Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:
To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.

Fine, then help me understand. Tell me exactly HOW the story of Adam and Eve gives us good moral lessons. Tell me, in detail, which moral lessons it is supposed to present, and how the events of the story communicate that message. Because all I've seen here is a bunch of excuses and handwaving, and no attempt at all to explain WHY I'm wrong.

 Lynata wrote:
... or maybe it's you who needs to brush up on his knowledge.

A defunct canon and the Malleus Maleficarum. Wow, I guess you really got me there.

 Manchu wrote:
A defunct canon and the Malleus Maleficarum. Wow, I guess you really got me there.

And don't forget the one from 2010.

Plus, it's kind of amusing that you'd dismiss the one where the representative of god on earth is speaking on matters of theology. I guess it was only good until 1918, and then god changed his mind?

So. Eastern Germany. Crazy place, eh?

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:
To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.

Fine, then help me understand. Tell me exactly HOW the story of Adam and Eve gives us good moral lessons. Tell me, in detail, which moral lessons it is supposed to present, and how the events of the story communicate that message. Because all I've seen here is a bunch of excuses and handwaving, and no attempt at all to explain WHY I'm wrong.

Well, I'm dumb enough to take this bait.

The story illustrates that it is not God, but man, that brings evil into the world.

It also shows that man is incapable of not sinning. Even standing in Eden, with God literally telling him, personally, not to do something, man will disobey. So, work hard on resisting temptation.

For christian's it's important because the fall of man is linked to his salvation. Man rejected god at first, but god reached out again to save him.

 Peregrine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
No, it's lesson on how to be good, it itself is not a good story.

And everything it says about how to be "good" is horrible.

I think this should just stand as a testament to the paucity of your knowledge on these matters.

While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.

 Monster Rain wrote:

While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.

Except that Peregrine never actually said that. He is talking about the Adam and Eve story, not the entirety of the bible.

For what is worth I agree with Peregrine, even when viewed as a metaphor for humanity's inability to not sin, the Adam and Eve myth just portrays God as a basically evil being. God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve and He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!

Not only that but He also allowed Satan to tempt men into disobeying Him. He then proceeded to punish mankind to the most horrible fate imaginable, by casting us out of paradise and condemning us all to eternal damnation even before we were born! All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.

To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...

PhantomViper wrote:
God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve.

I honestly think this is one of the most curious questions one can present to the Bible (for Christians, ancient Jews did not believe god omniscient). It's tough cookie. The common thought was that it was a test of loyalty, but I'm not really sure what betrayal Adam and Eve could truly present. I guess they're the wardens of the garden, and they could gak that up, but God's... God.

Interesting fun fact: Serpents and trees of something are regularly connected in numerous world religions. The more you know ;D

He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!

No where in the Bible is the serpent identified as Satan. That's actually from Islam (which does identify the serpent as such). Christians picked it up during the Crusades.

All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.

If I trick you into murdering someone by saying their heart is made of candy (even thought your Biology teacher told you its made of guts) are you still guilty of murder? God said don't eat from the tree. It's not like the snake picked the fruit and gave it to her without her knowing where it came from.

To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. With 'knowledge' comes a greater understanding and thus a greater responsibility. An animal is not responsible for its actions because those actions are in its nature. Humans however make choices and in making choices take on the responsibility of having made them. By eating the fruit, humanity went from being like every other thing in creation be being something else, and we are forced to take the responsibility for that action.

There are several morals that can be read from the story of Adam and Eve; actions have consequences. Those consequences don't just effect us, but our children as well and those around us. Bad things can happen even if we don't mean them to, and others can suffer for them. God didn't kill Adam and Eve as he originally threatened. He punished them as he does anyone who disobeys his commands, but gave them another chance. He sought to guard his creations from the cruelty of knowing the world as he does. I think most parents could find a familiar feeling to this. There are also parallel's to the story of Icarus.

Anyone obsessed with the question "why did god put the tree there in the first place" isn't asking a pointless question, but I think they're being distracted from the point.

