Genesis 3:3-4

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Could be, for better or for worse...

til death do us part

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Bandit

til death do us part

A way out of a bad marriage?

[truthseeker]

Beautiful! Beautiful!!

I appreciate ghufranakahmad for taking this thread in the direction I hoped it would go.

Originally Posted by MattWolf

When I read these verses I'm struck by the simplicity of it. This simple story encapsulates so many different angles of man's predicament on earth. It symbolizes the very struggle of a spiritually aware existence. On the one hand, living in complete obedience to God would put us in a somewhat blissfully ignorant state. Some claim that angels and certain spiritual beings exist in this manner, and that this is why they do not experience salvation the way man does.

I agree.

On the other hand, becoming acquainted with our nature (which man apparently must) is painful. Enter, the Garden of Eden...

I think the story works beautifully as a confirmation of our spiritual state without throwing in the idea that God is punishing US for what THEY did. As I see it, God doesn't have to punish anybody (past or present) for their actions. I interpret consequences as just that. It's as though God was saying: "If you jump off that cliff, you will fall and die" not "If you jump off that cliff I'm going to make you fall and die." God's laws are active, eternal, and inescapable like the laws of nature. So God then explains what effect the couple's disobedience will have on the future. He doesn't have to cast a curse on anybody -- He's just expressing the way things are. We are not required to interpret these consequences as a punitive act (IMHO).

Your HO sits well with me. I tend to view the Commandments in that way as well.

I agree that God knew what would happen. When God says Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...", He is confirming/acknowledging this part of the plan. It is more ceremonial than accusatory. It's also not surprise: "Oh no, look what happened! I didn't see that coming, did you?" Instead, it is the beginning of "The plan for developing man's spirituality."

Beautiful. This makes sense to me because to think that God would set Man up for failure is contrast to my understanding of a Merciful, All-Knowing God who doesn't change.

If it should have been done differently, God would have done it differently. Therefore, the situation is always joyous, never desperate. The process set in motion has been created for great eternal benefits, as we all know. (I am unsupportive of an original sin doctrine.)

To me, this story encapsulates how & why man, in his struggles to become like God, must continually fail -- discover the consequences -- and then work at picking himself back up. "Wow, shame, fear, and toil really stink!" By discovering the ungodly parts of the self and rejecting their consequences we grow in our conviction to embrace godly qualities. With our growing conviction, we become more like God -- which has to have been the point in the first place.

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Ratanya

I read somewhere once, that knowledge was the enemy of faith.

I guess I view the original sin in a different light.

To me, to make a decision based on the absence of knowledge is true free will. When you have knowledge, your decisions are then based on what you know.. how is that free will, with the bias of knowledge affecting your decision.

Maybe I am interpreting the term free will in the wrong manner. I always observe that people (including myself) choose the path that best suits them at the time.. based off a variety of historical, social, emotional and spirtual factors. Pride, greed, guilt etc..

Knowledge is there. We can overlook it, or choose to pick it up and stick it in our pockets. If we choose to keep it, then we choose what to do with it. To take a leap of faith is free will, but if you aren't in communion with God, it is still the free will to fall - perhaps blissfully ignorant.
If we choose to know nothing (can we choose to know nothing outside of culture?), do you think that we can be one with God without the suffering?

If Eve did have to feed Adam a piece of fruit from the tree knowledge, why couldn't she of made it a larger piece.

Maybe that is the original sin

[Plato]

To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of God I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines?

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely God had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?

I've got plenty more questions but lets start with those, I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving God?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Plato

To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of God I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines?

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely God had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?

I've got plenty more questions but lets start with those, I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving God?

Well we don't know what really happens after death (when our spirit leaves this realm), however, God did give specific instructions to the individuals in question above, under pain of death if they refused to obey them...yet they chose to disobey Him anyway...seems to me that God has to be a being of His word, or else the rest of mankind would not take Him seriously...

In the grander scale of things, God simply might have been saying "Hey, I told you not to do that or I would take you out of the sand box...now since you didn't listen, you can't play in the sand box; you have to stay here with me, while everyone else gets to play..."


v/r

Q

[MindFreak666]

Actually I see it more logically, that this "god" is not a great loving being at all, but a tyrant. Much more simple.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Mindfreak!

Originally Posted by MindFreak666

Actually I see it more logically, that this "god" is not a great loving being at all, but a tyrant. Much more simple.

