Choices in the Garden of Eden

[Nihilist Virus]

Then why do you post your views and then expect me to defend them?

Why would I expect you to defend my views? I'm atheist and you're Christian.

But why am I posting my views? Well, because it's my thread.

You reiteration is not my views and I will not defend them.

I am reiterating the OP.

Why are you so confused?

 

[Tawhano]

Why would I expect you to defend my views?

1. Adam and Eve were unaware of good and evil, or at least were unaware of their significance
2. God allows a crafty deceiver to converse with them
3. They unwittingly commit evil
4. God punishes them

How is this justice?

Because you posted your views and then you ask me to defend them by asking the question “How is this justice?” And you think I am confused?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because you posted your views and then you ask me to defend them by asking the question “How is this justice?”

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil imparts knowledge of good and evil. Do you agree or disagree?

And you think I am confused?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Tawhano]

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil imparts knowledge of good and evil. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree.

Yes, absolutely.

How so? Please show where I confused your posting on your views and then asking me to defend them. Don’t bother, you cannot and it was a rhetorical question anyways; as well as being off topic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Agree.

How so? Please show where I confused your posting on your views and then asking me to defend them. Don’t bother, you cannot and it was a rhetorical question anyways; as well as being off topic.

You agree that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil imparts said knowledge. If you believe Adam and Eve already had said knowledge, then the tree is redundant, and God's command that they don't eat of it is a trivial game. IF you believe Adam and Eve did not have said knowledge, then they did not willfully commit evil by disobeying, so their punishment was not just.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi NV, even if the consumption of the apple (perhaps of a particular enzyme in it, or something like that) was not required to cause the moral change that occurred in our first parents (and I, personally, do not believe it was), the tree was still necessary (or something else like it would have been) to test whether Adam and Eve would choose to obey or disobey a direct commandment from God.

Look, the Bible is a wonderful book. We believe it contains everything we need to know God, to find Him, to obey Him, to please Him, to love Him, to worship Him, and eventually, to be with Him face to face. But while that's true, that the Bible is great at telling us everything we need to know, it hardly tell us everything that can be known about most of the subjects it discusses.

Such is the case in the opening chapters of Genesis. We can figure out what basically happened there, but the information we have is limited. IOW, we are not told all of the ins and outs of what went on.

There are also things which I believe we could understand but, for whatever reason, God decided not to reveal to us right now. And there are things which have been revealed to us already that we clearly have no capacity in our present state to fully comprehend, like the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, how God can exist everywhere (including the past/present/future) at the same time, know everything, do anything that is possible to do (He cannot make a round triangle or 2 + 2 = 5 however ), or create the universe ex nihilo, etc.

We are also told that there things which remain known only to God, the "secret things" (see Deuteronomy 29:29). But again, the Bible makes it clear that all we need to know for now has been revealed to us

My point is, we are doing our best to answer your questions based on the information we have available to us right now. But you are asking for answers to questions that go beyond the data we have available at our fingertips, so to speak, so some of this becomes conjecture on our parts (our best guess based upon various criteria such as the information in the Bible, what we know about God and His character, etc.)

Take the "Tree of Life" for instance. What did it do? It somehow made eternal life possible. That's what we know. Does that mean physical and spiritual life? We aren't told. Do the properties of that fruit cause our bodies to be free of sickness and degradation forever, or would it have "locked in" our first parents' moral choice forever (had they made the right choice to obey instead of disobey, of course)? Again, we aren't given those details.

So we know that the trees existed and what their general purpose was, but how it all works, that we really aren't told. And that's ok In fact, I would say that God knew exactly what He was doing because the information He gives us causes us to focus more of our attention towards what really matters. IOW, by giving us what He gave us information-wise, we are forced to major on the majors, rather than the minors (even though the stuff that we know less about is often that which piques our curiosity the most, isn't it ).

Fortunately for us, God is wise

Yours and His,
David

 

[Tawhano]

If you believe Adam and Eve already had said knowledge, then the tree is redundant, and God's command that they don't eat of it is a trivial game.

They did not.

IF you believe Adam and Eve did not have said knowledge, then they did not willfully commit evil by disobeying, so their punishment was not just.

They did not commit evil. They disobeyed God’s commandment and were punished. I already explained my views on this in post#124; please re-read.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV, even if the consumption of the apple (perhaps of a particular enzyme in it, or something like that) was not required to cause the moral change that occurred in our first parents (and I, personally, do not believe it was), the tree was still necessary (or something else like it would have been) to test whether Adam and Eve would choose to obey or disobey a direct commandment from God.

Look, the Bible is a wonderful book. We believe it contains everything we need to know God, to find Him, to obey Him, to please Him, to love Him, to worship Him, and eventually, to be with Him face to face. But while that's true, that the Bible is great at telling us everything we need to know, it hardly tell us everything that can be known about most of the subjects it discusses.

Such is the case in the opening chapters of Genesis. We can figure out what basically happened there, but the information we have is limited. IOW, we are not told all of the ins and outs of what went on.

There are also things which I believe we could understand but, for whatever reason, God decided not to reveal to us right now. And there are things which have been revealed to us already that we clearly have no capacity in our present state to fully comprehend, like the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, how God can exist everywhere (including the past/present/future) at the same time, know everything, do anything that is possible to do (He cannot make a round triangle or 2 + 2 = 5 however ), or create the universe ex nihilo, etc.

We are also told that there things which remain known only to God, the "secret things" (see Deuteronomy 29:29). But again, the Bible makes it clear that all we need to know for now has been revealed to us

My point is, we are doing our best to answer your questions based on the information we have available to us right now. But you are asking for answers to questions that go beyond the data we have available at our fingertips, so to speak, so some of this becomes conjecture on our parts (our best guess based upon various criteria such as the information in the Bible, what we know about God and His character, etc.)

Take the "Tree of Life" for instance. What did it do? It somehow made eternal life possible. That's what we know. Does that mean physical and spiritual life? We aren't told. Do the properties of that fruit cause our bodies to be free of sickness and degradation forever, or would it have "locked in" our first parents' moral choice forever (had they made the right choice to obey instead of disobey, of course)? Again, we aren't given those details.

So we know that the trees existed and what their general purpose was, but how it all works, that we really aren't told. And that's ok In fact, I would say that God knew exactly what He was doing because the information He gives us causes us to focus more of our attention towards what really matters. IOW, by giving us what He gave us information-wise, we are forced to major on the majors, rather than the minors (even though the stuff that we know less about is often that which piques our curiosity the most, isn't it ).

Fortunately for us, God is wise

Yours and His,
David

I think you are unaware that you're talking to an atheist. You're basically saying that because something is in the Bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it's true. That might fly in all of the other forums on this site, but not here. This is apologetics. You actually have to make sense of the Bible with reality as a cold, harsh framework for your reasoning. Now to address some particulars:

Hi NV, even if the consumption of the apple (perhaps of a particular enzyme in it, or something like that) was not required to cause the moral change that occurred in our first parents (and I, personally, do not believe it was), the tree was still necessary (or something else like it would have been) to test whether Adam and Eve would choose to obey or disobey a direct commandment from God.

And why is a test necessary if God knows everything, including the future?

Also, what is a test about right and wrong supposed to prove if the subjects don't know right from wrong? Far as I can see, Adam and Eve were more like the control elements in an experiment which "necessarily" must have involved agents who actually knew right from wrong.

Look, the Bible is a wonderful book.

You lost me there.

We believe it contains everything we need to know God, to find Him, to obey Him, to please Him, to love Him, to worship Him, and eventually, to be with Him face to face. But while that's true, that the Bible is great at telling us everything we need to know, it hardly tell us everything that can be known about most of the subjects it discusses.

That's true? No. This is the apologetics forum, so what you've said is the point in question.

Such is the case in the opening chapters of Genesis. We can figure out what basically happened there, but the information we have is limited. IOW, we are not told all of the ins and outs of what went on.

So can you admit that the story, as it is portrayed, is not sensible?

There are also things which I believe we could understand but, for whatever reason, God decided not to reveal to us right now. And there are things which have been revealed to us already that we clearly have no capacity in our present state to fully comprehend, like the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, how God can exist everywhere (including the past/present/future) at the same time, know everything, do anything that is possible to do (He cannot make a round triangle or 2 + 2 = 5 however ), or create the universe ex nihilo, etc.

Why would you not lump in creation of the universe ex nihilo with things that are impossible or logically absurd?

In order to be the prime mover, or the first cause, causality must pre-exist the universe, which is to say that causality must pre-exist space and time. This is logically absurd because causality requires space and time to exist. Causality is the shorthand way of saying that a given system (region of space-time) goes from one state to another over a duration of time. So how does God cause a system to go from one state to another when space and time do not exist? It is nonsensical.

Ironically, as a nihilist I accept that logical laws are manmade, they are baseless assertions, and so an all-powerful God would not be subject to these things. Which is to say that God can perform logically absurd tasks, such as creation ex nihilo. However, this small triumph comes with a spoonful of nihilism that is poison to any form of theology.

We are also told that there things which remain known only to God, the "secret things" (see Deuteronomy 29:29). But again, the Bible makes it clear that all we need to know for now has been revealed to us

Everything we need to know is revealed to us? Remind me where the "Thou shalt not rape" or "Thou shalt not enslave" commandments are. Curious that they are missing from a patriarchal, conquesting society.

My point is, we are doing our best to answer your questions based on the information we have available to us right now. But you are asking for answers to questions that go beyond the data we have available at our fingertips, so to speak, so some of this becomes conjecture on our parts (our best guess based upon various criteria such as the information in the Bible, what we know about God and His character, etc.)

I fully admit that my worldview has holes. Christians very rarely lend me the same courtesy. If you were to do your best in answering me, you'd simply admit that the story does not make sense as it is portrayed. This would further discussion and make me more trusting that you are intellectually honest. As it stands I see you and other Christians here warping reality to contort to the Bible.

ake the "Tree of Life" for instance. What did it do? It somehow made eternal life possible. That's what we know. Does that mean physical and spiritual life? We aren't told. Do the properties of that fruit cause our bodies to be free of sickness and degradation forever, or would it have "locked in" our first parents' moral choice forever (had they made the right choice to obey instead of disobey, of course)? Again, we aren't given those details.

So pieces of the story are missing, I'm getting that.

So we know that the trees existed and what their general purpose was, but how it all works, that we really aren't told. And that's ok In fact, I would say that God knew exactly what He was doing because the information He gives us causes us to focus more of our attention towards what really matters. IOW, by giving us what He gave us information-wise, we are forced to major on the majors, rather than the minors (even though the stuff that we know less about is often that which piques our curiosity the most, isn't it ).

Actually the general purpose seems to be nonsensical. And that's not OK.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

They did not.

They did not commit evil. They disobeyed God’s commandment and were punished. I already explained my views on this in post#124; please re-read.

But they didn't know disobedience was wrong.

 

[St_Worm2]

I think you are unaware that you're talking to an atheist.

Hi NV, I didn't forget who I was talking to, I was simply trying to give you an honest assessment of things as best I understood them in my last post.

You're basically saying that because something is in the Bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it's true.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort

And why is a test necessary if God knows everything, including the future?

The test was necessary for Adam and Eve, not for God. This isn't about God's foreknowledge, it's about whether Adam and Eve would choose to obey Him or not.

Also, what is a test about right and wrong supposed to prove if the subjects don't know right from wrong?

God basically said to our first parents, "you can do anything you want to around here except for one thing, I forbid you to eat the fruit from the tree in the center of the Garden over there. Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it."

I think God gave Adam and Eve a pretty clear idea of what was ok and what wasn't ok, don't you Why do you continue to say they didn't know that it was wrong to eat from the tree that God specifically told them not to eat from, especially when He also told them that they would "die" if they did so (Genesis 2:16-17)

So can you admit that the story, as it is portrayed, is not sensible?

