Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was eating the fruit evil or not?

Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:38:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

Exactly.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 4:20:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

See here: http://www.debate.org...
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 4:22:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

God tested Adam by prohibiting him to eat one Fruit in heaven. God announced to Adam to eat all kinds of fruits in heaven except one fruit. But Adam violated that prohibition. That's why he committed a sin by his disobedience.

Learn Islam to know the real reason behind the story.
TheChristWithin
Posts: 977
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 4:23:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

It's just a story. The moral is: good and evil are strictly subjective to the individual, any attempt to define anything as objectively good or objectively evil results in the individual falling by deception into deception. Adam and Eve were not real, the snake was not real, God was not real, the trees are not real, objective good and evil are not real, they are all just elements of the story.

Eating the fruit was not evil, it was necessary. The story is meant to convey that there are outside influences which will tempt us to want to become like God by knowing good and evil, which act through our human senses. By acting upon these, thereby forming "opinions" about the nature of good and evil, death becomes a necessary part of life. Whenever anyone endeavors to "know" God or "become like" God, they eat from this "tree", which causes death because such "knowledge" can only be in the hands of the creator and nobody else. Anyone who lays claim to knowledge of good and evil (religion) are holding beliefs that are in contention with nature, because God insisted that any attempt to understand the concept of good and evil will always lead to death. That's why God blocked access to the tree of life: "lest man eat from the tree of life and live forever." - to introduce death as a means to cleanse the creation from people claiming to know things which can not be known.
List of Trolls (ongoing)
21stCenturyIconoclast
bulproof
Deb-8-A-Bull
dee-em
Gentorev
Goldtop
Harikrish

List of Racists (ongoing)
Harikrish (blacks and Jews)
Mingodalia (white males)
Scruggs
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 1:24:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.
How can someone commit murder if no one has defined it to them? This is sort of the same line of reasoning. Adam and Eve already had the commandment from God (Genesis 2:17). They chose to willingly break that commandment because of the words of the serpent (Genesis 3). It is a sin because they rebelled against God. It is doubtful that they actually gained anything from eating the fruit other than the guilt that saturated their being.
"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." - Jonathan Edwards
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 1:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 1:24:40 PM, Scruggs wrote:
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.
How can someone commit murder if no one has defined it to them? This is sort of the same line of reasoning. Adam and Eve already had the commandment from God (Genesis 2:17). They chose to willingly break that commandment because of the words of the serpent (Genesis 3). It is a sin because they rebelled against God. It is doubtful that they actually gained anything from eating the fruit other than the guilt that saturated their being.
So they disobeyed?
How did they know obedience?
Why do you stupids believe that obedience is innate?
tarantula
Posts: 1,604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 1:36:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If that silly story had any credibility it shows god up in a very bad light as it was setting them up to fail. I would certainly have eaten the fruit.
lightseeker
Posts: 1,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 2:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

let me give you an example:
1- you say to someone you like, not to steal. because stealing is a bad deed.
2- you say to someone you like, not to go outside, because it's cold and he'll catch a cold.

God told angels, he's going to put a vicegerent on earth. and then He created Adam and told angels to bow down to it. it was Adam's destiny to come to earth. and when God told him not to eat from that tree, it was like when you tell someone you like not to put his hands in fire.

so, it was not a sin, but it was not a good deed also, because he did what God had told him not to do. but since there was no religion then and no rule regarding good and evil that would lead to heaven or hell, then it was not a sin.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:07:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The idea that YHWH rewards obedience and punishes disobedience is a recurrent theme running thoughout the OT - the Eden story is its first appearance.
The writers of Genesis 1 seem to have had some definite objectives, including:

1 - to establish that the Hebrew god YHWH was the creator of the world
2 - YHWH favoured Adam, who represents the Hebrew people
3 - the fact that the world is not the paradise YHWH intended it to be is the fault of man (or more specifically of woman), not of YHWH.

The writers of Genesis wanted a specifically YHWHist creation myth that would then serve as the orthodoxy of 'good Jews'. Obviously without their own myth, there would no good way to define belief in other creation myths, and the gods that go with them, as blasphemous (or treacherous - the two are synonymous in a theocratic system).

I don't think it mattered to the writers of Genesis if the story was true or not - the important thing about it was that it was the 'official version' and any Jew who didn't accept it (or rather who adopted a foreign alternative) was therefore a blasphemous traitor.

It is a matter of historical fact the Jews were exiled in Babylon for 70 years and did not get assimilated or otherwise disappear in that time, unlike the 10 tribes of Israel which did disapear as a resilt of the Assyrian exile just over a hundred years before. I think the fact that the OT became a written scripture at that time in Babylon was crucial to the survival of the Jews as a people, because by being written down it 'fixed' Jewish cultural identity, which would surely have become diluted and assimilated if it had continued to rely on purely oral traditions.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

There are two parts to the real answer to that.

