The trilemma all gods face

[Wootah]

Hi all,

It just seemed like a lot of people on the site were not familiar with the trilemma all gods worth following face. This is the trilemma of is the God good, is it just and is it loving.

So what's the issue.

If the God is good then it is just. If it is not just then it is not good.
If the God is just then it cannot be merciful. if the god wants to show mercy on someone then it is not being just. If it wants to be just then it is not being merciful.
If a Good is merciful then it is not being just and nor is it being good.

No god outside of God resolves this trilemma. For instance Allah is claimed to be just and merciful but never explains how it is being just or merciful when it shows mercy on someone. Worse since we know Allah is claimed to be merciful then we know Allah is not just or good. If a God is not good then there is nothing to trust and so why does anyone follow Allah? What proof is there that Allah actually is merciful.

So in Christianity the trilemma is resolved.

Mankind's sins require justice.
God justly sentences us to hell.
God also loves us and so pays for our sins.
Those that wish to accept that payment for their sins are able to justly go to heaven.
In this way God shows that he is good, just and loving.

Obviously the floor is open to disagreement or refinement of the above.

[Divine Insight]

An innocently wrong act is not a sin, only the intent to defy is a sin. To have the intent is to sin already without the act, as Jesus taught.

I would certainly agree with that assessment of "sin". I think that is actually the only definition that makes any sense at all. In fact, because of this actions alone cannot be said to be "sins". Only the intent behind the actions could be a "sin".

But that's whole other topic.

The question is, "Why follow the serpent?' Why think his suggestion to defy GOD was good since if they were not evil they would not be making an evil decision...

I don't see it that way. If Adam and Eve were unaware of the knowledge of good and evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then they could know know that to not follow the suggestions of God were "evil".

The story goes:
[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Notice what Eve said to the serpent here. We are not to eat of the this tree or touch it lest ye die.

There is no suggestion in any of this that it would be evil to do this, or even that God had necessarily commanded that they don't do it. On the contrary, all God said was if they did do it they would die.

The serpent tells Eve, "Ye shall not surely die".

Moreover, Eve doesn't yet have the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore she could not even comprehend the idea of lying. Especially as being something evil. So why should she believe that the serpent is telling anything other than the truth?

This is like telling an extremely young child not to go with strangers. Then a stranger comes along and tells the Child, "Oh I'm not a stranger I'm a friend of your dad, it's ok to come with me".

Could you then blame the innocent child for believing the stranger?

The child would already need to be savvy about "evil" before you could expect the child to suspect that someone might be a liar.

I have more to say about this after your next quote:

Since sin was proven, it is proper to believe that she knew she was breaking HIS rules / law but did it for a 'good' reason since she was not yet fallen....(unless she was).

Well this is problem I have with the rest of the story. It goes on,...

[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

And that's it. It doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying or trying to hide anything, or that she chose to willfully disobey God.

In fact, I always argue that Eve did everything right.

She ratted on the evil serpent. She was totally open with God and told God the truth and confess everything explaining that the evil serpent had beguiled her.

The Bible doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying about being beguiled.

Eve in no way refused to cooperate with God. She didn't deny her actions. She didn't refuse to repent. She didn't scream at God saying things like, "I'm sick and tired of your rules and I no longer want to do what you say!"

She did absolutely none of those things.

On the contrary, she did precisely what all good little Christian girls are taught to do. She told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She confessed her actions. She turned in all guilty parties and accomplices. And as far as I can see she was totally open to repentance for having made the mistake.

Moreover, go back to the analogy I had suggested before where you tell a very young child not to go with strangers, and then you discover that she went with a stranger. When you find your daughter and she tells you that the stranger said that it was ok to go with him because he was your friend, are you going to still chastise your daughter for not obeying your directives?

I just don't see where this story contains enough convincing details.

Now you may suggest that this trivial, but from my point of view this is not trivial at all, especially in a religion where this is the CORE of the whole religion.

This is far too important of an issue for a God to have merely passed over it with such a brief and unconvincing story. For crying out loud. Especially if he's going to have his only begotten son crucified by his own priests later in the story and demand that everyone accept this to pay for their "Fall".

This story of the fall should have been explained in great depth. It also should have made Eve out to purposefully and knowingly rebel against God where there is no question about it at all.

She should have been screaming at God,"Get away from me I never want to do anything you say, I hate you and I refuse to obey you!"

I mean seriously. This story of the "fall from grace" simply isn't convincing in a religion where it is the absolute foundation for all that follows.