No, I believe I said that we don't have all the details about everything that what went on back then. That doesn't mean that the story doesn't make sense.

Why would you not lump in creation of the universe ex nihilo with things that are impossible or logically absurd?

I grouped creatio ex nihilo in with the Trinity, the fact that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, and with the Christian understanding of God, that He is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. So it seems to me that I put creatio ex nihilo in its proper "lump"

Everything we need to know is revealed to us? Remind me where the "Thou shalt not rape" or "Thou shalt not enslave" commandments are. Curious that they are missing from a patriarchal, conquesting society.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The Bible tells us about the spiritual condition that we find ourselves in and why, that each one of us is part of a fallen, sinful race, that God is our judge and enemy, and that in this condition, we stand condemned. Fortunately, the Bible also tells us how we can be reconciled to Him and be saved. It tells us all we need to know about those kind of things. It doesn't tell us what weight of motor oil is recommended for a 2016 Lamborghini Veneno, though I'm sure that information is important to the owners of such cars.

What the Bible tells us about interpersonal relationships is vast. Fortunately, the Bible gives us two summations of all of that information to make it easy to remember how we are supposed to relate to one another. One is known as the Golden Rule, the other is called, the Royal Law. This is what they tell us:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Matthew 7:12

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:9.....​

It's late. I'll have to finish up the rest of my reply tomorrow after work.

Talk to you then.

--David

 

[Tawhano]

But they didn't know disobedience was wrong.

But as I shown already they knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit. So what is your point?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But as I shown already they knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit. So what is your point?

We both agree with each other so I guess we're done.

 

[St_Worm2]

Reply continued from above, post #261

In order to be the prime mover, or the first cause, causality must pre-exist the universe, which is to say that causality must pre-exist space and time. This is logically absurd because causality requires space and time to exist. Causality is the shorthand way of saying that a given system (region of space-time) goes from one state to another over a duration of time. So how does God cause a system to go from one state to another when space and time do not exist? It is nonsensical.

God is omnipresent, meaning that we believe He is both transcendent (He exists outside our realm), and He is immanent (He is here within our three dimensional realm as well). The "Creator" cannot be part of His own creation (space/time) or be dependent upon it in any way, or that truly would be nonsensical and impossible.

Ironically, as a nihilist I accept that logical laws are manmade, they are baseless assertions, and so an all-powerful God would not be subject to these things. Which is to say that God can perform logically absurd tasks, such as creation ex nihilo. However, this small triumph comes with a spoonful of nihilism that is poison to any form of theology.

We certainly seem to be going far-afield from Garden trees here with these last two questions. Perhaps a new thread concerning logical absurdities and God is in order? Does God operate outside of the laws of logic within our created realm (space/time)? I don't think so. To reply specifically, I don't see creatio ex nihilo as something that breaks or alters the fundamental laws of logic. Again, perhaps this topic should be discussed in a new thread, or we may never get back on track

I fully admit that my worldview has holes. Christians very rarely lend me the same courtesy. If you were to do your best in answering me, you'd simply admit that the story does not make sense as it is portrayed. This would further discussion and make me more trusting that you are intellectually honest. As it stands I see you and other Christians here warping reality to contort to the Bible.

I fully admit that I do not understand many things that the Bible teaches, especially about God. By faith however, I believe that I will someday, well, anything that a creature 'can' understand anyway (as I also believe it a certainty that there will be many things about our Creator, even after living in His presence for billions of years in the afterlife, that will still be impossible for a "creature" to understand about Him).

What I am confident of is love. His love, specifically. And because of what He has shown me of that, I am confident that all that I will ever need to know, and far, far more, is now (or will be) mine. He has shown me time and time again that He in on my side, that He will never forsake me or let me down or stop loving me, even when I fail Him. He has no "need" of any of us, so it was out of nothing beyond His choice to love us that He sent His Son here to save us because, apparently, He would rather die than live w/o us

Let me know if you start a thread on logical absurdities as I would like to participate!

