Questions About Adam and Eve

[Rashiminos]

Knowledge starts somewhere. I suppose lying about it may work in certain circumstances. I don't think one needs an explanation though, especially if one is just lying about it.

So you're saying you don't need an explanation?

If God alone is, then what else exist? Now if there is no imagination, I am sure we can figure something out eventually.

If God was alone we wouldn't be here.

At least a slave can eat the fruits of their work. You may have a point there.

A slave is only allowed the portion of the fruits permitted by the master.

I am clueless why every one knows what actually happened.

They don't, but they think they do.

We are sticking with the idea that Adam actually knew what he was getting into and did it any way? I thought everything was pre-determined and Adam had no choice.

Adam and Eve both found the fruit to be very tempting, indeed.

Does any rational entity have an imagination?

There seem to be an awful lot of beings mucking about with active imaginations. I suppose we could call them all irrational to suit our argument.

Perhaps a better quandary would be, can God control his thoughts? If God knows everything and everything consist within God, does God have any control? If God has an imagination, can he stop it from happening?

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Then one still has a choice.

Yes.

*

Spoiler :

Nothing to see here.

*

The only way a person can be righteous before God is by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even our "best" works are simply not enough and in fact God compares them to menstrual rags in Isaiah 64:6. That is the idea behind filthy rags in that passage. We can never measure up to God.

By that metric his crucifiers were righteous. They shed his blood and consecrated the ground beneath his nailed, hanged body with it. Why measure up to God when you can take the son and fertilize the ground with him? (and then just apply Matthew 25:40, for 'righteous' measure).

 

[Birdjaguar]

If God alone is, then what else exist? Now if there is no imagination, I am sure we can figure something out eventually.

If God was alone we wouldn't be here.

If god alone is (eternal, infinitive, permanent and unchanging), then nothing else actually exists and what we experience is ephemeral, finite and changing. The human experience would be illusory from God's perspective in spite of it seeming so real to us. the physical existence of creation would be more like a dream of god.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If god alone is (eternal, infinitive, permanent and unchanging), then nothing else actually exists and what we experience is ephemeral, finite and changing. The human experience would be illusory from God's perspective in spite of it seeming so real to us. the physical existence of creation would be more like a dream of god.

Thats a bit illogical. Maybe better to say that if God alone exist then what we experience and see as finite and limited are in fact only a fragments and parts of many sided infinite and eternal reality we call God.
Human experience then isnt illusory neither is the world only it doesnt represent (as we see and understand it right now) reality in its totality. So God in this respect is bound to view human beings as another God (God in making) or portion of Itself.

 

[Rashiminos]

If god alone is (eternal, infinitive, permanent and unchanging), then nothing else actually exists and what we experience is ephemeral, finite and changing. The human experience would be illusory from God's perspective in spite of it seeming so real to us. the physical existence of creation would be more like a dream of god.

So are we saying God is alone outside the context of the dream, inside the context of the dream, or some other context?

 

[timtofly]

Thats a bit illogical. Maybe better to say that if God alone exist then what we experience and see as finite and limited are in fact only a fragments and parts of many sided infinite and eternal reality we call God.
Human experience then isnt illusory neither is the world only it doesnt represent (as we see and understand it right now) reality in its totality. So God in this respect is bound to view human beings as another God (God in making) or portion of Itself.

This would be the difference between God and the PV. Not everything about God is logical especially from a human perspective.

So are we saying is alone outside the context of the dream, inside the context of the dream, or some other context?

Everything is God. It is only humans who try to brake God down into a convenient understandable process. (this is not wrong btw, but can produce interesting outcomes) The answer is yes, one does not need an explanation. That does not alter the fact that we can ask for one, demand one, or refuse to obey without one. Believe it or not we still have freedom and choices. Remember that we still use the excuse of being in the "image" of God and who we are and everything that we experience; we are projecting onto God also.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thats a bit illogical. Maybe better to say that if God alone exist then what we experience and see as finite and limited are in fact only a fragments and parts of many sided infinite and eternal reality we call God.
Human experience then isnt illusory neither is the world only it doesnt represent (as we see and understand it right now) reality in its totality. So God in this respect is bound to view human beings as another God (God in making) or portion of Itself.

As is usual, it comes down to definitions.

REAL: permanent and unchanging
real: something that appears to living things to be part of their world. Typically, they can be measured or experienced.

