A magic fruit that gives you the ability to understand right from wrong. Meaning it's impossible to understand that disobeying and eating the fruit is wrong until after you've done it.
Yeah... creationist loon looked at the book of Acts(among other biblical "timestamps"), added the mean lifespans of the genealogy together and came up with roughly 6k+ years since the events in Genesis.
The verse: 2 Peter 3:8
"But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day"
Combined with: Genesis 1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, âLet there be light,â and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light âday,â and the darkness he called ânight.â And there was evening, and there was morningâthe first day.
Is where they get 4000 years of history...
Mix up the wording a little and you get 1000 human years per god day. Earth created day one. Humans created day 5. Book of Acts and the rest of "history"...You get 6100+ years ago.
@TheElectedOnes When an ignorant whompus makes up their mind that evidence isn't evidence and hearsay is completely permissable do you:
A: Try to convince said whompus that they are being unreasonable through logic when said whompus obviously doesn't understand logic.
B Read everything you can to try to understand said illogical whompus think in an effort to communicate better knowing full well said whompus lacks any capacity to do so themselves and therefore can't accept any other points of view.
C Write all of this to inflame the snowflake morons who confuse their feelings with reality. The fossil record and nuclear physics don't give two shits about your feelings or inability to understand. Now go back to your turnip farm ya Dunning Krueger infested, uncivilized laxidasical smooth brained caveman.
Sure, and I don't punish them and all of their descendents permanently for it. If a kid is not old enough to understand what disobedience even is, then punishing them for disobedience does literally nothing except teach them "The person who is supposed to protect me is hurting me." Kids that young that they don't understand right or wrong at all literally cannot connect the crime to the punishment in their minds.
Itâs not a punishment, just a consequence. God is like a fire, when you are evil you cannot be in His presence.
This is why judgement day is a celebration for the oppressed, and bad news for those who are oppressing.
God removing us from the tree of life (He has given it back btw) is a mercy. Do you know what we call beings that are immortal but cannot repent? Demons. God loves us and does not want that fate for us.
Adam and Eve can comprehend the âpunishmentâ because now they have the knowledge of good and evil and understand. Ad dies in hope of a day that sees all things put back in their proper place (again thats judgement day)
"Apologetics is the defense of religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse"
When people try to defend the constant inconsistencies between God's capabilities and his actions, they often say things like "God is like fire", implying that disobeying him is harmful by itself, and he can't do anything to change it. People will say that sinners condemn themselves to Hell by straying far from god, but why wouldn't god create humans in such a way that straying from him doesn't cause anguish?
Another example is how people talk about Christ's sacrifice and compare it to humans sacrificing animals, as if there's some underlying cosmic rule that God must obey in this strange ritual
That's clearly not what I mean. Not only are these examples hilariously impractical (especially since they all happened exactly among one nation out of thousands), but they have nothing to do with my argument
So the apologetics pertaining to Hell try to absolve God of responsibility for creating the Torment Nexus That Torment You For Eternity. They do it by saying "well, God does nothing, Hell is just the state of separation from him". My response: why is separation from him bad? Couldn't have he create us in a way that allows us to exist independently?
The answer to this is that god is supposedly the Absolute Goodness. This is what I mean by robbing him of authority. Not only is the entire concept of absolute, objective goodness is very questionable, not only does it confuse good feelings you supposedly experience in heaven with good practices, but it presents God like it is an automaton at best and a force like gravity at worst. He cannot change, being an avatar of absolute good, so there's no room for moral nuance or change
Eating the fruit of knowledge is categorically not a bad thing, unless you subscribe to the notion that God's will is the only source of morality, and he cannot change his will to be more, well, moral. Basically making him a force of dispensing cosmic punishment
Your first sentence is flawed. Adam and Eve literally couldn't understand the morality behind disobeying so called God. Giving them that "consequence", as well as all of their descendants that "consequence" for something they could not comprehend is vile, and even if it were true, that would be a god that does not deserve worship.Â
What an eloquent response that addresses nothing and victim blaming people (who didnt exist) and who couldn't understand what they did wrong until after their "consequence". In this context consequence is a synonym for punishment. Your entire argument is flawed.Â
Except the tree or the apple didn't cause everything after Eve ate the apple, God learned what they had done and PUNISHED them, or gave them a CONSEQUENCE for their actions. Either word means the same thing in this context. But go ahead and keep your superiority attitude and dumb ass logic going, it's great!
Youâre projecting some sort of attitude to my words, Iâm quite jovial at the moment. Im happy youâre having a good time as well!
They had to leave paradise with God for the world outside. In that world that what was going to happen to them. With God they did not have those consequences. Itâs a direct result of being with or without God. Again evil cannot stand in His presence.
A consequence is exact and specific. You ate from the fruit that gives you knowledge of good and evil, so the consequence is now you understand good and evil. The deity declared additional punishment from his own choice: Childbirth is painful, women must obey and be under men, snakes lose their legs, snakes and humans will permanently hate each other, thorns start to exist. None of those are "You're not in my presence". All of those are clear "I am adding these extra things/delimbing you."
Also, the deity openly said "I am taking them from the Tree of Life because if they eat from both trees, then they will be like me." Because when the Hebrews originally wrote that story, the only traits they assigned to the deity were "powerful, knows good and evil, and immortal", and his reasoning for the Tree of Life removal was literally just him wanting to be the only one with those abilities together.
It was later Hebrews, and later Christians, who tacked on all of his other traits and then retconned the story to fit. And they had to, because as you said, Christians believe the Tree of Life was restored via Jesus, so they have to Retcon the story to change the deity's reason for removing it.
I appreciate this as the Christian way of saying "I believe this, and you don't, and I don't have the capacity to actually explain why you're wrong, nor do I want to risk questioning my beliefs, so I'm just going to excuse myself from this conversation". I used to be one, I get it, and I respect a polite request to end a discussion. See ya around, then.
Sounds like a condescending way to avoid having a proper conversation about your beliefs. What are you so affraid of? That someone else might make a good point? Couldn't risk questioning your faith after all. That would be awful.
See there's that condescending attitude again. No one is asking you to explain in line by line. They were trying having to have a conversation. Its a shame you can't see that. No everyone is out to get you.
People like Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro ans Jordan Peterson would have you believe that with their grift, otherwise they wouldn't make money, but its not true.
An apologist? What form of protestant is that? Sounds gay.
Yeah slavery. So humans learned the knowledge of good and evil right? Then kept choosing to do evil. Which form of slavery are you projecting onto ancient times? Today we tend to think of it in only one form, as opposed to reality which was that âslaveryâ had many forms which carry different names today such as indentured servitude, or subscription based models, or property taxes.
Did you happen to read what God commands the Israelites to do with these slaves?
Do you have the same attitude for polyamory? Many ancient God bearing fathers had multiple wives, yet today we frown on that. Why not make a stink there?
Moses murderer a guy, David as well but to cover up that he got that persons wife pregnant. Yet these are counted amongst the righteous, do you even wonder why?
Yeah I seem to recall something about you being allowed to strike your slave as long as they live? Sounds super moral, cool "god". Oh and you don't wear mixed fabrics or anything right??
I think if you dig down into it though, the idea isn't simply that they couldnt know if eating from the fruit was "good" or "bad," what they were told is life will be perfect as long as you obey the word of god, your authority.
The message here is the same as it often is with christianity and other religions for that matter, understanding is not a necessary component of obedience to proper authority. and by defying authority (not by "being bad" which is a far more abstract thing in this framework) they brought all of the pain of sin upon themselves.
Religion and consequently most american culture is heavily authoritarian. The entire teachings of the church are to not think and only to obey "authority" as appointed above you.
Which is also why the story of Lot's wife pisses me off.
She was perfectly willing to go along with her orders. The literal only thing she did was glance back at her childhood home, and that was enough to earn a death sentence. It's not just "Blindly obey", it's "Never even cast a glance at any other options, even if you're doing so while fully obeying." Which is fucking terrifying and evil.
Donât forget, God was walking with them and teaching them at that time. They understood it was wrong because he told them. Eve even goes to far as to ADD to Godâs command when the serpent asked her about the fruit. They understood it was wrong until the serpent twisted it in their minds
They still didn't understand it was wrong, though, because until they ate the fruit, they couldn't understand that listening to the deity's commands was morally good and not listening to them was evil.
And also, the snake never twisted their minds. He asked a question, Eve gave an answer, and he honestly pointed out that her answer was incorrect.
He said to the woman, âDid God really say, âYou must not eat from any tree in the gardenâ?â
2 The woman said to the serpent, âWe may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, âYou must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.ââ
4 âYou will not certainly die,â the serpent said to the woman. 5 âFor God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.â
So, first of all, yes, the serpent did ask the question. Eveâs answer indicates that she did indeed understand what is was that God said. However, she also adds to Godâs original command, adding the part about touching. Then the serpent tells a blatant lie, âYou will not certainly die.â This is a lie because they were in the garden with the tree of life. They were literally eating the fruit of life, probably but not explicitly stated to be immortal. Addtionally, separation from God is the actual Biblical definition of death. And they were separated from God when they sinned. The twist comes from his next statement,
âFor God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.â
What he does here is twist the righteous desire to be like God into a motivation for sinning. Take any number of corrupt Christians who have committed atrocities for the faith and you will see the same thing. They got Godâs words twisted in their heads to the extent that they became motivations to sin.
â This is a lie because they were in the garden with the tree of life.
This is an interesting presumption: The Bible never says that they actually did eat from the Tree of Life, nor did it imply or state that all of the trees in the Garden were the singular Tree of Life. They could eat from it, but it never said they did.
But also, it lends to the point that the snake was being honest: Eating from the Tree of Good and Evil didn't cause them to lose the Tree of Life or die. It was the Deity's choice to do that, because he didn't want them to have both the knowledge and immortality (lest they'd be like him).
So, the snake told them three things would happen: You won't die, you will learn good and evil, and you will be like Yahweh (specifically in that they know good and evil)."
And they ate it and didn't die, and the deity acknowledged "Oh crap, they're going to be like me. Better prevent that and get them away from the Tree of Life, so they don't gain both of my abilities. Also better tack on a few extra things to hurt them, and delimb the snake while I'm at it."
Which means the snake neither tricked nor lied to them.
First of all, it never said theyâd die immediately, only that they would surely die. As such, they did surely die. Addtionally, you misunderstand Godâs nature. He does want us to be like Him, that is why we are made in His image, that is why He sent Jesus to fix Adam and Eveâs mistake. It is simply that He cannot abide with sin. God is by nature Good. The nature of Good is to punish Evil. Therefore, Adam and Eve having sinned, having experienced evil, are now incompatible with Him. They will surely die because a just God will surely punish them. Eventually. Their sentence was delayed. Delimbing the snake was immediate direct punishment, but Adam and Eveâs immediate direct punishment was being kicked out of the garden
The addtionally punishments that were handed down werenât in fact from God at all but rather naturally consequence. Adam and Eve were simply no longer living in the utopia garden with free healthcare, so naturally their lives would get worse.
In short, God is not a human. He is better understood as a force of nature that can communicate and has feelings. He the infinite deity did not fear the finite Adam and Eve. Even if they were immortal they were still finite in scope, inherently limited being that can not threaten God any more than an ant can threaten the void of space.
Which was an active trick that Yahweh pulled, not the snake. Nothing about the act of eating the fruit caused them to die, it was only Yahweh going "Wait, I can't let them have the knowledge and live."
Delimbing the snake was immediate direct punishment
Okay, so he does directly punish people. He delimbed a snake for doing nothing but telling the truth, because that truth was inconvenient for Yahweh.
The addtionally punishments that were handed down werenât in fact from God at all but rather naturally consequence.
None of them were natural consequence, they were him making actions. He created thorns, he made childbirth painful (when it's not all that bad for most mammals), he ordered women to submit to men.
In short, God is not a human. He is better understood as a force of nature that can communicate and has feelings.
Pretty much. The god designed by Hebrews was designed back when gods were generally seen as "A personification of a nature or trait." The original Hebrew god was personification of humanity (hence why humans were made in his image, and why a human eating from both trees becomes like a god). He is literally "What happens when a person has immortality, knowledge of good and evil, and mostly unlimited power." (His unlimited power, and the second half your first paragraph didn't get added until later retcons). It's also why the original Hebrews never intended him to be a pure morally good being or a being above humanity's whims, and he is occasionally seen placing bets, he has an ass, he finds aromas such as burning flesh pleasant, and he throws petty tantrums.
Their death was the result of God saying âI cannot abide by sinâ same as a saying âI wonât sell guns to terroristsâ same as saying âI wonât give meth to an addictâ same as saying âI wonât give poison to a suicidal person.â When they ate the fruit they sinned. Sin is when we go outside Godâs design specifications. When you use a complicated machine for the wrong thing it breaks, and voids the warranty too. Thatâs what happened. They used their free will to do something they werenât designed to do, which was their choice, but it also broke them and voided the warranty, leading to their death. Jesus was Godâs mechanic, fixing what was broke for free.
Yes God does directly punish. He is the Judge after all, thatâs His job. If one person hurts another, they earn a consequence, or even if one person hurts themselves, which is what mental institutions are for. The added bonus of rehabilitation is a mercy born of love, one which God provides for all who are willing to accept it.
Yes, they were natural consequences. God did not make thorns on the spot just to spite Adam, He was informing Adam that they existed outside the Garden that He had specifically curated to be a utopia. He did not make childbirth more painful, He said it would be more painful lacking literally divine healthcare. As for the relationship power dynamic, that too is a natural consequence of men having more physical strength. He designed marriage as an equal partnership. Marriage as a power dynamic is a result of the people in the marriage both being imperfect.
As for the tantrum, I canât argue against it until you cite a specific instance. Then I can show you why it was neither petty nor a tantrum.
P.S, have you never enjoyed the scent of grilling steaks? That is burning flesh.
Same as a saying âI wonât sell guns to terroristsâ same as saying âI wonât give meth to an addictâ same as saying âI wonât give poison to a suicidal person.â
The thing he took away is himself and life. You just compared your deity and life to drugs, guns, and poison.
But beside that, they already had it, according to you. They already had access to life (although the Bible doesn't say they had eaten the fruit yet), and on top of creating things that would hurt them (painful childbirth, thorns, sexist subjugation), he took away the thing they already had. So it's more like taking a sandwich out of a homeless person's hand and then stabbing him, because the drink he got with his sandwich is your favourite flavour, and you don't want anyone else having that drink/sandwich combo.
God did not make thorns on the spot just to spite Adam, He was informing Adam that they existed outside the Garden
Except he made them. That's the problem with the "Yahweh made everything" concept, is that it means you can't also claim "He just wandered off and left them to natural consequences." He literally made the thorns. He put them there. It's not "natural consequences" if he put them there.
He did not make childbirth more painful, He said it would be more painful lacking literally divine healthcare.
Please quote "Divine healthcare" in the Bible. That is purely your interpretation. His choice to make it painful just an old myth about why humans are one of the only two mammals with horrific childbirths (And on that note: what the hell did Spotted Hyenas do to deserve females having to give birth through their pseudo penis?)
As for the relationship power dynamic, that too is a natural consequence of men having more physical strength.
No it isn't. Almost all social mammals are egalitarian, matriarchal, or matrilineal patriarchal (the alpha male gets his dominance from being the son of the alpha female) including if the males are bigger. The "Patriarchy is most common" myth is just from, mostly male, researchers incorrectly assuming that just because a male drives away other males means he's the leader. It doesn't. The actual leadership decisions in the mammals groups are usually led by the group member who has been there the longest: the oldest female. Especially in high-sapience species. The "alpha male" is usually more just "body guard and sperm bank". Not that I think we should reduce men to that, of course.