As far as I can see Eve did everything you could ever wish for from a nice little Christian Girl.

And how does this God respond to her total confession of TRUTH?

[16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


What?

This nice little girl confessed everything to God. Ratted on the evil serpent, and explained that she had been innocently beguiled. And what does this God do?

He curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in childbirth and demands that she shall be ruled over by her husband (yet another person who also committed the very same sin!)

My thoughts at that point is basically GROSS OVERREACTION!

Not only does it seem to be a gross overreaction by God. But why also include the male chauvinism? Especially when Adam committed the same sin?

I also have a fundamental problem of any creator using the act of procreation (i.e. childbirth) as a weapon of punishment in any form. That seems highly immoral to me. Besides who is it that wants humans to procreate anyway? Is this really Eve's desire, or God's?

If I was Eve I would simply refuse to have anymore children at that point. I would tell God that if he wants more humans he can create them from dirt.

In short Ted, I have to ask myself, 'Which is more likely?"

1. That some actual all-wise, intelligent, and fair God had actually done this?

OR

2. That some male-chauvinistic pigs created this story in an effort to place women in a second-class position in society where the women must do everything the men say because God commanded this as a punishment to women because of Eve.

When I look at it this way #2 makes far more sense than #1.

So I have far more reason to believe that these stories were created by male chauvinistic men, than to believe that they had anything to do with any all-wise, fair and just God who overreacted to this situation and used childbirth and male-chauvinism as weapons of punishment.

Punishment to a nice girl like Eve who told the truth and confessed everything just like every little Christian girl is taught that Jesus wants them to do.

It just doesn't add up.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 141 by Divine Insight]

Its a false dichotomy being presented. Perhaps that is why you reason as you do? Your false dichotomy is limiting you from seeing other alternatives.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 141 by Divine Insight]

Its a false dichotomy being presented. Perhaps that is why you reason as you do? Your false dichotomy is limiting you from seeing other alternatives.

You haven't addressed any of my concerns. Nor have you offered any of these other alternatives that you claim are worthy of consideration.

Address my concerns:

1. Why would a God who knows that this fall from grace is such a huge foundational cornerstone of all that is to follow not explain this fall in more detail and more convincingly?

2. Why does this story have Eve confessing everything and not rebelling against God herself? Why is she behaving precisely the way a good little Christian girl is taught to behave yet not receiving forgiveness for having repented?

3. Why does this God use procreation as a weapon of punishment?

4. Why does this God proclaim male chauvinism as part of this punishment when Adam was just as guilty?

5. Why should it make more sense to believe that some all-wise, all-merciful, and all just God is behind this and not that it's just a male-chauvinistic story made up by men?

This dichotomy is real. The question is a dichotomy.

Were these stories the actions and behaviors of a God? Or where they the fables of men?

Those are really the only two choices we have. So it's a real dichotomy.

Either this is a story of a God, or it's a fib made up by men.

What other alternatives are there?

And given those two alternatives, for me, it makes far more sense that these fables were made up by male-chauvinistic men, than it does to believe that they were the behavior of any supposedly all-wise God.

Your claim that this is a "False Dichotomy" doesn't hold water.

These are only two possibilities unless you want to include truly outrageous options like maybe aliens came to earth and made up the story.

But it would even be hard for me to believe that aliens made up such a male-chauvinistic story.

I mean let's face it, the motivation for male-chauvinism points to men having made up the story. At least in that case we not only have the crime, but we have a motive as well.

If a God did it the motive makes no sense. Why would a God curse Eve with sorrow in childbirth? And why would God condone male-chauvinism when Adam was just as guilty?

You'll need to do some explaining yourself. You can't just claim that I've created a false dichotomy with no arguments to support your views.

What other options are there? Either the Bible describes the behavior of a God, or it was fables made up by men.

The dichotomy is real.

[ttruscott]

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

The logical interpretation is that HE wanted them to face the serpent on their own for some reason.

How is that not entrapment (A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case)?

It was not entrapment because HE was not enticing them to sin but it was therapeutic in that HE was trying to get them to understand that they were already sinners by letting them sin...a fact they rejected as shown by their not being ashamed of their sin, that is, their nakedness. Did you read my whole post or just jump to a knee jerk reaction???

According to the story the entire scene was God's making (including the serpent, the tree, and nakedness) and A&E were ignorant of good and evil and were entrapped by an agent created by God (who supposedly is all knowing) into eating from a tree provided by God -- a clear case of entrapment by a supposedly loving entity (a clear case of deception in advertising).

I am not quibbling about your interpretation which is one of many but I wonder why you give my interpretation which is just as plausible such short shrift... "According to the story" is disingenuous at best as it implies only you have the correct interpretation of the story but you only have one of many.

Moreover, if humans themselves aren't evil but instead they are just being constantly deceived and beguiled by evil demons then why blame the humans. Obviously humans are just dust in the wind and they are so extremely innocent and naive that they can be persuaded to do anything by anyone.

Yes, correct. The focus of the story is not their being deceived but of having their eyes opened to the sin they arrived in the garden with, their nakedness.

If A&E arrived at the garden in the "sin" of nakedness, WHO exactly arranged for them to arrive naked?

They arranged themselves to be sinful and evil (ie, naked) by their free will decision to stand against GOD after accepting HIM as their GOD and being chosen to be HIS elect.

Their arrival was GOD's work for them to reach repentance for their evil and to seek redemption...which worked out just fine.

By what standard is nudity a "sin?"

Obviously you do not read my posts...makes it a bit hard, no?

Here is my quote, bold is in the original:

It does not say they became evil though that is the current favourite explanation of what happened, because it says clearly that they became aware of their nakedness which they had before they ate...and since being nude is no sin then nakedness must be being used in its symbolic sense of being unclothed before GOD by sin.

<headshake, facepalm>

Yes, an obvious conclusion for the orthodox interpretation of the story which is blatantly false but ignored, and why I reject their version and like mine better. It shows a logically consistent story.

A story that is logically consistent need not be truthful or accurate.

Very true - there is no proof in this world.

An alternative to accepting or rejecting the story is to conclude that it is religious myth, legend, folklore, parable, etc.

Indeed, and good luck with that,

Peace, Ted

[Korah]

So you prefer the other horn to be gored with? That Hyper-Calvinism and Predestination gives humans total excuse and carte-blanche entry into Heaven?

To begin with I have no reason to believe that humans will be transferred upon their death to either a state of extreme anguish and damnation or a state of total bliss in a perfect paradise. And all of that based upon how they behaved in a very brief and confusing human lifespan. A lifespan that is even cut very short for quite many humans? No, that's absurd.

I realize that you disagree with me, D.I., but your reason for doing so is ludicrous in the context of your opponent (me) being a person who believes we have a long history of prior lives upon which to be judged.

ERRATA NOTE: THIS QUOTE IS NOT FROM CNORMAN! IT IS MINE (KORAH)
Since you preferred to attack only the other horn of the dilemma, I take it you find Determinism sufficiently explains and excuses the human condition. That worked for me in 1970, but I've had lots of major experiences since then that indicate humanity is more complicated than that, such as three (so far) major theological revampings.

I can't continue this reply that got my statements attritibuted to cnorman, do I'll close with observing how little D. I. understands how little he understands me and how limited is his worldview.
My #137 commented on D. I.'s #135, but his #137 partially attributed my #135 quotes as if from cnorman.

[ttruscott]

...

The serpent tells Eve, "Ye shall not surely die".

Moreover, Eve doesn't yet have the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore she could not even comprehend the idea of lying. Especially as being something evil. So why should she believe that the serpent is telling anything other than the truth?

This is like telling an extremely young child not to go with strangers. Then a stranger comes along and tells the Child, "Oh I'm not a stranger I'm a friend of your dad, it's ok to come with me".

Could you then blame the innocent child for believing the stranger?

You paint a very correct picture except it leaves GOD out. Would you let your child be beguiled by a con artist without 1. keeping the con out of your garden and 2. warning her against him?

The fact that GOD MUST have done both of these things (allowed the serpent access to them and not warning her of her danger) must be accounted for by something a bit more integral to the story than HE is a monster and trying to destroy HIS creation.

The child would already need to be savvy about "evil" before you could expect the child to suspect that someone might be a liar.

I agree but that too has a pitfall in that if she was sinful, that is, naked and blind Rev 3:17, then she was addicted to evil and would automatically reject HIS estimation of her sinfulness and HIS warnings about her inability to see the serpent as he really was (spiritually blind) as shown by her being not ashamed of all this, then the story would play out just as written so her eyes would be opened.

And IF she was innocent and newly created with no way to protect herself, GOD would have done that for her and since HE didn't, HE is a monster or a tough love parent.

Well this is problem I have with the rest of the story. It goes on,...

[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

And that's it. It doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying or trying to hide anything, or that she chose to willfully disobey God.

In fact, I always argue that Eve did everything right.

Not hardly - she did eat against HIS command: Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... and thinking the addendum about consequences mitigates the command is ...???

She ratted on the evil serpent. She was totally open with God and told God the truth and confess everything explaining that the evil serpent had beguiled her.

The Bible doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying about being beguiled.

No, she did not lie about the serpent's influence but that is just an excuse - for what ever reason she did disobey GOD against HIS COMMAND:

Eve in no way refused to cooperate with God. She didn't deny her actions. She didn't refuse to repent. She didn't scream at God saying things like, "I'm sick and tired of your rules and I no longer want to do what you say!"

She did absolutely none of those things.

None of these red herrings is the point. A command was given and it was broken...

Moreover, go back to the analogy I had suggested before where you tell a very young child not to go with strangers, and then you discover that she went with a stranger. When you find your daughter and she tells you that the stranger said that it was ok to go with him because he was your friend, are you going to still chastise your daughter for not obeying your directives?

I have already expressed my opinion that contrary to your opinion she was not a young girl nor innocent but a sinful lady of many years.

In short Ted, I have to ask myself, 'Which is more likely?"

1. That some actual all-wise, intelligent, and fair God had actually done this?

OR

2. That some male-chauvinistic pigs created this story in an effort to place women in a second-class position in society where the women must do everything the men say because God commanded this as a punishment to women because of Eve.

When I look at it this way #2 makes far more sense than #1.

Your prerogative and if I may, good luck with that,

peace, Ted

[mwtech]

I have already expressed my opinion that contrary to your opinion she was not a young girl nor innocent but a sinful lady of many years.

Firstly, what reason is there to actually believe this?
Secondly, Even if she had sinned in some past life, she would have had no memory of that in this life. She is still just as innocent in thought as anyone else at birth. How does a forgotten past life justify anything that happens in the current one?

[Zzyzx]

.

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

The logical interpretation is that HE wanted them to face the serpent on their own for some reason.

How is that not entrapment (A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case)?

It was not entrapment because HE was not enticing them to sin

Notice that the definition of entrapment includes "or their agents." The supposed serpent was an agent placed by God (who is credited with creating all things and managing affairs of the universe).

but it was therapeutic in that HE was trying to get them to understand

HOW, exactly, do YOU know what God intended or did? Did he tell someone? OR, is that just another guess / conjecture / supposition?

that they were already sinners by letting them sin..

Let's see . . . . a god supposedly creates two humans without knowledge of good and evil; however, he creates them as "sinners" (already, per-serpent), then has his agent (serpent) entrap them into "sinning" (disobeying God) so they will realize they were created as sinners.

Is that about how it works according to your "interpretation?"

.a fact they rejected as shown by their not being ashamed of their sin, that is, their nakedness.

What "sin" had they committed prior to the serpent incident -- and how is that known?

Did you read my whole post or just jump to a knee jerk reaction???

Perhaps I get distracted by overuse of red to emphasize non-points or bible quotations and the lack of substantive matter or answers to critical questions.

According to the story the entire scene was God's making (including the serpent, the tree, and nakedness) and A&E were ignorant of good and evil and were entrapped by an agent created by God (who supposedly is all knowing) into eating from a tree provided by God -- a clear case of entrapment by a supposedly loving entity (a clear case of deception in advertising).

I am not quibbling about your interpretation which is one of many but I wonder why you give my interpretation which is just as plausible such short shrift... "According to the story" is disingenuous at best as it implies only you have the correct interpretation of the story but you only have one of many.

I have no "interpretation" of the story but simply read what is written. If a source does not mean what it says and say what it means, it is not credible in my view.

If a story has multiple "interpretations" of what is actually said, I give NONE of them preference.

Moreover, if humans themselves aren't evil but instead they are just being constantly deceived and beguiled by evil demons then why blame the humans. Obviously humans are just dust in the wind and they are so extremely innocent and naive that they can be persuaded to do anything by anyone.

Yes, correct. The focus of the story is not their being deceived but of having their eyes opened to the sin they arrived in the garden with, their nakedness.

If A&E arrived at the garden in the "sin" of nakedness, WHO exactly arranged for them to arrive naked?

They arranged themselves to be sinful [/b]and evil (ie, naked) by their free will decision to stand against GOD after accepting HIM as their GOD and being chosen to be HIS elect.

WHEN and HOW, exactly, did they "stand against God" before the serpent incident (according to the story).

Had they already been disobeying God (according to the story)? Where is that written " or how do you know such a thing? Is that an "interpretation" of what is NOT written (i.e. pure conjecture / guesswork)?

