it sounds like you’re flirting with the Epicurean Paradox
Ey Eve, bet you are too scared to try this apple.
Because he doesn’t exist, so even questioning it is irrelevant
When one person believes a delusion, it’s schizophrenia. When millions do, it’s religion.
because he was a pussy
The story was adulterated, & that is visible in the text of that part of the bible, there was no apple.
“women ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good & Evil ( MORAL UNDERSTANDING ), & shared that with men”.
Yes, mothering enforces more moral-understanding than does male-ego-persuits, traditional or modern.
As women have noticed, & evidence absolutely does back it, women bring life into the world, & men persue killing, consistently more than women do.
( the insecurity displayed by the “god” of that story is idiotic, & the blunt fact that help has been provided to humankind, repeatedly, since then, falsifies the message in that part of their bible that “god” wants us kept down, as pets: it investes in our evolving, & there’s even a book specifically on that, though from an Abrahamic-religion perspective, called “The Evolution of God”, which … isn’t written by a believer, but comes to the conclusion that someone has been cultivating evolution, consistently, among the peoples of that “god”. )
The “grace” left-behind by ones who experience moral-anxiety is the “grace” of being mere-animals, who don’t have moral-anxieties.
This is an absolutely-factual metaphor/parable about the mere-animal ancestors of humankind vs the moral-anxiety/moral-difficulties condition of our “generation”.
Also, there’s another corroboration, but much more recent…
there’s a yt vid on how Gobekli Tepe somehow was a metropolis without agriculture: Natural Abundance was sufficient for them to do that, & they didn’t break their ecology, the way we do…
But you’ve still got the “grace”/“non-grace” difference between the people who just lived in natural-abundance & didn’t break their ecology vs our-generation…
Oh, & as far as I can tell, the Abrahamic-religion authorities are looking totally at the wrong frame-of-reference, in trying to discern where the “Garden of Eden” was: it means Earth, not some limited-locale of it.
Earth was pristine, lush, drenchingly-alive ( I’ve read that the cod were sooo thick in off the Atlantic coast of Canada, that the fishermen said you could walk from ship to ship … exageration, certainly, but … the fish were, on average, 80y old, back then, & huge. Nowadays, they’re … a few years old, 8yo was what I’d read last century, & then we broke the coral-forests they breed in, & the cod-fishery collapsed, & never recovered. We’re incompetent at preserving natural-wealth, & we do it in ALL contexts, all fisheries, all forests, … where’s all the BEST farmland on Earth? under concrete, because we converted it all to cities, since that was where the people were.
Idiocy ).
We’re destroying the Garden of Eden, globally.
No matter: The Great Filter, our species-puberty, will force-exterminate our race, if we won’t grow-up quick enough, completely enough.
Natural Selection, but at planet-scale.
& finally, free-will requires ability-to-choose-wrong.
Puppets aren’t what we are.
( it is continuums/souls which are ChildrenOfG-D/CellsOfG-D, it isn’t our-lives/incarnations: those are children-of-souls, so grandchildren-of-G-D )
_ /\ _
The usual explanation is because God wanted humans to have free will, so interfering in their ability to self-determine would negate that.
The reality is because it makes no fucking sense, like much of the Bible.
It’s a judeo-christian-muslim god.
Because he gifted humanity free-will? I thought that was like the main reason
He’s also omniscient and created every atom of their being, meaning he knew exactly how it would play out. It was a setup.
Would it really be free will if there was fate or destiny? Would he be a Laplace demon and by thinking about mankind eating the apple he was creating a simulation where mankind actually does eat an apple?
you’re trying to bring logic where logic goes to die. It won’t work.
I find the story better with “all-knowing” meaning know what is and had been and the future being unknown. A fact created by have multiple beings of free will.
That said eating the apple is very low stakes way to let someone choose to disobey you and thus learn what that means. The “punishment” seems like the plan all along.
at least how i prefer the story
At some point, one of y’all is going to have to admit that the story doesn’t actually make any sense, instead of reinterpreting it again to make yourselves feel comfy.
The “punishment” seems like the plan all along.
Then your god is a vengeful, evil monster, unworthy of worship
Im describing it purely from “as a story” concept.
The punishment is being a creature with free will on earth and the ability to comptemplatr shame for moral decisions (because we can fail).
At least at this point of the story
No, the punishment was increased pain, hardship, expulsion from the garden of Eden, and mortality.
Have you even read the book? From an “as a story” concept, whatever that means?
I think it means a story instead of as a historically accurate document of fact.
Because as a story theres lots of lessons we can draw from it, and interpret in many ways like literature enthusiasts do.
As a historical document holy fuck help me satan
Exactly.
Fanfiction/Please permit me to make wild allegations, I was also looking at this yesterday and wondered: is it the apple of knowledge of sexual reproduction? (I know the book says good and evil, I get it)
The other tree was the fruit of eternal life. They did not consume this fruit.
So, as for the story, humans could neither sexually reproduce nor live forever/a long time prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of sexual reproduction. Life and death. Good and evil.
They ate it, wanted to have sex with each other and were ashamed and covered themselves to avoid sexual arousal.