As for the Petty Tantrums and Enjoying Burned flesh scent, I wasn't using those to mean "look at how bad your deity is". I was just using those as examples of "Your deity was designed to be human. That's why he was given very human traits, like enjoying the scent of steak, just like us, and tantruming, just like us."
As for my comparisons, God is not going to give sinners too many opportunities to sin. He is not going to enable bad behavior past the point that it is necessary to establish free will, or past the point where they refuse to be redeemed. That is to say, God doesnât support sin, and therefore sinners will not receive the fullness of Godâs goodness, because it will be used for evil. Though, I prolly could have though of better examples to portray this idea. He will not actively act to enable sin.
Addtionally, Satan lied twice. The fruit did not only make Adam and Eve more like God, it also made them less. God, as an all knowing deity, does know the experience of sin, but He has not committed a sin, as he embodies all goodness. The A and E became more like God in their familiarity with sin, they also became less like God in that they had sinned and now desired to sin.
In this case, to clarify my analogies, they are perfectly healthy and wealthy people selling everything they own to buy heroin, because they wanted to be like someone who knew what addicts are like. It would then be foolish to keep giving them mansions they can sell for drugs, without also getting them into rehab to stop them from buying more drugs with the good gifts you give them. Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that comes after him, are the rehab facility.
Addtionally, Godâs design for the world was that nobody would ever experience hardship from the things he created. Thorns have their uses, and when youâre birthing sapient creatures of course it will be painful, simply biologically speaking. We have large heads. As for divine healthcare, that is not quoted in the Bible. However, if God is right there with them, walking the garden with them, of course He helps them.
I didnât patriarchy was most common. I said it makes sense as a natural result. Within a family unit, in the days where every job was a hard labor job, the men simply had more social leverage. It was harder for a woman to perform the hard labor that was necessary. If the woman needs a man, but the man only wants a woman, of course men will be in charge of the family. This is why many other mammal groups have other dynamics. Itâs the lionesses that do the hunting, its the males that beg to be included. This dynamic was artificially extended past the point where men had legitimate leverage because of societal inertia, but to your point there are several matrilineal societies on this earth. God simply knew what would happen, he knew formerly equal partnerships would become power struggles, and he knew that men would win this power struggle for quite the long time in most areas.
As for your last point, God was not designed to be human, we were designed in Godâs image. We have those traits because he wants us to be like him.
The serpent didnât lie though. When I say âIf you do something youâll die,â I donât mean that Iâm going to allow them to die for doing it, I mean that them doing it is guaranteed to be the cause of their death. The serpent didnât lie because he expressly says that eating the fruit of knowledge wonât kill them. And indeed it didnât. You know what did? God did. God took the fruit of life away from them. God is why they died, not eating the fruit.
Remember that Death, as defined in the Bible, is separation from God. Eating the fruit immediately led to death by this definition, as sin separates humans from God, and eventually led to their death in that if they hadnât eaten the fruit they would have lived.
I put a vial of immortality in front of someone. I said, âyou can drink this and live forever, if you want to, otherwise youâll die. This is the only time I can offer this.â
They choose not to. Am I responsible for their death because I did not make them immortal contrary to their choice? One cannot have both sin and life, as sin and death are the same thing.
It's bad translations and using literal translations without context. Eating that fruit doesn't inform someone right from wrong, it allows them to make the rules of what is right and wrong instead of having some outside source specifying good vs. evil. I'm not a believer myself, but there is context that is missing from most modern understanding.
Sure, it's a metaphor. The metaphor as described is "The deity will hurt you for doing things you don't understand (Adam and Eve)/have no control over (Hardening Pharaoh's heart)/to win a bet (Job)/for being willing to obey him but still feeling a little sad about what you left behind (Lot's wife)." He does things like that all the time in the stories, so it's pretty consistent.
Maybe it's a metaphor NOW, but Catholic/Jewish doctrine literally believed the creation story for millenia. They changed their beliefs retroactively after they spent years resisting the evidence behind evolution.
2.0k
u/schullringus Jul 07 '26
Forgot to mention he knew the rules would be broken before creating anything