Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle  Learn more Countdown to Prime Day Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God's glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God's second command to accomplish the first.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 169 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 18:29:22 BDT
Heretic says:
Henry James says: "apropos OB Everything evolves. Whether it wants to or not."

Isn't fundamentalism evidence of devolution?

:->>

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 18:35:34 BDT
I think it is now more confusing than ever. A & E are not named until Genesis 2, yet you have them being told to reproduce in Genesis 1.

There is also no reason why Adam and Eve could not reproduce in the Garden of Eden - one of the punishments for the fall is Labour pains, not birth.

Additionally, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different accounts, they do not necessarily follow chronologically from one another, which is partly how you seem to get your discrepancy.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 18:52:34 BDT
Kleist says:
'Adam had to eat of the tree of knowledge before he could reproduce or develop the desire for reproduction and sex. After all, desires and sex both have good and evil sides so Adam could not have done either without the knowledge of good and evil.'

If you gave a Lacanian reading of the myth then this is not strictly correct. Animals reproduce by means of sex and undoubtedly fulfil an urge in doing so. This need not be pleasurable. And for Lacan it is not. Because he would not identify this urge with desire, which only arises with the advent of what he calls the 'symbolic order' (language and other forms of symbolism which are essential for knowledge in the human sense).

So Adam could certainly have reproduced without having any desire in the Lacanian sense. Desire is here understood as having an urge toward that for which one does not, in the strict sense, have a need. It specifies the difference between sex and eroticism, eating and dining, and strict utility and the opulent enjoyment of wealth and comfort.

So on this reading it is not the case that : 'Adam and Eve's eyes had to be opened before sex.' Sex is possible before the sexual act took on the form of the erotic and thus of shame. The animal can feel no shame because in order to do this one needs to re-cognise oneself as desiring or a possible object of desire.

Just a thought, and in no sense intended as an explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 22:11:08 BDT
Henry James says:
SWH
Just to be pedantic (again!)
evolution does not imply a "positive" direction.

"Devolution" is still evolution.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 06:25:31 BDT
Heretic says:
Henry James says: [SWH Just to be pedantic (again!) evolution does not imply a "positive" direction." "Devolution" is still evolution.]

Touché

:->>

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 08:37:06 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
"one of the punishments for the fall is Labour pains, not birth."

I don't know if this was intentional but your upper case "L" renders this very funny.

Incidentally, Wayne, I hate to dispel your illusions but perhaps you should be told that Genesis 1 AND Genesis 2 ( and Genesises 3, 4 etc. etc.) are stories - not accounts of anything that actually happened.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 08:44:34 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:11:33 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 08:52:47 BDT
Kleist says:
It may contain important 'truths' without thereby being a factual account of historical events. Just as fables, great literature, poetry and even sometimes jokes do. There again, it might not. But we won't know unless we think about it.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 09:09:18 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 09:15:23 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:11:42 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 09:17:20 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Proof prayer doesn't work right there.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 09:22:21 BDT
J Doyle says:
1. What is amazing about a plan to make the majority of human beings suffer for eternity?
2. Why doesn't prayer work the way Jesus said it would?
3. Why didn't Jesus come back as he said he would?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 09:24:53 BDT
and god, being god, would know exactly what would happen so not really much of a test!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 09:51:48 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"It was a simple test of obedience. Adam and Eve failed it..."
Because they weren't able to appreciate good and evil therefore had no means to evaluate commands.

"I encourage you to read the rest of the bible to see how it pans out, and you will discover God's amazing plan to restore His creation, through His Son Jesus Christ."
In the face of evangelicalism it's a reasonable assumption to think that the contents of the Bible are widely known, especially the resurrection bit therefore any pretence to the idea that criticism of it comes from ignorance is bust. It wasn't even a sensible rescue plan let alone an amazing one.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 14:41:17 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 14:44:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 14:45:37 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I think you'll probably find you get similar results where no prayer is involved.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 15:08:57 BDT
Withnail says:
When I was a child I was told God answers prayers 3 ways -

Yes
No
Not Now

It is only in later life that I realised that is exactly the same as a random reply.