This demonstrates the danger of wielding Ockham's Razor inappropriately. While this may seem logical and simple to you (by your own admission not well versed in Christian texts), the conclusion is incorrect. Without a deeper understanding, or even a more thorough cursory understanding, your conclusion is incorrect. So much for the limitations of logic. The mind isn't everything after all...

*MOD HAT ON* I might add, that this is also inappropriate. You are new here, so there is a bit a leeway as you become accustomed to how we do things. What you are persisting in doing is openly challenging a specific faith on its own specific faith board. That is not considered good form. Consider, were Christians to enter the Buddhist board and trash on about the Buddha, I would imagine it would draw some ill will and hurt feelings. We try to avoid that. If you sincerely wish to hold a tit for tat discussion, there are other boards specifically for that. The Comparative board, for one. If you desire to continue this train of thought, would you please extend the courtesy of opening a new thread there? Thanks. *MOD HAT OFF*

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Plato

To all you guys who take the Old Testament as the literal word of G!D I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

just because something is the literal word of G!D (whatever that means, i'd call it a Revealed Text) doesn't mean one should take everything in it literally. just so you know, the "old testament" is of course a jewish text so it might be instructive for you to hear about how we approach these questions.

1) Did Lots wife deserve to be turned into a pile of salt just because she looked back on the city she lived in while it was burning to smitherines[sic]?

the Torah ("pentateuch") is like the "lecture notes" from on top of mt. sinai. for the full content of the lecture, you need to be aware of what the accompanying oral tradition says. i notice that you say "just" - the Torah does not assume this. the midrash notes that lot's wife was punished for sins that she committed whilst in sodom and the moment she looked back, symbolically regretting the loss of a city where she had been able to do evil things, that was like relapsing into her old ways. that's a very, very basic explanation but remember, we're dealing with mythic, sacred themes here. do you think actaeon "deserved" to be torn to pieces "just because" he saw artemis bathing naked? this is meant to teach us something and the something is not about what you can expect merely by leaving a house that is on fire.

2) Did the man who let his semen spill on the ground while having sex deserve that? I mean surely G!D had enough to do at that time destroying the whole world in a flood?

firstly, the flood thing happened a lot earlier. the chap you are talking about is onan, who was the son of judah, son of jacob. his sin was to refuse to carry out the commandment of levirate marriage (if your brother dies, childless, leaving a widow and you are unmarried, you have to marry his wife - the resulting child really counts as *his* child) and thus to effectively prevent his brother from having children. again, we're in mythic, sacred time here. we wouldn't expect someone in a similar situation to be comparable. in fact there is a ceremony whereby if you do not wish to carry out a levirate marriage you can be released from this. onan, however, decided he wanted to enjoy his brother's wife without giving her what she was entitled to as well as harming his brother's inheritance and, according to mystical traditions, the future transmigrations of his soul. i'd call that sexual exploitation, myself. perhaps he deserves some punishment?

3) Did the man in The book of Numbers deserve to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the sabbath?

there is actually a dispute about whether this was the only person ever to get the death penalty for sabbath violation. you may not know that it is nigh impossible to get a capital conviction under jewish religious law - if this chap actually ended up getting stoned, he would have had to effectively be warned not to do so, including the penalty and he would have had to have responded that he knew and didn't care and was going to do it anyway, in front of two witnesses. for the actual penalty to be carried out, he would have had to intended the fire to be used for a sacrifice to an idol. based on this, it changes from a chap striking a match to an idolater bent on desecrating the Divine Name despite all warnings to the contrary, knowing all the risks.

I would like to know if these are the actions of a loving G!D?

G!D Is All. not just "love" - that is not a jewish concept. did your mother never punish you? what sort of person would you have been if you had never been told "no", or shown the consequences of your actions?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[paganprophet]

Only the Gnostics knew the truth of Genesis 3:3-4 because, unlike, the posts I read here so far, the Gnostics looked at the tale without putting rose-colored glasses on that cover up some extremely disturbing concepts being delivered in the second Genesis chapter of the Tanakh, Old Testament.

Haven't any of you noticed the change of God's name and the whole tone of difference between the God of Genesis I and the god of Genesis II? Elohim vs. Yahweh is what's going on. Jesus tried to tell you and yet Christianity went on its merry way following the Jewish traditions with Paul and then Augustine expanding the idea of Original Sin to separate human beings from their Source in Elohim.

