(December 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm)Zhalentine Wrote:(December 22, 2009 at 8:17 am)tackattack Wrote: Since Frodo didn't answer them directly I'll take a stab to stir up conversation.
1: Perhaps it knew (presupposing consciousness) that we couldn't handle such knowledge. It's evident by the destruction man has wrought on this planet and to each other. What creator would want it's creations to destroy other creations? I'm pretty sure it's called the tred of "good and evil" in most translations, not self-awareness. Knowledge (of whatever) does not predicate self-awareness.
2:I see it as a restriction from a perfect place. In the schema of eternity what's a few millenium in a world where we have to fend for ourselves. My dad put me on restriction all the time.
3tupidity supposes intelligence and consciouness. The rest is a false dichotomy. I didn't leave my wallet on the table to test my wife to see if she'd steal from me. I didn't care if she took anything either, she'd done it before and would do it again. I put it there because I got busy playing games and it was a thorn in my butt when I sat down.
1. If it knew we couldn't handle that knowledge, then why even create the tree in the first place? It seems pointless for a creator to create a tree for the sole purpose of causing trouble. Also, creators wanting its creations to destroy other creations is mind boggling. Many times in the bible God wants the children of Israel to sacrifice their animals. Why God wants his followers to destroy his creations are beyond me. If he is all-knowing, then he should know that they are faithful to him and doesn't need them to demonstrate it by sacrifice.
2. I have to agree with the original 2 "God has a tendency for over the top punishments." In either Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers (I forget which), a man is killed for working on Sunday, and all the man did was gather sticks.
3. The thing that stuck out to me in your number 3 point is that you did not care. If you did care, you probably would have put it in a safer spot. God did care and he showed that by punishing the rest of humanity for two people's mistake. A logical being would have put the tree in a place that was not accessible by people.
1. The Bible is the fallible man's explination of God. As religion has developed, we've seen the err of sacrifice of objects. Love is sacrifice. I love my wife and would sacrifice anything for her. God's perfect love has no need of sacrifice in my opinion. As far as creating for creation's sake, go ask an artist why he paints or sculpts. "The music that really turns me on is either running toward God or away from God. Both recognize the pivot, that God is at the center of the jaunt." Bono. "O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives." Jim Morrison
2. You're assuming that God is punishing you and not youself, your subconscious or your fellow man.
3. You're assuming God is logical and works by the constraints of logic. Maybe it looked good on the hill, or in the valey. Maybe the colors contratsed best against the orange trees next door. No one knows, but to create beings that have dominion over all then not give them physical access to that thing doesn't seem logical either, but then I'm commiting the same fallacy.
(December 23, 2009 at 12:34 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: I think that's why they invented the new testament. The old story was anti-capitalist or 'pro-decapitatist'. The fact that so many world breaking truths were destroying the claims in the bible, such as evolution, discoveries made in and through science such as dinosaurs and dna, and the fact that such a long time has elapsed for acts of the nature written in the bible.
Something had to happen. It had to change in an effective way that would move society forward and 'breathe new life' into the religion (yes, the pun from Darwin's first book).
Burning bushes, parting seas, garden of eden were becoming outdated so the revise the old testament and make this new testament from the old and christians everywhere are sucked in by it. Most whom I've spoken regarding the bible say the old testament has been replaced by the new one while most hadn't even read the new testament through.
The comparisons between the two are far too astounding to be coincidental.
I agree that the 2 are seperate beasts. The Tenakh lays the foundation through mythos and moralistic story. The New testaments see the fufillments of a lot of those prophesies with a lot of quotation of the OT. I wouldn't consider it a replacement at all, I see it as a progressive understanding. Personally I don't think science's "world breaking truths were destroying the claims in the bible" in any way. If that makes you label me apologetic then so be it.