Yours and His,
David

"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16​

 

[createdtoworship]

Your views don't address my views either. Allow me to reiterate:

1. Adam and Eve were unaware of good and evil, or at least were unaware of their significance
2. God allows a crafty deceiver to converse with them
3. They unwittingly commit evil
4. God punishes them

How is this justice?

I believe the woman was deceived the Bible says, Adam, however was not mentioned as one of the decievee's.

some believe Adam fell with Eve, because He loved Her.

I don't believe it is quite that romantic, I think.....simply he knew it was wrong, yet did it anyways.

romans 5:12 states that in adam all sinned.

1 timothy 2:14 states-
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

so technically she sinned through him, even if she was the first to eat (out of being deceived by external force), she was still guilty through the head of mankind, adam.
and thus she was still guilty to no longer qualify for free access to the tree of life.

they were both sinners, but the federal headship of adam is due probably to the fact that adams sin was on purpose, while eve's was in part from a deception.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A rather large clean up was done. The MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose includes this:

• Only Christian members (see our faith groups list) may defend the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints from non-Christian members.

Please check that list and please do not respond to posts that are rule violations. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/must-read-christian-apologetics-statement-of-purpose.7918236/​

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why do you continue to say they didn't know that it was wrong to eat from the tree that God specifically told them not to eat from, especially when He also told them that they would "die" if they did so (Genesis 2:16-17)

So... why would they eat something that they knew would kill them? Were they suicidal?

No, I believe I said that we don't have all the details about everything that what went on back then. That doesn't mean that the story doesn't make sense.

They willfully ingested magical poison and then all of mankind was cursed as a result. Does that seem sensible to you? Be honest, it's a sin to lie.

I grouped creatio ex nihilo in with the Trinity, the fact that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, and with the Christian understanding of God, that He is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. So it seems to me that I put creatio ex nihilo in its proper "lump"

Nope. File it under "logically absurd."

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The Bible tells us about the spiritual condition that we find ourselves in and why, that each one of us is part of a fallen, sinful race, that God is our judge and enemy, and that in this condition, we stand condemned. Fortunately, the Bible also tells us how we can be reconciled to Him and be saved. It tells us all we need to know about those kind of things. It doesn't tell us what weight of motor oil is recommended for a 2016 Lamborghini Veneno, though I'm sure that information is important to the owners of such cars.

Motor oil brands are not moral choices. Rape is. You seemed to indicate that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about morality.

Look, the Jews are notoriously meticulous. Have you sat down to read the Torah? It's a dry read. Dry as chalk. Yet no "Thou shalt not rape." Be honest and tell me why this is.

What the Bible tells us about interpersonal relationships is vast. Fortunately, the Bible gives us two summations of all of that information to make it easy to remember how we are supposed to relate to one another. One is known as the Golden Rule, the other is called, the Royal Law. This is what they tell us:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Matthew 7:12

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:9.....​

It's late. I'll have to finish up the rest of my reply tomorrow after work.

Talk to you then.

--David

"Do unto others..." Yet Joshua led how many genocides?

Reply continued from above, post #261



God is omnipresent, meaning that we believe He is both transcendent (He exists outside our realm), and He is immanent (He is here within our three dimensional realm as well). The "Creator" cannot be part of His own creation (space/time) or be dependent upon it in any way, or that truly would be nonsensical and impossible.

If God created the universe, he did not do so via causality. It is nonsensical to suggest that he did, as I proved. Thus the cosmological first cause argument for theism is moronic, nonsensical, and doesn’t withstand casual scrutiny. God does not provide a better explanation for why we are here than no god.

We certainly seem to be going far-afield from Garden trees here with these last two questions. Perhaps a new thread concerning logical absurdities and God is in order? Does God operate outside of the laws of logic within our created realm (space/time)? I don't think so. To reply specifically, I don't see creatio ex nihilo as something that breaks or alters the fundamental laws of logic. Again, perhaps this topic should be discussed in a new thread, or we may never get back on track

Not sure anyone here can swallow that topic.