First off it was the disobedience to Jehovah that was evil. Adam was carefully warned about how serious a thing that was.

Secondly what is "The knowledge of Good and Evil"?

Is it the knowledge of what is Good and what Evil, which does not seem to have been gained by them since this whole world is steeped in Evil of various sorts.

Or did it mean, as appears much more likely, the knowledge of what Good and Evil would mean if they introduced it to the world by their disobedience?

Looking around me, and watching the News as I sometimes do, I would definitely say it is the latter of the two, because we are still learning the effect that Good and Evil have on the world, even if we are still ignorant of what is truly Good or truly Evil.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

By the way, the first sin was Satan's rebellion, the first performed on the earth was his lying to Eve,
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are those who say the serpent was not Satan at all. The story of Satan's rebellion is not in the Bible, nor is any story about where Satan came from. That Satan is a 'fallen angel' is Christian folk-lore without being part of the scripture at all.
Gaetan
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 3:58:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There was no sin to eat that fruit it was a pure invention of Satan that sin, and later on he trick Cain to kill Abel
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 4:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:58:49 PM, Gaetan wrote:
There was no sin to eat that fruit it was a pure invention of Satan that sin, and later on he trick Cain to kill Abel.

I think that shows that it is very hard to be totally consistent about monotheism - the narrative needs a bad guy, whether it is Agra Mainyu, Satan, or Iblis an 'evil twin' is neccesary, just as Sherlock Holmes had Moriarty and Robin Hood had the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Scruggs
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 4:45:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 1:29:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
How can someone commit murder if no one has defined it to them? This is sort of the same line of reasoning. Adam and Eve already had the commandment from God (Genesis 2:17). They chose to willingly break that commandment because of the words of the serpent (Genesis 3). It is a sin because they rebelled against God. It is doubtful that they actually gained anything from eating the fruit other than the guilt that saturated their being.
So they disobeyed?
Yes

How did they know obedience?
The same way anyone does.

Why do you stupids believe that obedience is innate?
Because it is.
"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." - Jonathan Edwards
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 5:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

I think eating the fruit was not evil. I think it was stupid, but if person was ready to take the consequences, it was ok. :)
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 10:41:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My point is that the 'fall' was the event where humanity fell from God after committing sin. That event however couldn't have been sinful because Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to commit sin at the time.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:01:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 10:41:28 PM, Smithereens wrote:
My point is that the 'fall' was the event where humanity fell from God after committing sin. That event however couldn't have been sinful because Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to commit sin at the time.

Of course they had the capacity to commit sin, all it needed was the wrong exercise of free will.

Satan sinned when he let envy fill his heart and allowed himself to covet the worship Adam and Eve gave to Jehovah.

He sinned again when he lied to Eve.

Eve sinned when she listened to Satan.

Adam sinned by not having built up Eve's faith to the point where she could resist Satan, he then compounded that sin by blaming God for what went wrong, as so many do today.

Adam knew very well that to eat the fruit was wrong, Jehovah made very sure of that.

Do you actually realise what sin is? what evil is? You have to learn to understand what Jehovah, and therefore his son the Christ, think they are.

The answer to that is simple. Sin and evil are one and the same

Any form of disobedience is sin, and therefore evil, because all of Jehovah's requirements are for the good of all his creation and therefore disobedience harms creation in some way.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:04:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 5:26:00 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

I think eating the fruit was not evil. I think it was stupid, but if person was ready to take the consequences, it was ok. :)

It was disobedience and therefore both sin and an act of evil. It was not just Adam and Eve who bore the consequences, we carry the inheritance of that sin to this day, and will until the time is right for it to be removed from us forever using the merit of Christ's sacrifice.

So was their disobedience OK?

Of course not.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:06:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 10:41:28 PM, Smithereens wrote:
My point is that the 'fall' was the event where humanity fell from God after committing sin. That event however couldn't have been sinful because Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to commit sin at the time.

It is important that we don't hastily form opinions on this story without carefully considering its merits. There are complex issues to be resolved here.

The following brief 4-minute video explains some of the more intricate theological considerations associated with the Garden of Eden narrative:
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 4:17:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 2/12/2017 3:58:49 PM, Gaetan wrote:
There was no sin to eat that fruit it was a pure invention of Satan that sin, and later on he trick Cain to kill Abel.

I think that shows that it is very hard to be totally consistent about monotheism - the narrative needs a bad guy, whether it is Agra Mainyu, Satan, or Iblis an 'evil twin' is neccesary, just as Sherlock Holmes had Moriarty and Robin Hood had the Sheriff of Nottingham.