Who, exactly, are "his elect" and how is that determined?

Their arrival was GOD's work for them to reach repentance for their evil and to seek redemption...which worked out just fine.

The "arrival" of A&E in the garden (according to the tale) was by being created by God. Right?

Evidently, then, God created them as sinners.

By what standard is nudity a "sin?"

Obviously you do not read my posts...makes it a bit hard, no?

It is certainly not difficult to see defects in the claims and statements.

Here is my quote, bold is in the original:

That you choose to bold (and or color) a part of your response is no indication that it is significant or meaningful in any way (outside of church).

It does not say they became evil though that is the current favourite explanation of what happened, because it says clearly that they became aware of their nakedness which they had before they ate...and since being nude is no sin then nakedness must be being used in its symbolic sense of being unclothed before GOD by sin.

It is not uncommon for bible believers / defenders to claim "symbolic sense" for some things and "literal sense" for others " with NO WAY offered to distinguish which is correct when.

Yes, an obvious conclusion for the orthodox interpretation of the story which is blatantly false but ignored, and why I reject their version and like mine better. It shows a logically consistent story.

A story that is logically consistent need not be truthful or accurate.

Very true - there is no proof in this world.

Religionists often claim "there is no proof of anything" as a cover or excuse for their lack of credible verification of their stories and claims.

To that I respond, "Absolute proof may be elusive, but RATIONAL proof is not. How much proof do you need to convince you that stepping off a high cliff unaided will produce undesirable consequences?"

Let's apply that concept to unverified / unverifiable stories and claims (religious or not). What rational proof exists that there are undesirable consequences for "sins" against one of the "gods?"

An alternative to accepting or rejecting the story is to conclude that it is religious myth, legend, folklore, parable, etc.

Indeed, and good luck with that,

"Luck" is not required in refusing to accept religious myth, legend, folklore, parable, etc. The threatened "consequence" is claimed to be upon a "soul" (that cannot be shown to exist) in an "afterlife" (that cannot be shown to exist).

The real world "consequence" is to raise the ire of religionists who insist they know about things supernatural (that cannot be shown to be anything more substantial than imagination and opinion).

[Divine Insight]

You paint a very correct picture except it leaves GOD out. Would you let your child be beguiled by a con artist without 1. keeping the con out of your garden and 2. warning her against him?

The fact that GOD MUST have done both of these things (allowed the serpent access to them and not warning her of her danger) must be accounted for by something a bit more integral to the story than HE is a monster and trying to destroy HIS creation.

Or we could just acknowledge that the story was never anything but fiction to begin with. This removes any need for further explanations and excuses.

The problem I have Ted is that these stories don't even try to justify this situation with more details. It would seem to me that if some God was attempting to convey this story to humans he would indeed explain things more clearly. The fact that this is not the case, is "evidence" that suggests to me that these stories were simply written by men who weren't making up very good stories.

And that explains everything with no reason to question them further.

It only become problematic when you insist that this God must be real.

The child would already need to be savvy about "evil" before you could expect the child to suspect that someone might be a liar.

I agree but that too has a pitfall in that if she was sinful, that is, naked and blind Rev 3:17, then she was addicted to evil and would automatically reject HIS estimation of her sinfulness and HIS warnings about her inability to see the serpent as he really was (spiritually blind) as shown by her being not ashamed of all this, then the story would play out just as written so her eyes would be opened.

And IF she was innocent and newly created with no way to protect herself, GOD would have done that for her and since HE didn't, HE is a monster or a tough love parent.

But therein lies the problem Ted. In order for you to make sense of these stories you need to make up a whole lot of explanatory excuses for them. I see also that you have referenced Revelations as part of this explanation. But revelations is the last book of the New Testament written by John. So for thousands of years this story would have been without any explanation for all the people who lived prior to John's revelations.

Well this is problem I have with the rest of the story. It goes on,...

[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

And that's it. It doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying or trying to hide anything, or that she chose to willfully disobey God.

In fact, I always argue that Eve did everything right.

Not hardly - she did eat against HIS command: Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... and thinking the addendum about consequences mitigates the command is ...???

But that's irrelevant. Where was it ever explained to Eve that she necessarily needs to do everything that God commands anyway? She's supposed to be innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. If she fully understood that not obeying the commandments of God was "evil" then she'd already have a knowledge of Good and Evil.

In fact, in this religion disobedience of God's directives and commandments is the very meaning of Evil. If God allows it it's Good, if God forbids it it's Evil. That is the very meaning of Good and Evil in this religion. So if Eve had no clue of Good and Evil then she couldn't have understood that do no do as God has commanded would be evil.

Again, a flaw in the story. If men made it up the flaw is perfectly explained. Men make mistakes and this explains why the story makes no sense.

But if we want to keep attributing this to a real God we're back in the boat of having to come up with all manner of excuses for why this makes no sense.

She ratted on the evil serpent. She was totally open with God and told God the truth and confess everything explaining that the evil serpent had beguiled her.

The Bible doesn't even suggest that Eve was lying about being beguiled.

No, she did not lie about the serpent's influence but that is just an excuse - for what ever reason she did disobey GOD against HIS COMMAND:

So what? That's meaningless in this story because of two things:

1. Eve did not yet have the knowledge of Good and Evil. And therefore she could not have known that disobeying Gods' "COMMANDS" equates to being evil.

2. She also could not have any concept of lying since lying is also evil. So she would have no reason to suspect that the serpent was lying to her.

Her innocence would be pure.

Again, as man made stories the explanation is simple. Men simply didn't think of all these contradictions in their stories.

But if we insist that there is an actual all-wise God associated with these stories we must come up with all manner of extra excuses for these contradictions.

Eve in no way refused to cooperate with God. She didn't deny her actions. She didn't refuse to repent. She didn't scream at God saying things like, "I'm sick and tired of your rules and I no longer want to do what you say!"

She did absolutely none of those things.

None of these red herrings is the point. A command was given and it was broken...

But that already doesn't fly. If Eve was that savvy about commands being broken equating to evil then she would have already had the knowledge of good and evil prior to having eaten the forbidden fruit.

This is a major flaw in this story Ted.

The conclusion that men made it up explains the flaw and there is no longer any questions everything has been resolved. It's just a poorly thought out story.

To keep defending that some all-wise all-intelligent God was behind these stories retains extreme problems.

Evidently you aren't seeing the problem here. But for me to believe that this story had anything to do with any God it would need to be a story where Eve knew full well what she was doing. Not a story where she innocently proclaims to have been beguiled by a serpent and she didn't know any better.

The story doesn't stack up. It's grossly flawed. Thus it must be the invention of mortal men.

Moreover, go back to the analogy I had suggested before where you tell a very young child not to go with strangers, and then you discover that she went with a stranger. When you find your daughter and she tells you that the stranger said that it was ok to go with him because he was your friend, are you going to still chastise your daughter for not obeying your directives?

I have already expressed my opinion that contrary to your opinion she was not a young girl nor innocent but a sinful lady of many years.

But that's not the biblical story. Where are you coming up with all this extra information that isn't in the Genesis story?

In fact, Genesis has Eve being freshly created from a rib of Adam. So I hold that your excuses for this story don't even remotely fit the story given in Genesis. You have Eve being a sinful lady of many years. That's not biblical.

In short Ted, I have to ask myself, 'Which is more likely?"

1. That some actual all-wise, intelligent, and fair God had actually done this?

OR

2. That some male-chauvinistic pigs created this story in an effort to place women in a second-class position in society where the women must do everything the men say because God commanded this as a punishment to women because of Eve.

When I look at it this way #2 makes far more sense than #1.

Your prerogative and if I may, good luck with that,

peace, Ted

Well, I think even you have made it clear that to go with #1 requires endless excuses to justify the story.

#2 requires no excuses at all. #2 explains everything completely in full with no need for any further explanations.

[ttruscott]

I have already expressed my opinion that contrary to your opinion she was not a young girl nor innocent but a sinful lady of many years.

Firstly, what reason is there to actually believe this?

I find the Bible to be a credible witness of reality and believe it attests to our pre-conception existence.

Secondly, Even if she had sinned in some past life, she would have had no memory of that in this life.

While there is no proof of this assertion in scripture (and their experience in the garden was vastly different than our experiences in modern life) I suggest you might be right and that is why she rejected the depiction of herself as sinful, needing redemption.

She is still just as innocent in thought as anyone else at birth.

"innocent in thought" has no theological meaning to me...

How does a forgotten past life justify anything that happens in the current one?

Does repressing the memory of your crime absolve you of guilt? But hey, her eyes were opened to her repressed crime of being naked, not her new crime of eating because naked refers to her sinful nature, not the act of any particular sin. We are guilty for what we self create ourselves to be when we become sinful, not just for the act that self created us that way...

Peace, Ted