The ethical dilemma of genisis

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.control-z.com/czp/pgs/why_no_longer.html


  • According to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), all-loving, and merciful. What does this all mean when considering the creation of Adam and Eve and the notion of Original Sin?
    • Since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) He knew Adam and Eve's fate before He created them, the world, the universe itself.
    • God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (they would need to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to acquire this knowledge).
    • God created Adam and Eve already doomed to die (they would need to eat from the Tree of Life in order to "live forever").
    • God created the Garden of Eden with the world's most-hazardous tree within quick reach all the while knowing in advance that this easy access would doom all of mankind.
    • God created the serpent "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) and placed this talking(!) tempter smack-dab in the middle of the Garden knowing in advance that it would bait Eve into eating of the fruit while also knowing that Eve would entice Adam into eating of the fruit as well.
    • Knowing all this, God punishes Adam (and, according to Pauline doctrine, all mankind until the end of time) for an act of disobedience that was not disobedience since a disobedient act requires the foreknowledge of good and evil, something Adam acquired only after the act. [NOTE: Eve's enticing of Adam to eat the fruit is a different kettle of fish entirely since at this time she did possess the knowledge of good and evil even though Adam did not.]
    • Knowing all this, God also punishes the serpent who was "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) for beguiling Eve with it's silver tongue.
    • Knowing all this, because of Adam's "original sin" God punishes the entire human race (according to Pauline doctrine) through a proclamation that every infant born into the world is born into sin, accursed by the so-called "disobedient" act of Adam.
    • Finally, knowing all this, God gives human beings an escape clause through Jesus (who himself laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens according to Hebrews 1:10). All that men and women have to do to be "saved" from God's judgment is rise above their inherent sinful natures and ask to be saved by-way-of Jesus's fabulous escape clause.
  • Perhaps we might better understand the above scenario this using an analogy:
    • I am a father of two very young children, perhaps two and three years old.
    • I tell them that they can play with anything in the house but they are not to play with the book of matches that I leave laying on the coffee table in the living room.
    • I tell them I am going to go away for awhile but that I will be back shortly.
    • Before leaving I take a gallon of gasoline into the house and empty it on all the living room furniture.
    • I leave my two young children in the care of my teenage son who I know is "more crafty than any of the children I have made."
    • I also know that this teenage son has a nasty habit of convincing others to play with matches.
    • When I return I discover that the house is burning and my two young children are trapped inside. Outside, my teenage son is gleefully watching the flames.
    • I stand beside him and watch the house burn while listening to the screams of my two young children. I refuse to go into the house on my own accord and save them. I will stand back and allow them to burn alive unless they first ask me to save them. If they don't ask me to be saved it is entirely their fault that they are being burned alive.
    • I am a wise and merciful father who is allowed to treat his children any way I like because I, after all, created them. Without me they wouldn't be here, now trapped inside a burning house.
    • I am a loving father because I have given my children an escape clause. Even though I constructed the whole scenario knowing full well the outcome would mean me standing outside watching my children trapped inside a burning house, I was loving enough to give them an escape clause. Of course, this clause only works on the condition that my children ask to be saved. Until they do that, I will stand back and allow them to burn. I will not raise one finger to help them unless I hear them ask. My love knows no bounds.
  • My question is this: If I behaved in this manner with my own children would I be considered the type of father worthy of love, admiration, and respect? Or might I be looked upon as a sick, cruel, psychopathic, and heartless monster deserving only derision, loathing, disgust, or pity? Would my actions be considered moral or immoral, my underlying intentions kind or malign? Is my offering of a so-called "escape clause" really demonstrating mercy or does it entail something else altogether, something darker, more self-serving, egocentric and selfish? Finally, am I demonstrating unconditional love with this type of behavior or only that when push comes to shove I really don't give a damn about anyone else's feelings but my own?
 
if i didn't know any better, I would think that you would have to be an idiot to believe in the bible when it has this type of stuff
 
if i didn't know any better, I would think that you would have to be an idiot to believe in the bible when it has this type of stuff
To believe it 'as-is' and not in historical context, yes. However to try and argue against religion as a whole on the same premise is equally stupid.
 
you're comparing the mortal with the immortal, the finite with the infinite

Is this some kind of especially vague special pleading? God is above human knowledge! You can't question him!

The fact is, this kind of logic makes perfect sense from a barbaric perspective. Why does God, with his supposed infinite knowledge, somehow always come to the same conclusions I'd expect of a barbarian tribe of desert people? Isn't that odd!
 
I'm only comfortable with the real and objective solutions provided by math and science.
Like I said, you are outside Watermark's comfort level. He prefers to pretend that knowledge can be easily defined.

You would be perfect as an engineer, Watermark. Many of them limit themselves this way.
 
Like I said, you are outside Watermark's comfort level. He prefers to pretend that knowledge can be easily defined.

You would be perfect as an engineer, Watermark. Many of them limit themselves this way.

Most "knowledge" that can't be "easily defined" is knowledge that can be easily defined as junk.
 
Is this some kind of especially vague special pleading? God is above human knowledge! You can't question him!

The fact is, this kind of logic makes perfect sense from a barbaric perspective. Why does God, with his supposed infinite knowledge, somehow always come to the same conclusions I'd expect of a barbarian tribe of desert people? Isn't that odd!

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top