You might as well shut your eyes, put your hands together and hope for the best.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 15:26:20 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:11:58 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:09:09 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:12:15 BDT
Henry James says:
Jo asks: Without the knowledge of 'Good and Evil' how were they supposed to know that disobedience was wrong?
Right: Just acting reflexively on the basis of obedience shows NO morality, which must entail acting with a "knowledge" of what is good.
If Adam and Eve had evolved, instead of having been created out of whole clay, they would have inherited a great deal of innate knowlege about what is good and what is evil.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:15:47 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 16:17:13 BDT
Henry James says:
Daren asks if our spouse proves her/his love with evidence?
NO - Daren says. She tells you she loves you. That is enough.
So what if she abuses you, treats you like dirt, randomly punishes you, threatens to kill you, cheats on you, ......
Come on Daren.
Words are worthless. Actions speak louder, as has been noted.
And we could call those actions "evidence."
Same with God. What actions does She take? Randomly answering prayers?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:15:55 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Indeed, this plan doesn't seem to make sense from a human understanding, but it's not a human plan - it's God's plan."
But you are human and presumed yourself able to call it 'amazing. On top of that we are told exclusively by other humans that it was done to impress humans.

"Also, you are mistaken if you believe that God's plan is to condemn all to suffer in eternity ..."
I didn't say that. God's plan, from the only point of view available to us, looks like a threat designed to endear us to him.

"As for prayer not working, God is not some kind of sugar daddy who will do everthing we ask."
Well, no. Neither is he some effective being that could do anything we could ask. The response is indistinguishable from praying to any object you choose at random.

"I have prayed for people and seen them healed, yet others I've prayed for have not been healed."
There are no other options.

"I don't claim to know why God seems to heal some and not others."
Because that would demand conclusions that you do not want to entertain.

"But He is God, and His ways are higher than our ways."
Not really. I know of many who could not standby and ignore the prayers of parents for the dying child and would help in an instance if they were omnipotent. That is a significant improvement on what you offer as the idea behind your god. In fact the god you can conceive of to worship is much better than the god contained in the apologetics you have to make when you look out into the world.

"Also, I have witnessed many people who have not been healed, or lost loved ones, yet God has given them grace to get through this."
The least he can do since he apparently screwed them over!

"As for Jesus not coming back, He will, and on that day "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord"."
Biblically over due.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:20:32 BDT
Henry James says:
I am going to become a God King and say to my subjects:
"Believe in me and do what I tell you, even though what I do and think is so beyond your comprehension that you will never understand.
And don't follow that God over there who tells you exactly the same thing, except that all of his directions are different.
You are much safer following This Incomprehensible and Random God than that other one."

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:20:33 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"However, not everthing can be 'proved' by empirical evidence. eg do you have a spouse or child? Do they love you? How do you know? Can you prove it by evidence?"
Yes. Care to form a better theory that accounts for my partner entering into large financial commitments and choosing to live with me if there wasn't a strong emotional connection?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:44:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 16:45:44 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Why are the BBC so slow to report incidents such as the Cologne new years eve's sex attacks, by immigrants or the Muslim paedophile rings in Rotherham and Rochdale. Is it because THAT IS THE CULTURE AT THE BBC. 32 3 hours ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 163 3 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1898 5 hours ago
God, the referendum. God LEAVE or God REMAIN. Only one vote each until you don't like the result and start a petition. Then you can have hundreds of votes 3 8 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1355 10 hours ago
The power of prayer 33 11 hours ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 297 11 hours ago
Religion, No Religion - Who Really Cares? 5 18 hours ago
Christopher Hicthens 4176 21 hours ago
Morality and ethics. 86 1 day ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1071 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  169
Initial post:  28 Jul 2013
Latest post:  10 Aug 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions