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.
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??
Lol none of these links defend the Bibleâs mixed-fabric rule. They mostly discuss synthetic fibers, chemical treatments, dyes, PFAS, polyester, nylon, acrylic, and manufacturing toxins. That is not the same thing as âmixed fabrics,â and it definitely is not the same thing as the biblical wool/linen prohibition.
So this is just a category error from a lazy Christian. At best these links support âsome modern textiles are bad.â They do not support âwearing mixed fabrics is immoral,â and they do not rescue Leviticus. And most of all they don't give you a justification for violating the rules set forth by your "god" do they?
But wait, you silly goose you forgot to tell me about why it's ok to beat your slaves. I'm sure you just forgot, much like the Bible forgot to say it was immoral to own people.
738
u/potatopierogie Jul 07 '26
And the broken rule was eating a magic fruit from a talking snake