Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[GrandizerII]

Ok, next passage:

The Fall

Probably the first philosophically interesting passage. Who would like to give this an analysis? Doesn't matter what type of analysis, anything is fine.

Talking snake, yeah right.  I don't buy that it's allegorical or metaphorical or whatever figuratively preposterous apologetic theists wish to attribute to it, because it's either a complete work of fiction or to be taken literally.  I'm not delusional, so I will go with the former.

This is sort of a false dilemma. The thing with allegories is that they contain symbolisms pointing/referring to events and observations that may be true, and these allegories can be in the form of clear fictional or mythical stories. The question is whether these stories, at the time of writing or later compiling, were intended as allegorical or not. If yes, then literalist Christians are not understanding these scriptural passages right at all. If no, then we can say that allegorical interpretations of these passages happen to be post-hoc interpretations rather than originally intended.

---

Ok, next passage:

The Fall

Probably the first philosophically interesting passage. Who would like to give this an analysis? Doesn't matter what type of analysis, anything is fine.

This has always struck me as - to put it mildly - a morally bankrupt story.  God punishes Adam and Eve for doing something they could not possibly have known was wrong.  Yes, he told them not to eat of the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.  But until they gained that knowledge, they couldn't have known that disobeying God was an evil act.

Boru

My thought exactly.

Drich (I know, I know, it's effing Drich, lol) had this to say earlier:

You do not have to have knowledge of Good and evil to understand death. God said eat and this will kill you, he did and died for it. everything that he was.. was over all that was left was a primal husk of a almost defiable being.

To Drich, that's a satisfactory answer. But to me, it still doesn't address how committing an act out of a lack of knowledge of good and evil can warrant such a harsh consequence. Such a punishment doesn't seem to be just.

Of course, this is assuming a literal interpretation.

---

Thank you! That's what I needed!

What do you think...? I'd say the entry there doesn't rule out my preferred version. The full entry includes things like "to know by seeing," "to be acquainted with," etc. Which would include not just ideas popping into A&E's heads but knowing through experience. 

And it reminds me of the line from Isaiah, quoted in Handel's Messiah: "[He was] a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief." That might be relevant.......

That's not a bad way of looking at it. It's a reasonable interpretation at least.

---

I will make my own brief commentary on this passage soon.