No, it does not need a bad guy, nor will it always have one.

Satan is nearly at the end of his opportunity to prove his case and soon he, and all he has wrought will be destroyed.

Once he has been destroyed, no other rebel will be allowed to exist because all necessary precedents to allow summary judgement in future will have been set forever.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:23:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 11:06:39 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 2/12/2017 10:41:28 PM, Smithereens wrote:
My point is that the 'fall' was the event where humanity fell from God after committing sin. That event however couldn't have been sinful because Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to commit sin at the time.

It is important that we don't hastily form opinions on this story without carefully considering its merits. There are complex issues to be resolved here.

The following brief 4-minute video explains some of the more intricate theological considerations associated with the Garden of Eden narrative:



You make more of it than needs be. It is a simple story with a simple narrative. However that is always the problem with theology.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is making the stories in the Bible more complex than they need be to teach us what they are intended to teach us.

The Narrative in the first 3 chapters is simple and teaches us two basic lessons.

1: Jehovah's demands on us are simple and easy to comply with.

2: He does not give up, but reacts immediately to any threat to his purposes.

The whole of the Bible demonstrates very clearly Jehovah's Loyal Love, Wisdom, Justice and mercy, as well as the power he is able to bring to bear to ensure his purpose will succeed.

Loyal Love?

Yes. Consider how he did so much to remove any threats to his people Israel, whilst accepting any who chose to side with them rather than against them, whatever their racial origin.

Yes Jehovah's loyalty to his friends is absolutely beyond question, as is the mercy with which he treats those who change their course to put their mistakes right. His only begotten son, once the Word, now the Christ, is in complete agreement with his father.

A question I have asked many, but never once receive the correct answer is, or should be, obvious to any who know it well enough.

Q: What is the most basic purpose of the Bible?

A: It is Jehovah's evidence in his ongoing case against Satan, much of which has been written in advance in order to demonstrate Jehovah's power to make sure that he can withstand any opposition and fulfil his original purpose for his creation.

It truly is that simple, so for the sake of true justice it is incumbent on us to study the evidence carefully and reach our verdict on it as it enfolds around us, even today.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:28:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:51:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
There are those who say the serpent was not Satan at all. The story of Satan's rebellion is not in the Bible, nor is any story about where Satan came from. That Satan is a 'fallen angel' is Christian folk-lore without being part of the scripture at all.

Of course it is in the Bible.

Satan's sin was to covet the worship that Adam and Eve gave to Jehovah and try to trick Adam and Eve into giving it to him,instead, which in effect was what he did.

He originally came from where everything comes from. He was created as a powerful Angel, a cherub in fact, and was given the job of covering cherub" over the Garden of Eden during the carrying out of that Job he started having the wrong thoughts that led to his sin.

Do you really know so little of scripture that you could not answer your own simple question?
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:33:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:51:44 PM, keithprosser wrote:
There are those who say the serpent was not Satan at all. The story of Satan's rebellion is not in the Bible, nor is any story about where Satan came from. That Satan is a 'fallen angel' is Christian folk-lore without being part of the scripture at all.

Incidentally in Revelation 12 Satan, the Devil, is called "the original serpent", Some translations however translate his title Satan into it's basic meaning.

It is important that neither Satan or the Devil is his name, they are descriptions of what he made himself into, a rebel, opposer, and a slanderer, liar.

Nor is Lucifer his name, simple, under it's meaning of "shining one" a description of the glory he held before his sin.

Again all of this is clearly explained in the Bible for you to read if you choose.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:34:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 11:23:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/12/2017 11:06:39 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 2/12/2017 10:41:28 PM, Smithereens wrote:
My point is that the 'fall' was the event where humanity fell from God after committing sin. That event however couldn't have been sinful because Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to commit sin at the time.

It is important that we don't hastily form opinions on this story without carefully considering its merits. There are complex issues to be resolved here.

The following brief 4-minute video explains some of the more intricate theological considerations associated with the Garden of Eden narrative:



You make more of it than needs be. It is a simple story with a simple narrative. However that is always the problem with theology.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is making the stories in the Bible more complex than they need be to teach us what they are intended to teach us.

The Narrative in the first 3 chapters is simple and teaches us two basic lessons.

1: Jehovah's demands on us are simple and easy to comply with.

2: He does not give up, but reacts immediately to any threat to his purposes.

The whole of the Bible demonstrates very clearly Jehovah's Loyal Love, Wisdom, Justice and mercy, as well as the power he is able to bring to bear to ensure his purpose will succeed.

Loyal Love?

