DustBunny Wrote:Supposedly it probably didn't but clearly the message could be argued it did, intentional or not.

octopusprime Wrote:No, it is one of the most accepted theological answers actually. Is it the right one? That remains uncertain as we aren't sure if that whole god thing is furreals. And the may or may not be real creator of everything didn't leave us a sticky note.

Again along the same theological vein, humanity was not lacking anything intially. they were just as of yet uncorrorpted and as a result not apart from god.

It really seems like you totally missed the crux of this line of thinking but responded anyway.

Erebus Wrote:Being an ex-theologian

Erebus Wrote:that is in fact not the common or accepted answer. In most instances it's considered an unknown or excused as "God working in mysterious ways".

Erebus Wrote:What I am asking is WHY was the tree placed in the garden, not asking why God allowed them to eat from it. Or for the fact of simplification put it into an analogy: "Why put a butchers knife into a baby's play pen?" with God being the parent, adam and eve being babies, and the Garden of Eden being the playpen... then ask yourself why would a parent/God put something they know will cause pain (knife/tree) into their babies/adam & eve playpen/Eden?

DustBunny Wrote:Supposedly it probably didn't but clearly the message could be argued it did, intentional or not.

octopusprime Wrote:What as in you used to be a professor or speaker with the degree professionally or you just stopped pondering? If the former, i can see why. If the later, i have some bad news, cause you're at it again.

octopusprime Wrote:Yep, that is some ace theology. I suppose if i were teaching a sunday school class to four year olds, that's exactly how i'd explain it (actually probably not). But since we are having a rational adult discussion i think i'll go with actual theology. You know, utilize logic and reasoning as to a creators possible motives for creating man, In this case with a judeo christian backstory. Furthermore what i actually said is bolded above. You even quoted it.

octopusprime Wrote:Equating babies to the relationship between an almighty being and his creation is first off a fundamentally flawed comparision. As to the bulk of your post, it is seriously the exact same question i've been answering for several posts and I guess you just aren't getting my answer. I'll try to be as verbose as possible with this.

Without the tree (more importantly the command from god to not eat from the tree), man does not ever have the choice of living outside the will of the creator. Making them just facets of gods will. So they don't really have a true free will of their own.

No tree = No choice.

No choice = No free will.

No free will = Fleshy robots.

Fleshy robots = a thoroughly unsatisfied, imperfect, and idiotic creator.

octopusprime Wrote:I don't understand how any one could take anything but a religious or philosophical message with religious context out of the part of the video that says: What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes. While transposing an image of the ten commandments (a famous and undeniably specific religious image) with bullets going on to show the bible pretty clearly (it's a book with a cross on it while he's talking about a "message" also refers to jesus as a "message" and mentions the crucificion with a picture) as well directly afterwards talking about religion and it's progression from being faith to being an institution. (to see what most of what i'm talking about, watch the video after 1:00) I'm so baffled as to how Erebus could have found this message as one that is primarily environmental without trolling. Speaking of which, are you Erebus?

DrRusty Wrote:Like I said before, if God is all knowing, then God knows what we will choose making FREE CHOICE JUST AN ILLUSION. He knew Eve would eat from the tree did he not? Was he surprised when she gave the fruit to Adam? If he was surprised then he's not the all knowing God people think of him to be. If he wasn't surprised then he's kind of a d*ck for putting the temptation there in the first place.

Either way the whole situation is flawed.

Erebus Wrote:Ex theologian was the incorrect terminology ex-theist would have been more accurate (should be obvious what i meant).

Erebus Wrote:Theology is the study and interpretation of religion, when looking for an explanation especially from a person who believes in that religion it is rare to encounter an admittance to a lack of knowledge and in often times when put into a corner most people will state how it is "above us". But maybe that falls more into ideology and philosophy.

Erebus Wrote:I'd like an explanation on how it is flawed as well as your personal beliefs in the properties of God (using Epicurus may help). Because depending on who you ask the equating to God as a parent is not only accurate, but factual.

Erebus Wrote:Who says man can not choose what to do?

Erebus Wrote:Are you basically arguing free will can ONLY exist if there is some sort of consequence or secondary options?

Erebus Wrote:Even so it still doesn't explain why God allowed for that to be the only alternative.

Erebus Wrote:Even by you're argument you seem to claim that God intended for man to be nothing but fleshy machines through threats, punishments, and coercion.

Erebus Wrote:That's a fan made video fyi -_-

(and no he's not me)

Eosian Wrote:If you truly want to argue semantics I can point blank say you're mistaken. Spirituality is a subset of Religious, just look at the dictionary.com explanation of both.
Religion repeatedly emphasizes belief and practices (most clearly in "the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."). Spirituality on the other hand only emphasizes belief.

