I could not believe such nonsense!

[GANIMEDE]

As a child, I attended Catholic school. In addition to being taught reading, writing and arithmatic, we were all required to attend a class on "Faith Studies". After our Nunn gave us long lectures and tests concerning "The Creation" and "Adam and Eve" and the "Miracles of Christ", we were sometimes allowed to ask questions.

Right from the start I had questions concerning the activities which took place in the "Garden of Eden". I could not understand why "God" would forbid Adam and Eve from eating from a beautiful tree "which had fruit which gave knowledge". It seemed unfair to me that this "God" would punish Adam and Eve so severly and mercilessly only because they made a free choice to choose knowledge over blind obedience. I also noted that Satan, the serpent, had indeed told the truth: According to the Bible, when Satan asked Eve why she did not eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the midst of the garden. Eve replied: "Because God said, that if we eat of this tree, which is in the midst of the garden, we shall surely die". (Ofcourse there is no way Adam and Eve, being immortal, could have had any conception of death). . . But then Satan replied: "It is not true. You will not die if you eat of this fruit, but your eyes will be made open and you will have glorious knowledge"

Then, after eating of the "Forbidden Fruit", both Adam and Eve attained "awareness of their nakedness". This means that some of the knowledge they obtained, I surmised, must have been sexual knowledge. So, after eating and obtaining knowledge, Adam and Eve had "lost their innocence" and had become sexual beings. The deity "God" verifies this when he tells Eve that she shall, therewith in the future, "bear offspring in great pain and cling to her husband and thereafter there shall be emnity between you and The Serpent", (whos arms and legs had been removed by the deity "God") . . . . . . And so Satan became the ultimate symbol of seduction and was assigned the task of eventually accepting the blame for "all evil in the world" and someday be forced to jump into a bottomless pit, taking all evil and all his followers with him. This former Angel was assigned the role of ULTIMATE SCAPEGOAT! . . . . . . . THIS IS A BIZARRE AND DISCUSTING STORY. . . . I rejected this religion.

When I asked the Nunn, why Jesus foud it necessary to walk on water and scare the heck out of his deciples. She had no reasonable answer. "Do you not believe?" She asked. I said "No". Then she asked the class: "All those who do not believe this story, raise your hands." I rose my hand and thereafter a dozen or so other students rose their hands. I foud my liberation that day.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@ Ganimede

I presume you were about 6. That was an excellent response for a child up to about the age of 12,when we usually begin to master abstract thought.

To dismiss a proposition simply because I think it's silly/absurd/disgusting is a logical fallacy,called "argument from incredulity" or"argument from lack of imagination" a form of argument from ignorance.The rational response is to demand evidence.


PS: Is English your second language? If so,that excuses the spelling .


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination

[Rev. Rye]

Then, after eating of the "Forbidden Fruit", both Adam and Eve attained "awareness of their nakedness". This means that some of the knowledge they obtained, I surmised, must have been sexual knowledge. So, after eating and obtaining knowledge, Adam and Eve had "lost their innocence" and had become sexual beings. The deity "God" verifies this when he tells Eve that she shall, therewith in the future, "bear offspring in great pain and cling to her husband and thereafter there shall be emnity between you and The Serpent", (whos arms and legs had been removed by the deity "God") . . . . . . And so Satan became the ultimate symbol of seduction and was assigned the task of eventually accepting the blame for "all evil in the world" and someday be forced to jump into a bottomless pit, taking all evil and all his followers with him. This former Angel was assigned the role of ULTIMATE SCAPEGOAT! . . . . . . . THIS IS A BIZARRE AND DISCUSTING STORY. . . . I rejected this religion.

Good story, but I think you missed an even more fundamental problem: Why would God put a tree that would apparently mess with the lives of his humans on the Earth in the first place?

It doesn't take omnipotence to know that at some point, somebody's going to test the waters and see just what happens if they do eat from the tree. Since Adam and Eve were apparently as curious as their descendants would be, this was particularly inevitable. In particular, God's warning that they would die when they ate it wouldn't seem like a particularly strong deterrent, since nothing seems to indicate that the newly-created humans would have much of an idea as to what death even is. It's like Peter Pan running away from home the day he was born so he wouldn't have to grow up. So, assuming the Garden of Eden story is true, we are left to assume one of three options:

A) God is not only not omniscient, but an idiot for assuming that the naive people he created would have enough sense to stay away from something in a garden that was apparently created for them.
B) God is a sadist (Clearly not benevolent) who was looking for an excuse to punish his creation, however bullshit it may be. The fact that he waited no less than four millenia (if the Ussher chronology is to be taken seriously) to do something that would only partially undo this doesn't exactly help matters.
C) God is not responsible for the creation of that tree, so, therefore, he didn't create everything, and thus, his power is undermined, and he comes out as less than omnipotent.