The free will they received was the ability to sexually reproduce.
In the story, angels cannot sexually reproduce with each other?, but seemingly live forever/a long time, and angels supposedly did get very excited that they could now sexually reproduce with humans: nephelim. Hybrids.
Two different technology trees: humans with sexual reproduction and limited lifespan and angels with longevity/eternal life/angel powers.
This gave the world a third (unintended?) hybrid nephelim class and this upset the balance of power on earth/the creation.
The chaos that ensued inspired yahweh to flood his creation and try again?
Wild shit! For me these are the chaotic and confused retelling of a story of extraterrestrial influence on the development of the human species.
This particular chapter is focused on origins and bloodlines of humanity so it makes sense to me in that way 🙃
Thank you for your time.
The Jewish interpretation is that Eve ‘knew’ God wanted Adam to the eat the apple, so she tempted him with it.
what a disgusting god. People actually believe this shit? God WANTED his creations to be kicked out of paradise? Holy fuck, and people say he is “all loving”. JFC.
The old reverse psychology and It’s all part of the plan bit.
maybe I would do it and claim its a test to see if what i created are capable of thoughts outside my commands so they can be used for the next phase but im not all knowing. sooo it was all a waste of time for eve and them? Maybe.
The only justification I could think of is actually the garden is a incubation area and god needed a reason to kick them out for phase 2 and guilting them while giving them the intelligence to survive was the only option viable for the “long term plan”. Like some kind of wierd motivation to stay alive. Still feels like a jerk move no matter how you slice it.
Bad character and plot writing. The Bible was written by hacks and scabs.
It was a test, but if he was omniscient, he would have known the results without having to run it. 😉
See how i didnt mention he is also “benevolent.”
There’s quite a bit of evidence to argue he is actually malevolent.
Christians then start applying “ends justifies the means” logic.
Calvin ball. Its all just Calvin ball.
Try telling that to a Christian and you’ll hear the battered wife type arguments come out sooooo quick.
I really enjoy reminding them that Satan only kills about 10 people in the Bible. He temps others to do things, but he’s only responsible for a handful.
God on the other hand… much more direct and merciless. Doesn’t really seem to give a shit at all about killing people actually. Like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.
I love the story where he kills everyone in the world except for that one disfunctional family.
I don’t quite have the urge to believe this, you could say I have a demiurge
beat me to it
He wanted the result, but needed it to be our ‘fault’ for weird passive aggressive reasons and so he could hold it over our heads for eaons. “Sorry son, I’d drive you to the store but you ate that apple. Remember the apple I told you not to eat?”
Embarrassment kink.
The god character in Oglaf is probably the most accurate representation of God.
Free will. The idea is that for free will to exist you must be able to choose the wrong action.
If a supreme being rules out all wrong actions or prevented you from taking wrong actions, how could there be free will? How could you even be responsible for your own thoughts and actions. How are you not just a puppet?
Alternately you can think of it as a leveling up. It seems like the Apple is always represented as “knowledge of good and evil”. So originally they’re just animals. They take actions but there is no morality, nothing is good or bad. But if they use their free will to take this one forbidden step, they receive the knowledge of good and evil, they can act good or act bad, they know it’s good or bad, and they have the free will to choose their path. And they are accountable for those choices. Now they’re human
But if god is omniscient, then he knows what they’re going to do. And if he already knows that, then do they really have free will? Or do they just think they do?
There’s 3 philosophies I’ve seen on that question.
One is the planned domino effect, which another commentator already mentioned.
The next is the “paradoxical being” one, which is that something that is omniscient is paradoxical by default, therefore it can both know what will happen and simultaneously not know what will happen.
The last is the “unknown destiny” one, which is that even if we don’t actually have free will, as long as we think we do and can’t prove we don’t, then does it matter? Because ultimately it would be no different to us than if we actually did have it.
Interesting, thanks.
Addressed the first one on that other comment.
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn’t the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn’t, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn’t omniscient (if he exists at all).
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
Well that’s the nature of paradoxes, isn’t it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you’ve probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn’t the same as objectively having it.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I’ve also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it’s really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it’s no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.
This s is where you have the argument that a supreme being might have set the universe in motion but deliberately does not interfere with the way it evolves. The conditions are as close to even as possible so things can go either way …. For an infinite number of decisions for an infinite time
It’s not a question of interfering or not though, it’s about foreknowledge.
Either god had foreknowledge of their choice, and therefore A&E couldn’t have made any other decision than they did, or they had genuine free will meaning he wasn’t omniscient.
Ahh so the real original sin is entrapment. Got it.
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting ‘Gotcha.’ It wouldn’t have made any difference if they hadn’t eaten it.
Arthur Dent: Why not?
Ford Prefect: Because if you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end.
Don’t try to apply reason/common sense/logic to ANY religion. You’ll end up with more questions than answers.
Besides, I was told that the point of the story was resisting temptation. God wanted to see if Adam and Eve could do that. Spoiler: they couldn’t.
Even though he new exactly what they would do beforehand. Being all-knowing.