 

[St_Worm2]

So... why would they eat something that they knew would kill them? Were they suicidal?

No, they were deceived .. Genesis 3:4 (well, at least Eve was anyway). At any rate, it seems they decided to believe what the snake was selling, that they'd end up being just like God if they ate what God told them not to (Genesis 3:5).

They willfully ingested magical poison and then all of mankind was cursed as a result. Does that seem sensible to you? Be honest, it's a sin to lie.

They willingly believed the snake's lie in hopes that what he promised would happen, instead of believing what God said would happen.

Nope. File it [creatio ex nihilo] under "logically absurd."

I think I'll keep that one on deck, if that's ok with you? I'm still hoping you'll start the Logic v God thread

Motor oil brands are not moral choices. Rape is. You seemed to indicate that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about morality.

No, I said the Bible tells us all that we need to know to be saved. Please try to read what I write more carefully. Thanks! If I truly gave you that impression or actually wrote something to that effect I do apologize however!

Look, the Jews are notoriously meticulous. Have you sat down to read the Torah? It's a dry read. Dry as chalk. Yet no "Thou shalt not rape." Be honest and tell me why this is.

It's covered in many places, but is especially and easily understood in verses like Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39, or if you prefer the Torah, try Leviticus 19:18. "Rape" cannot be justified as the commands to, "love your neighbor as yourself", and to always, "choose to treat others as you would have them treat you", declare that it is wrong, that it is a violation of God's law and therefore sinful.

"Do unto others..." Yet Joshua led how many genocides?

Oh goodie, more "gotcha" statements and questions. So now we move from looking at the ways God tells us we need to relate to one another on a personal level, to needing to explain why what God commanded Joshua to do in battle doesn't fit the same criteria. No thanks. Let's see what else you have here though.

If God created the universe, he did not do so via causality. It is nonsensical to suggest that he did, as I proved. Thus the cosmological first cause argument for theism is moronic, nonsensical, and doesn’t withstand casual scrutiny. God does not provide a better explanation for why we are here than no god.

Once again, this continues to be far-afield from gardens and trees and early nudist camps, but it is certainly a subject worth discussing further Start a new thread here (or two perhaps), and let's see who might like to join in. It could be fun, and I'm game if you are

Thanks!

--David

 

[Tawhano]

We both agree with each other so I guess we're done.

We are not in agreement, far from it. You equate the knowledge of good and evil with knowing right from wrong. I do not. I see them as completely different.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We are not in agreement, far from it. You equate the knowledge of good and evil with knowing right from wrong. I do not. I see them as completely different.

So they committed a wrong, and did so willfully, and they were punished (justly) for it even though they didn't understand what they did was evil. Is that your take?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, they were deceived .. Genesis 3:4 (well, at least Eve was anyway). At any rate, it seems they decided to believe what the snake was selling, that they'd end up being just like God if they ate what God told them not to (Genesis 3:5).

How were these ignorant beings supposed to know that they should trust God and not the serpent?

They willingly believed the snake's lie in hopes that what he promised would happen, instead of believing what God said would happen.

Same question.

I think I'll keep that one on deck, if that's ok with you? I'm still hoping you'll start the Logic v God thread

Could you let me in on what the point would be?

I'd say that because God cannot have caused the universe to exist, the mechanism by which he, or natural forces, brought the universe into existence is undetectable and undiscernible, and very well may remain so for the rest of time. In other words, if God did create the universe, we not only don't know how he did it but we lack the language to even describe what he did (since he cannot logically have caused it), and this same problem applies to the atheist worldview because if I'm saying the universe was not caused, yet exists, then I lack the language to explain what exactly happened. Yet after all this I still admit that God actually could've caused the universe to exist because God would not be bounded by the vacuous and arbitrary logic that we humans have invented, but this admission comes with nihilism stapled to it and so ultimately I'd win.