If god alone is and is REAL (and I've defined god as that which is eternal, infinitive, permanent and unchanging), then everything that is finite and limited is only real. The all encompassing god cannot not be parsed or divided. The limited consciousness of such things as people cannot be a fragment of god which as been and always will be all that is. We as people experience individuality, separateness and change as if it were real. Our experiences are not REAL. They only appear real to us. They are merely an illusion, a product of our limited capabilities.

If human experience isn't illusory, then what is it? is it REAL? real? If god can be divided into pieces, then what happens when a one of those pieces goes away? How would you define god?

So are we saying God is alone outside the context of the dream, inside the context of the dream, or some other context?

I would say that god alone is. The poor dream analogy is only useful as a tool to point at the realtionship between god and creation in a manner that is familiar to us. Within a dream everything seems real and even the illogical is accepted as OK. But when you are conscious and awake, you realize that the dream was just a dream and not real at all. We are the dream. We experience the dream as real even when it is not. For god dreams are not REAL.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Oh my God, I have re-read your post and I totaly agree with it.

If human experience isn't illusory, then what is it? is it REAL? real? If god can be divided into pieces, then what happens when a one of those pieces goes away? How would you define god?

When you take a portion of infinity away infinity remains.

Human experience is also Gods experience. So its probably REAL, real and illusory all in the same time...

 

[Borachio]

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form
Emptiness is not separate from form, form is not separate from emptiness
Whatever is form is emptiness, whatever is emptiness is form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā

 

[Perfection]

If god can be divided into pieces, then what happens when a one of those pieces goes away?

Humans can be divided into pieces...

 

[Berzerker]

What is the basis for Adam and Eve being mortal?

dust to dust

God is a spirit is the closest physical description we have. Most would not call a spirit a physical entity. Therefore God cannot have an image. I apologize if that was not clear in my first post. There is only one God. Even Rashiminos in all hinting has not provided proof of other Gods.

God said let us make man in our image - God has an image and so do his friends

God does not fear anything. He did put the tree in the garden.

God feared Adam and Eve's immortality + knowledge and God feared the people building the Tower of Babel - thats why God acted to deny all three.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

God feared what they'd achieve

Where is the proof that Adam had to work?

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Who said Adam knew? All Adam needed to know was not to eat. That reasoning is similar to having faith for no other reason than to have faith. We know what disobedience is, but even the act of eating (in disobedience) stands without the disobedience part.

Adam didn't know right from wrong, disobedience requires that knowledge

 

[Birdjaguar]

Humans can be divided into pieces...

Yes they can. In fact, probably anything in the physical universe can be parsed.

 

[timtofly]

dust to dust


God said let us make man in our image - God has an image and so do his friends


God feared Adam and Eve's immortality + knowledge and God feared the people building the Tower of Babel - thats why God acted to deny all three.


God feared what they'd achieve


Adam didn't know right from wrong, disobedience requires that knowledge

How many humans went back to dust before Adam ate the "fruit"? I would also add how many of the original created humans went back to dust? As far as we know they were still alive at the time of the Flood and drowned. Or they escaped the Flood and are still alive today. It is mere speculation that Adam or the other originals needed to eat from the Tree Of Life. Adam seemed to need it after he was blocked from the Garden. There is no case for needing it before that though.

God has three parts. The Father, Son and Spirit. Is that the image you are referring to? Apes, orangutans, and monkeys have similar body structures are they also created in God's image? What really is (to you) God's image that we are attempting to put a definition to? God does not have an image because we do. Those first humans were created like God, so that God could have a close relationship with them. Adam walked and talked with God on a daily basis.

It seems that whatever Adam was (God's image) was lost (as dead) when Adam ate the fruit. In fact Adam could no longer communicate with God on an equal basis. We want to claim that Adam did not die, because he still breathed, but the death was more than likely that image he originally had no longer existed. It died.

It is possible that if Adam had kept a Godlike existence and choose to be evil, humans would just be like satan and attempt to overthrow God, just like satan tried to do.

Fear is a reaction but so is joy. Perhaps God was over joyed that Adam ate the fruit, and humans built the tower. He rewarded both parties by giving them more hurdles to jump. The next time humans do the impossible, God will once more be pleased and destroy this great existence of the current universe. I don't think that God fears humans, since he can easily destroy them at will.

So you are saying that eating the fruit had no consequences, since Adam had no knowledge of what he was doing? I agree that Adam had no knowledge of right and wrong, but eating something one is told not too, can still happen, even if one does not know that he was being disobedient.

 

[warpus]

I agree that Adam had no knowledge of right and wrong, but eating something one is told not too, can still happen, even if one does not know that he was being disobedient.