 LordofHats wrote:

There are several morals that can be read from the story of Adam and Eve; actions have consequences. Those consequences don't just effect us, but our children as well and those around us. Bad things can happen even if we don't mean them to, and others can suffer for them. God didn't kill Adam and Eve as he originally threatened. He punished them as he does anyone who disobeys his commands, but gave them another chance. He sought to guard his creations from the cruelty of knowing the world as he does. I think most parents could find a familiar feeling to this. There are also parallel's to the story of Icarus.

Anyone obsessed with the question "why did god put the tree there in the first place" isn't asking a pointless question, but I think they're being distracted from the point.

Food for thought indeed, I hadn't actually considered it from that point of view.

I had acknowledged it as a metaphor, but I was still interpreting that metaphor too literally it seems...

There's also a very basic moral rule that seems to be missed: when somebody askes you to respect a boundary, respect it.

Particulalry when you watch a being create your wife, and the garden around you, and then he says, "hey, if you eat that, you will die." Maybe, just maybe, you should listen.

I think the first few chapters of Genesis are some of the most discussed in the entire Bible with good reason. There are a great many ways they can be interpreted (with numerous parallels to other fables and stories around the world). They may even be some of the most valuable pieces of literature in history simply for their massive comparative value.

 Polonius wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, you should listen.

It is the rejection of this very principal that drives a lot of the hatred in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@LordofHats: I think you have an authentic insight into the story of Adam and Eve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
I had acknowledged it as a metaphor, but I was still interpreting that metaphor too literally it seems...

That self-criticism is one of the most brilliant things I have read on Dakka, and I don't mean this in a back-handed way, I think you're genuinely getting to the exact problem with "popular atheism's" attitude toward mainstream Christianity. I'm very glad to have continued browsing this thread thanks to you, LoH, and Polonius.

/faith in OT restored

I have a semi-literal interpretation of Genesis. I do think it is something that actually happened and that Adam and Eve were two real people, but I don't think that they were the first two people on earth. I think they were the creation of the first covenant and the first people to know God, not the first people of the world.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.

Except that Peregrine never actually said that. He is talking about the Adam and Eve story, not the entirety of the bible.

For what is worth I agree with Peregrine, even when viewed as a metaphor for humanity's inability to not sin, the Adam and Eve myth just portrays God as a basically evil being. God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve and He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!

Not only that but He also allowed Satan to tempt men into disobeying Him. He then proceeded to punish mankind to the most horrible fate imaginable, by casting us out of paradise and condemning us all to eternal damnation even before we were born! All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.

To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...

I've been holding off on this topic until now.

A Doctor could be thought of as being "evil" when he takes a sharp metal object and fills it full of potentially dangerous chemicals and jams it into a childs arm, and injects said concoction. This of course causes a great suffering to the child and the child will probably cry out with great fury and frustration as to the utter helplessness and sheer pain of the act.

If you look at the above act out of context...you may think it an evil act. But if you look at it in context...I.E. the act of compassion by supplying much needed medication to a sick child, then it becomes clear that the act was not evil but an a act of kindness.

In much the same way it is tempting to look upon the Adam and Eve story and proclaim "what an evil God we have". But when we say that.. aren't we doing the same thing that the child in the above example is? IN other words...that was painfull Doctor..why did you do that?

No matter how much explaining the Doctor tries, the child only can think of the pain they are experiancing and not the medicine that was being offered.

So the question remains...why did God create Adam and Eve knowing full well what was going to happen?

I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway, and also created a way out, by foreplanning of his descension into a human body and allowing Himself to be sacrificed as a way back from the fall. In the mean time from Adam and Eve to Christ..and ultimately to modern times...the story of Adam and Eve can serve as an example of disobediance to Gods will and the consequences for that disobediance. Again it's up to the free will moral agent to accept or reject the moral or not.
So I submit the possibility that this was the way God choose to have nonrobotic, free willed, worshippers. People that would worship Him anyway despite the suffereing that we have to go through in this cursed world.

GG

Even if peregrine is only talking about Adam and Eve, he's still demonstrably wrong.

Manchu wrote:A defunct canon and the Malleus Maleficarum. Wow, I guess you really got me there.

