RE: Did Yahweh Set Adam Up?
April 23, 2015 at 4:11 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2015 at 4:12 pm by Tonus.)
(April 17, 2015 at 8:06 pm)professor Wrote: Come on guys, they were in paradise and had been given one rule, ONLY one.And the story leads us to believe that they were able to interact directly with god himself, so we can assume that they learned everything they knew straight from the lips of the almighty god, creator of all, the most magnificent intellect in all existence.
Yet all the serpent had to do was call god a liar, and Eve grabbed the fruit and ate from it. And all she had to do was offer some to Adam, and that was enough to get him to eat. So, did they not understand the concept of lies? When faced with a contradictory message, why would Eve immediately trust a snake and disregard the words of god himself? If she truly understood right from wrong and if she understood the concept of death, we might expect that she would've waited for a chance to consult with god, or perhaps dismiss the snake's claims outright. But no, she wastes no time in breaking the ONLY rule. Same with Adam. The first opportunity he gets to make a tough decision and he apparently doesn't hesitate to turn his back on god.
How unimpressed must they have been with the grand and mighty creator of the universe! And with good reason-- even the lowly snake saw fit to tarnish the character of god! Or if we accept that the snake was really Satan, it's more of the same: one of the very denizens of heaven, who might well have watched the creation of the world and its inhabitants, who was witness to Yahweh's unfettered and undimmed glory... made sport of turning humanity against him. And found it remarkably easy to do so! So it seems that his low opinion of god was justified, when we consider how little effort was required to turn the whole thing into a wreck.
Why should I have any higher an opinion of god than those who knew him personally, yet were not compelled to remain on good terms with him, and even turned their backs on him? He's something of a loser, it seems to me.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould