just once, okay? Are you really going to insist that God gave Adam and Eve a command that they could not obey?



If God gave the command, it was because He knew that they DID have the capacity to obey; they simply chose not to. As the Word of God says:

1 Corinthians 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

My point, o disingenuous one, is that one of us is defending a character in a story depicting said character as a "moral monster" (to use your own phrase) against the charge of being a moral monster. It doesn't matter if either of us believe it really happened or is a literal anything. Your character's actions would still be astonishingly sick and twisted if carried out by any real person. But if you want to relieve yourself of the task of defending your own mythology, be my guest.

While you're at it, perhaps you'd be so kind as to actually respond to the points I raised, as opposed to dodging them so blatantly?