Creation of the universe ex nihilo is a cat's game. It's a game that Christians can only lose if they claim that God is a necessary causal agent. Such claims typically arise from the breed of Christian that thinks his faith is somehow rational or logical.

No, I said the Bible tells us all that we need to know to be saved. Please try to read what I write more carefully. Thanks! If I truly gave you that impression or actually wrote something to that effect I do apologize however!



It's covered in many places, but is especially and easily understood in verses like Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39, or if you prefer the Torah, try Leviticus 19:18. "Rape" cannot be justified as the commands to, "love your neighbor as yourself", and to always, "choose to treat others as you would have them treat you", declare that it is wrong, that it is a violation of God's law and therefore sinful.

Hmm, the ol' "Do unto others...". Let me ask you something. If "Do unto others..." and "Love your neighbor..." and other Jesus-isms suffice for the entire law in terms of interaction with other human beings, then why did God lay down those 600-something laws? Was he goofing around?

Why are there extremely specific laws, such as not to cook a goat in its mothers milk, and also very important laws, like not to murder, and yet no law against rape? I just want an explanation of this. Surely the concept of rape was not beyond them, as there was the rape of Dinah, the rape of Tamar, and the dusk-till-dawn-rape-to-death of the levite's concubine in Judges 19. So to summarize...

1. The Jews made 600+ Do and Don't laws
2. These laws were very specific
3. These laws covered minor and major offenses
4. The Jews were aware of what rape is
5. There is no law against rape

Also, slavery was explicitly allowed. Surely, since women are naturally weaker than men in the physical sense, female slaves are less desirable than male slaves. Yet female slaves were certainly owned, as there is a law on the books regarding fornication with them in Leviticus 19:20. So tell me, what do you think Jewish slave owners were doing with their female slaves? Whatever you're imagining these things might be, do you reckon they were consensual? Indeed, other than the "free" food and "free" shelter, I don't know if anything done to a slave is consensual.

Now that you have a picture in your head of the daily life for a female slave in Israel, can you point to a Jewish law that says there is a violation occurring? If you had a time machine and a translation machine, and you had a conversation with such a slave, what would you say? "Don't worry, in a thousand years the culture that is abusing you will provide you with a means of atonement for your offenses against the laws this culture invented"?

And of course, the abuse of female slaves extended somewhat to regular women, since there is, as I've said, no "Thou shalt not rape" law on the books. The only time a man is punished for raping a woman, as far as I know, is when the woman is married or betrothed to another man. If it is a virgin who is not betrothed, he has to marry her and may not divorce her. The text does not say that he may not continue to rape her. So... what do you think would happen if a man who raped a woman marries her? Would he suddenly be a charming husband to her?

If there is one thing that's clear from reading the Bible, it's that the ancient Jews actually made no distinction between consensual sex and rape. Coincidentally, the God of this patriarchal society is a man, and also the other God who is the same God is also a man.

Yes, we're pretty far off topic from apples and nude colonies, but I made the thread so there is no original poster that I am offending here.

Oh goodie, more "gotcha" statements and questions. So now we move from looking at the ways God tells us we need to relate to one another on a personal level, to needing to explain why what God commanded Joshua to do in battle doesn't fit the same criteria. No thanks. Let's see what else you have here though.

Battle? I hardly consider it to be battle when you are being told to slaughter the women and children together with the elderly and the livestock. The battle ends when the men surrender. It's generally a given that the unarmed children surrender. It is a mockery to refer to the genocides of Joshua as battles.

Once again, this continues to be far-afield from gardens and trees and early nudist camps, but it is certainly a subject worth discussing further Start a new thread here (or two perhaps), and let's see who might like to join in. It could be fun, and I'm game if you are

Thanks!

--David

I agree it's pretty far off topic. You've indicated interest in the logical absurdities as a thread, but I don't see much back-and-forth that can possibly arise from it. If you want to defend the Bible's treatment of women, I suppose that is thread worthy.