At this point, it makes the most sense to say it's all bullshit.

[GANIMEDE]

Rev. Ryes explanation is exquisit. Any close logical examination of the stories of the "Holy Scriptures" makes it clear that this supposed "Prime Mover" never had much control over the situation. What a lonely and pitiful creature is depicted in the Bible; so helpless, vengefull and paranoid! Without any real family. No mother. No father. No siblings. What else can be expected of such a lonely copy of Humanity!

It sure is a damn good thing this mad creature is an invention of Human imagination. Humans do love making up scarey tales and scaring themselves. This is clearly the main reason religion exists.

---

In answer to Padraic:

Actually I was in the 5th grade; about 10yrs old.

I was merely offended by this Gods strange sense of fairness. Yes, thanks for pointing out that we all have a right to ask for reliable evidence. . . . But, as I M sure U know, Humans just love pretending and fantasy. Especially scarey fantacy; stories of Spooks and Ghosts and Flying Vampires and Spinning Furniture and such. Too bad these "Believers" R the cause of so much grief in the world. . . . . .

Yes, English is my second language, so I dont much care about precisely spelling it. Its grammar and spelling rules constantly contradict themselves. So does it deserve to be carefully and precisely spelled? But truthfully: I actually spell bad because I cant see very well what I type. It takes me about 10 minutes of re-reading and making type corrections on each post I make. Please bear with me. Thanks.

[Ashendant]

Then, after eating of the "Forbidden Fruit", both Adam and Eve attained "awareness of their nakedness". This means that some of the knowledge they obtained, I surmised, must have been sexual knowledge. So, after eating and obtaining knowledge, Adam and Eve had "lost their innocence" and had become sexual beings. The deity "God" verifies this when he tells Eve that she shall, therewith in the future, "bear offspring in great pain and cling to her husband and thereafter there shall be emnity between you and The Serpent", (whos arms and legs had been removed by the deity "God") . . . . . . And so Satan became the ultimate symbol of seduction and was assigned the task of eventually accepting the blame for "all evil in the world" and someday be forced to jump into a bottomless pit, taking all evil and all his followers with him. This former Angel was assigned the role of ULTIMATE SCAPEGOAT! . . . . . . . THIS IS A BIZARRE AND DISCUSTING STORY. . . . I rejected this religion.

Good story, but I think you missed an even more fundamental problem: Why would God put a tree that would apparently mess with the lives of his humans on the Earth in the first place?

It doesn't take omnipotence to know that at some point, somebody's going to test the waters and see just what happens if they do eat from the tree. Since Adam and Eve were apparently as curious as their descendants would be, this was particularly inevitable. In particular, God's warning that they would die when they ate it wouldn't seem like a particularly strong deterrent, since nothing seems to indicate that the newly-created humans would have much of an idea as to what death even is. It's like Peter Pan running away from home the day he was born so he wouldn't have to grow up. So, assuming the Garden of Eden story is true, we are left to assume one of three options:

A) God is not only not omniscient, but an idiot for assuming that the naive people he created would have enough sense to stay away from something in a garden that was apparently created for them.
B) God is a sadist (Clearly not benevolent) who was looking for an excuse to punish his creation, however bullshit it may be. The fact that he waited no less than four millenia (if the Ussher chronology is to be taken seriously) to do something that would only partially undo this doesn't exactly help matters.
C) God is not responsible for the creation of that tree, so, therefore, he didn't create everything, and thus, his power is undermined, and he comes out as less than omnipotent.

At this point, it makes the most sense to say it's all bullshit.

I prefer D
D)God was bored

Also the Original sin is supposed to be a old legend when people abandoned hunting and nomadism for farming and villages, if i remember correctly

[GANIMEDE]

Yes, Ashendant, and may I quote, (from memory), Baruch Spinoza, one of the bravest and greatest thinkers of his time:

"Perhaps the deity which created this world was a very young one. Just starting out, his first creation was a clumsy effort. After making mistake after mistake, this immature god simply got bored with the whole project one day and cast it aside, to go on to more interesting projects elsewhere later."

"Or maybe it was a very aged god who was working on his final work. Half blind and deaf and with shakey hands; his work never completed, when suddenly the old watchmaker expired at his workbench, leaving the rough and unfinished project to go on drifting through space, abandoned and without course . . . . ."