Of course, it's like an infant throwing up on your favourite shirt.

You can get mad all you want, but the infant does not understand the difference between good and bad, so punishing him or her for it would be.. silly. It happens, like you said. You clean up your shirt and move on.

 

[timtofly]

If one was wiser, one would have aborted the infant? God put the tree there, and it seems for no good reason. For one could say, God murdered the infant and did move on without it.

 

[warpus]

My.. er.. I.. uh.. wait. No.

 

[timtofly]

It does not work well as an analogy either.

 

[Berzerker]

How many humans went back to dust before Adam ate the "fruit"? I would also add how many of the original created humans went back to dust? As far as we know they were still alive at the time of the Flood and drowned. Or they escaped the Flood and are still alive today. It is mere speculation that Adam or the other originals needed to eat from the Tree Of Life. Adam seemed to need it after he was blocked from the Garden. There is no case for needing it before that though.

Except for those alive at the time, all of them died. And the tree of life was in the Garden, so only Adam and Eve had access.

God has three parts. The Father, Son and Spirit. Is that the image you are referring to? Apes, orangutans, and monkeys have similar body structures are they also created in God's image? What really is (to you) God's image that we are attempting to put a definition to? God does not have an image because we do. Those first humans were created like God, so that God could have a close relationship with them. Adam walked and talked with God on a daily basis.

Apes aint bipedal, but the gods made them male and female, that means there were goddesses among the "us".

It seems that whatever Adam was (God's image) was lost (as dead) when Adam ate the fruit. In fact Adam could no longer communicate with God on an equal basis. We want to claim that Adam did not die, because he still breathed, but the death was more than likely that image he originally had no longer existed. It died.

They were never on an equal basis, Adam was a slave

It is possible that if Adam had kept a Godlike existence and choose to be evil, humans would just be like satan and attempt to overthrow God, just like satan tried to do.

Where did Adam choose to be evil? And Adam only became "god-like" after the knowledge.

Fear is a reaction but so is joy. Perhaps God was over joyed that Adam ate the fruit, and humans built the tower.

Apparently the serpent was happy, God cursed everyone - he wasn't happy.

He rewarded both parties by giving them more hurdles to jump. The next time humans do the impossible, God will once more be pleased and destroy this great existence of the current universe. I don't think that God fears humans, since he can easily destroy them at will.

Slave masters can destroy slaves and occasionally did for fear of rebellion.

So you are saying that eating the fruit had no consequences, since Adam had no knowledge of what he was doing? I agree that Adam had no knowledge of right and wrong, but eating something one is told not too, can still happen, even if one does not know that he was being disobedient.

Then God kicked them out for some reason other than disobedience, Like I said - to prevent them from obtaining both immortality and knowledge.

 

[timtofly]

All I can say is, that is a lot of reading between the lines of the first few chapters of Genesis. I am not privy to all that information.

 

[Perfection]

Yes they can. In fact, probably anything in the physical universe can be parsed.

Why can't God?

 

[Borachio]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377341/

XY pairs have a little bit of homology. A little bit of X1 has homology to Y1 and then Y1 at the other end has a little bit of homology to X2 and then the other end of X2 is homologous to Y2. So these pseudoautosomal regions pair, and at meiosis you can actually see ten chromosomes in a chain—XYXYXY, etc. How they segregate is a mystery—we've never actually caught them at anaphase, but we think all the X's must go one way and all the Y's the other, because we've never actually seen a sperm or spermatocyte with both X's and Y's in them.

But we're not so surprised because there are multiple chromosomes in some plants like the evening primrose, and in some spiders. It seems to have happened when two different chromosomes swap bits and must pair in a chain of four, and then one of these swaps bits, and so on. Functionally quite crazy, but once it happens, it is stuck, and must make the best of it.

It really amused me to be told once that our Nature paper on platypus sex chromosomes was featured on the “Discovery” Web site. And I said, “Oh, that's wonderful,” and they said, “Well maybe you don't know that the Discovery Web site is creationist, and your paper is put on there as an example of intelligent design!”

I said, “That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!” And that was the inspiration for my “dumb design” Web site, which I'm setting up now with my L'Oreal prize money, as examples of how evolution can explain things very simply that seem to make no functional sense at all. So that's going to be my first example, of something that happened once, accidentally, that now can't un-happen, but how systems work around these accidents to make the best of a bad job.

It truly distresses me to see kids being brought up to believe in utter nonsense [creationism/intelligent design].