Truth hurts? If you'd like more examples, google for them. They're not very hard to find.
As has been said over in the WW2 thread - we need to be conscious of mistakes we made in the past, else we're prone to repeat them. This goes for religious people as well. Fortunately, many Christians realise this.

And if you really believe that the entire clergy just happened to change its mind overnight in 1918, I don't know what to say.

Yes, I am certainly biased (as are you, from how it looks like), but my bias stems from looking at how the church does things, how it addresses certain issues that exist in culture or within itself, and how it tries to modernise itself in an effort not to get out of touch completely with the general populace - and then goes on claiming that "this is how it's always been". People just swallowing this and not seeing the blatant contradictions between church teachings now and then is what I can't understand. Or why they just go along with many influential religious figures obviously not living what they themselves preach.

Religion itself isn't so bad. It's organised religion with hierarchies, authority and aggressively pursued causes that I think humanity would be better off without.

 Lynata wrote:
entire clergy just happened to change its mind overnight in 1918

Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents. The only person who could think the Malleus Malificarum is relevant to contemporary Christianity is a bigot. Indeed, your implicit contention that the book was widely accepted throughout Christendom even in its own time reveals basic ignorance. What you have obviously done is decided that something you don't understand and don't like is bad then made a superficial survey of the internet for evidence.

If you really want to think critically about the contemporary Church's problematic views about women, why not take a look at Mulieris Dignitatem, a 1998 encyclical that embraces the so-called "New Feminism." For that matter, a look at the current plight of the women religious in the United States would also indicate a serious concern which I suspect you actually don't have. You will find that there are indeed real problems in the Church but your hateful caricatures miss the mark by a nearly incredible margin. And they also offensively portray Catholicism as some monolithic body characterized only by the worst aspects of Western history. In effect, you seem to have an image in your head of a filthy dumpster where all the ideas that no one else in the West wants get thrown to rot -- with a sign on the front that reads "Catholic Church" or "Christianity."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
People just swallowing this and not seeing the blatant contradictions between church teachings now and then is what I can't understand.

No one who is aware of history can seriously claim the Church has not changed. If you run into someone who makes such a claim, try to understand what they are saying in something other than a literal sense. But if you can only determine that they are speaking literally, even after you have made a good faith effort to avoid assuming they are a moron, then you may safely consider them to be talking out of their ass. I presume this is how you already view your attitude toward such statements. Strangely enough, it's also mine. And apparently we can share a reasonable approach even if we don't share faith. Amazing, eh?

I think, if nothing else, everyone can agree that 'Malleus Malificarum' is a pretty boss title for a book.

Sure, to the point where I think we can't call it a book and really should be calling it "war gear."

(Don't worry, I'll get to the rest of the comments later, I'm just going to take the easy short one now.)

 Manchu wrote:
Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents.

And again you ignore the one they mentioned that was published in 2010.

Also, 1918 is hardly "centuries ago". The original document may have been written a long time ago, but it was still in effect until 1918. And it's also entirely fair to ask WHY they changed. Did the god suddenly change his mind on the subject? Or was the church, god's representative on earth, wrong about theology?

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, to the point where I think we can't call it a book and really should be calling it "war gear."

That just makes it sound even better.

 generalgrog wrote:

I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway, and also created a way out, by foreplanning of his descension into a human body and allowing Himself to be sacrificed as a way back from the fall.

That creates an omnipotence problem.

One of the biggest problems with modern Christianity is its insistence that God is a 3O God.

Manchu wrote:Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents.

No. I am making judgments about a modern day institution based on what the leaders of this institution say or fail to say today, and I see a strong connection to these centuries-old documents. This church is built upon the foundations of ritual and tradition, with teachings stretching back many hundreds of years. The church is known for its conservatism, so why should I think that they as an organisation have adopted a new mindset when it is, for example, apparently still considered to be okay to make such statements? Not to mention various other topics I cannot agree on with current doctrine as well.
A rise to power in this church necessitates the approval of higher-ups who will obviously prefer individuals with opinions mirroring their own. It's exactly like politics, and it results in the church being rather slow to adopt new ways.