Yes. Consider how he did so much to remove any threats to his people Israel, whilst accepting any who chose to side with them rather than against them, whatever their racial origin.

Yes Jehovah's loyalty to his friends is absolutely beyond question, as is the mercy with which he treats those who change their course to put their mistakes right. His only begotten son, once the Word, now the Christ, is in complete agreement with his father.

A question I have asked many, but never once receive the correct answer is, or should be, obvious to any who know it well enough.

Q: What is the most basic purpose of the Bible?

A: It is Jehovah's evidence in his ongoing case against Satan, much of which has been written in advance in order to demonstrate Jehovah's power to make sure that he can withstand any opposition and fulfil his original purpose for his creation.

It truly is that simple, so for the sake of true justice it is incumbent on us to study the evidence carefully and reach our verdict on it as it enfolds around us, even today.

You didn't view the video.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2017 11:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 3:24:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Christians who believe in the fall cite Adam and eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first sin, the first time humans committed evil.

All I'd like to ask is how could they be doing something evil if they hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet.

The tale strikes me as one of the original mind getting estranged from itself. It seems a very profound story put into the Jewish religious context.

You can find really nice parallels with these stories and Taoist and Buddhist teachings.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is one that makes you estranged from your natural spontaneity, from the "flow" of the Tao. Eating the fruit means assuming an ego.

Ego being the one which manipulates, the one which works for itself. When you want something, it is good to have it and very bad not to be able to have it.

Thus, knowledge of good and evil and the fall of man from his spontaneity.

The Buddha talked about a chain of dependent origination, tracing back from where suffering comes.

The very first link of that is ignorance (of the nature of reality).

The link that follows from ignorance is volitional action i. e. action of a separate "self" i.e. knowledge of good and evil.

Tao Te Ching chapter 38 also speaks of the fall from spontaneity (Tao) to virtue. In this sense, spontaneity is the higher virtue, because it is not conscious of itself. The original mind is naturally beneficial to all things. The lower virtue, being conscious of itself, gives rise to vice. Good and evil born again.

"A man of superior virtue is not conscious of being virtuous, hence is truly virtuous.
A man of inferior virtue performs for the purpose of virtue, hence he is not virtuous.
A man of superior virtue acts without action, and performs with his true nature.
A man of inferior virtue acts with intentional effort.
A man of superior kindness acts a natural act.
A man of superior justice acts with righteousness and feelings for others.
A man of superior etiquette acts according to his true self, hence no one responds to him by
moving away.
There, when Tai is lost, there is Te (virtue).
When Te is lost, there is humanity.
When humanity is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is etiquette.
Etiquette becomes prevalent when people fail to be sincere and honest.
Hence, chaos begins.
A person of knowledge and self-opinion will be hindered from the enlightenment of Tao.
Thus, this is the beginning of ignorance!
Therefore, one who cultivates himself with Tao,
Embraces the original nature and indulges not in sensual nature.
He abides by the fundamental Oneness and indulges not in sensory pleasures.
Thus, abandon those desires and abide by this true essence of Tao."

The reason that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of being naked in the beginning is that they knew no worries. The arising of ego means worrying about oneself.

I cannot but interpret the story this way. I understand it doesn't fit within the standard Christian teachings when interpreted like this, but I don't think the way Christianity is taught most of the time nowadays is doing it any justice.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2017 2:44:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 11:01:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Of course they had the capacity to commit sin, all it needed was the wrong exercise of free will.
You are preaching from your anus still!

(Noun) freewill: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies

Being threatened for making any choice other than what Story book God wanted, is a narcissistic deprivation of freewill.

You remain as always, utterly defeated & I Vindicated!
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2017 2:48:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 11:23:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The whole of the Bible demonstrates very clearly Jehovah's Loyal Love, Wisdom, Justice and mercy, as well as the power he is able to bring to bear to ensure his purpose will succeed.
You sure do preach none sense!

Show us the love?

Deu_23:1 "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD. ESV Story book founded upon MYTHS & lies!
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2017 4:00:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2017 4:45:14 PM, Scruggs wrote:
At 2/12/2017 1:29:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
How can someone commit murder if no one has defined it to them? This is sort of the same line of reasoning. Adam and Eve already had the commandment from God (Genesis 2:17). They chose to willingly break that commandment because of the words of the serpent (Genesis 3). It is a sin because they rebelled against God. It is doubtful that they actually gained anything from eating the fruit other than the guilt that saturated their being.
So they disobeyed?
Yes

How did they know obedience?
The same way anyone does.
You mean they were taught?
Produce the passages that support this claim.

Why do you stupids believe that obedience is innate?
Because it is.
Only a fool would claim such.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.