Then there's the lies..

[paganprophet]

But that's another thread topic, why the god of Genesis II needed to lie to the human beings he supposedly created. Neither Adam or Eve died when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. "but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Adam lived on to the unbelievable age of 930 years, (Gen 5:5) and Genesis II has so set the stage for the degradation of women that the death of Eve isn't even mentioned.

Why would a god who created lesser beings and supposedly controlled everything about that creation of them get mad at these beings he himself has created and is responsible for what they are? That is not a very psychologically healthy god to say the least..this sets the tone for worshiping something less than Goodness as God.

[Faithfulservant]

Only the Gnostics knew the truth of Genesis

This is the crux of the matter regarding those silly gnostics.

[Nick the Pilot]

Plato, Mindfreak, and Paganprophet,

I agree with Juan, that talking trash about Genesis in a Christian thread shows a lack of respect.

I already have a non-Christian thread where these things are discussed, without a danger of disrespect.

Pentateuch Wisdom

Feel free to visit that thread, and ask me about Saul's wife, and other things in the Bible that do not, well, make sense.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by paganprophet

Only the Gnostics knew the truth of Genesis 3:3-4

that must be why they were such a huge success, still exist in such large numbers and are so influential nowadays.

Haven't any of you noticed the change of God's name and the whole tone of difference between the God of Genesis I and the god of Genesis II?

it may have escaped your attention, pp, but this was the founding myth of the "documentary hypothesis". we are well aware of it and i would make the same answer to you that i make to everyone - my auntie is also my cousin's mother, my uncle's wife and a grandmother to her grandchildren. each of us call her something different and she is different things to all of us, yet astonishingly, she manages to be just one person.

Elohim vs. Yahweh is what's going on.

in the sense of the midot, perhaps. if you look at the context, you will see that every time the E-Name is used, it is in a context of Divine Judgement, yet when the Y-Name is used, it is in a context of Divine Mercy. and have you noticed the combined name in 2:4-9, 2:15-16, 2:18-19, 2:21-22, 3:1, 3:8-9 and 3:13-14, 3:21-23? we have, many centuries ago.

Jesus tried to tell you and yet Christianity went on its merry way following the Jewish traditions with Paul and then Augustine expanding the idea of Original Sin to separate human beings from their Source in Elohim.

except that judaism has no concept of "original sin".

Then there's the lies..

...such as?

But that's another thread topic, why the god of Genesis II needed to lie to the human beings he supposedly created. Neither Adam or Eve died when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. "but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die.

i'd spit, but i'm too busy laughing. *that's* your criticism? *that's* your exegesis? hur, hur, hur. adam and eve could not die *in the garden*. mortals cannot live *in the garden*. to be human is to be mortal. to be able to live with the knowledge that your actions have consequences is the quintessence of mortality. when they chose choice, they chose mortality. an immortal could not exist within the framework of normal causality - i mean, what would happen if someone chopped his head off? what would stop him smoking a thousand cigarettes a day? would causality be suspended? what adam and eve chose was the *ability to learn and through it, to change and develop*. G!D does not change. it was the serpent that lied and told them that they would be "like G!D" - they might have thought that, but the downside would be realising that with their new knowledge, their new freedom, came consequences and a price.

Why would a god who created lesser beings and supposedly controlled everything about that creation of them get mad at these beings he himself has created and is responsible for what they are? That is not a very psychologically healthy god to say the least..this sets the tone for worshiping something less than Goodness as God.

read the text again, mate. nowhere does it say that G!D Was Angry. G!D Gets Angry, sure, it's quite common later on, but not here. would you get angry at a baby for dirtying its nappy? there is nothing in the text to support this assertion - it's simply a lot of gnostic fidgie-widgieness.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

to be human is to be mortal. to be able to live with the knowledge that your actions have consequences is the quintessence of mortality. when they chose choice, they chose mortality. an immortal could not exist within the framework of normal causality - i mean, what would happen if someone chopped his head off? what would stop him smoking a thousand cigarettes a day? would causality be suspended? what adam and eve chose was the *ability to learn and through it, to change and develop*.

You stoked my curiosity, BB. At the risk of hijacking this thread, assuming there was an afterlife (i.e. resurrection), would humans be mortal or immortal? Would we still be able to make choices? If we could, then we couldn't live in the Paradise?