And I'm sorry if I come across as "hateful" - I would describe it more as a state of agitation caused by your casual dismissal of an issue that exists to this very day, as well as your ongoing defamation in just about every reply. But let me exert a "Christian value" and turn the other cheek instead of telling you how your attitude feels to me.

Manchu wrote:Indeed, your implicit contention that the book was widely accepted throughout Christendom even in its own time reveals basic ignorance.

Right, this book was so unsuccessful that it was only published in about thirty editions throughout two centuries, and the fact that the vast majority of victims of the witch hunts were women was mere coincidence. Totally not an indication of certain trends within the congregation. Go on believing this, I'm sure you will sleep better at night.

Manchu wrote:What you have obviously done is decided that something you don't understand and don't like is bad then made a superficial survey of the internet for evidence.

It is something I have started reading about many years ago, actually (and it greatly disturbs me that I cannot locate two sources/quotes I recall from back then, but seem unable to find now).
But in the intellectual superiority you claim for yourself you simply assume these things about me. Quite telling... This is not how a good exchange of opinions can work, thus I guess it is best if we simply stop it here. I'm afraid we will never be able to see eye to eye.

Peregrine wrote:And it's also entirely fair to ask WHY they changed. Did the god suddenly change his mind on the subject? Or was the church, god's representative on earth, wrong about theology?

Indeed. The obvious conclusion - even for the church itself - should be that mortal humans are only capable to try their best interpreting their god's will, and that they can err in doing so. Yet instead of this, we get the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Of course it's much safer to portray your religious leader as being never wrong about something, as otherwise people may question his judgment. Yet this also results in a certain degree of stagnation (even if it wanted, the church cannot reform overnight lest it would lose this appearance). Me, I am just amazed at how people can be convinced that this pope is infallible, when at the same time he teaches things that conflict other popes. Plot hole? Selective perception? I guess it's true what they say - faith just cannot be explained with logic.

 Lynata wrote:
I guess it is best if we simply stop it here.

That's the one thing you're right about.

 d-usa wrote:
I have a semi-literal interpretation of Genesis. I do think it is something that actually happened and that Adam and Eve were two real people, but I don't think that they were the first two people on earth. I think they were the creation of the first covenant and the first people to know God, not the first people of the world.

I wonder if they were some sort of "control" for God's experiment in human nature.

You know, put two people in a perfect place and see if they can still manage to bungle things.

 Monster Rain wrote:

I wonder if they were some sort of "control" for God's experiment in human nature.

You know, put two people in a perfect place and see if they can still manage to bungle things.

God:

I look at Adam and Eve, and Eden itself, as metaphorical myself. The story I feel captures the essence of human existence, the source of our suffering (other people, who'd have thought?) and identifies the difference between man and the rest of creation.

Honestly, a fair amount of my faith is based on an idea that I think Arthur C. Clarke articulated best.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Monster Rain is kind of blowing my mind right now.

I have to say, Christians who are into sci-fi and fantasy tend to be my favorite kind. In all sincerity.

I just think it's reasonable to think that maybe the events described in the Bible to led to the belief, or at least knowledge of, what we perceive as "God" was the result of a brush with some sort of higher intelligence.

I know that if I happened upon a group of shepherds 6,000 years ago with my iPad and some antibiotics I would have made a profound impression on them. Extrapolate that to something that can do anything close to what is described in the Bible as Old Testament miracles and you are looking at deity material. Now, if someone could do all of those things, and decided to relate to us some of its(His?) ideas about the universe I sure as hell am willing to give a listen.

That's just one possibility I'm open to regarding the nature of God. He could be what the Bible says he is, he could be something else entirely. I have no idea.

What I do know is that I like what Jesus had to say, and believe in the possibility of something greater than ourselves, so Christianity makes a lot of sense to me. I acknowledge that there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that can be hard to wrap your head around, but there's a great line from The Mothman Prophecies that sums it up pretty well IMHO.

"John Klein: I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don't they just come right out and tell us what's on their minds?
Alexander Leek: You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them? "