Your own understanding of the meaning of words may differ substantially from their real scope based on the limited context you've experienced them in.

octopusprime Wrote:If your own words don't illustrate properly what you meant, you can't relistically expect me to just figure it out.

octopusprime Wrote:So you set that typical and in no way grounded in any sort of theology answer up as a straw man and then when i present an actually common explanation with a theological basis, you defer to your orginal idea (which i never stated anything that agreed with)l for the sake of it's prolonged use to you in argumentation as a straw man? Sorry but you'll have to address my points, not the sloppy ones you mock up for the imaginary typical idiot theists that reside in your imagination.

octopusprime Wrote:I decline the first I don't see my beliefs as relevant to discussion or anyone's buisness when i am not inclined to disclose such information. I just don't see the relevence of the second. But as far as a judeo-christian god goes in terms of the theology associated and religious text, i would to some extent disagree. But i once again am at odds with your willy nilly vocabulary.

octopusprime Wrote:Not me.

octopusprime Wrote:Sort of to the consequence bit and Yes, obviously to the options bit. If your choices are A. Or A. You don't have a choice.

octopusprime Wrote:In this case of adam, eve, and the fruit, there were only two alternatives. Inside or outside the will of God.

octopusprime Wrote:Uh... No. Just no. What is my argument in this case? I'm just talking within the realm of what is relevent to the thread. AKA this specific creation story and some of the common theology (as well as possibly my personal interpreations or insights). I have made no indication nor statement as to my belief in it. Just putting information out there and disagreeing with things I see as false or based on poor understanding. My point in regards to the situation and especially and repeatedly directed at you is that without the tree part of the story, man does not ever have a choice. and without it man is a machine. I really can't get any clearer.

octopusprime Wrote:That doesnt really change the audio content or my response to or observations therin. Nor my being baffled at you finding or believe that the video has a message of ecolocial concioussness more than anything.

(Don't worry, i never thought it was you)

Eosian Wrote:The definition you just quoted just reinforces what I already told you.

If you consider it an insult to your intelligence to be told you don't know everything you're going to find the world a very rude place.

CautionSin Wrote:Usually... Often... Need i say more

Eosian Wrote:Considering you're fixating on two very small almost irrelevant facets of the definition and condescendingly restating them like they have some deep inner meaning while having resorted to insults I doubt you could elaborate anything that would matter.

You're trying to argue with me how a third party defines their beliefs. I have no vested interest in whether or not you agree with how they see the world. I've given you the distinction they draw. I've given you the dictionary evidence supporting their separation of the concepts. At this point I don't really care what you do with it.

Erebus Wrote:Apologies english isn't my first languages and I often get definitions confused.

Erebus Wrote:I'm not arguing form a aspect of analyzing it as a metaphor. I'm talking from a literal point of view. My "straw man argument" does in fact fit into what I asked when you consider the fact I'm questioning this as an actual event and not as a metaphorical tale.

Erebus Wrote:There's a ton of ways people describe God. When debating why he does things you must associate properties to him to discuss the reason behind his actions. However due to varying determinations of what people consider God to be it's hard to have one solid way of arguing a persons particular perception and reasoning as to why God does certain things without knowing what kind of "God" the believe in.

Erebus Wrote:When debating why he does things you must associate properties to him to discuss the reason behind his actions

Erebus Wrote:According to you there is no choice outside of "to tree or not to tree". Man could ONLY choose those two options otherwise free will does not exist.

Erebus Wrote:Depends on how you view A. Their existence in that garden alone provided many choices the tree being the "bad one" does not in turn make it any more of an option then anything else they could have done within the garden. Free choice is just deciding what to do, what ever we decide to do regardless of they are good or bad choices does not in any way determine our free will.

Erebus Wrote:That still doesn't explain why a tree was the only thing to be used to determine that. Something as simple as being given the choice to leave the garden would be more then enough as a demonstration of free will, the tree is unnecessary. What you need to explain is why God felt the need to introduce the tree, why that particular object with those particular properties were needed. If they are not necessary there is no reason for it to exist.

Erebus Wrote:You're argument seems to be without the tree we would have been fleshy puppets. And that God's will is to have us as fleshy puppets and obey him but by our will (maybe call it a conscious fleshy puppet).

Erebus Wrote:Seems to be more a philosophical argument in determining God's actions but w/e.

Directly no. Indirectly yes. You have given properties to God and reasoning for his actions. You haven't put out any blue prints but in you're direct thoughts on the creation story but have on the aspect of the characters within. Though those answers might just be in accordance with the christian text and you're answering on their behalf.

As well I'm not arguing with it from a story/metaphorical perspective I'm arguing with it as if it were reality and have been this entire time (might be why we have a misunderstanding).

Erebus Wrote:I said the artist said it was not a religious message: It's simply a statement about how man abuses the world he was "given" and how we justify that destruction. And "God" was expressing his disappointment in man for abusing the world.

Erebus Wrote:Not to be a son of a peach but according to Pip that's supposed to be an environmental message not a religious one.

CautionSin Wrote:a dictionary definition or a little blurb to explain a person's beliefs is frighteningly reductive.

DrRusty Wrote:Like I said before, if God is all knowing, then God knows what we will choose making FREE CHOICE JUST AN ILLUSION. He knew Eve would eat from the tree did he not? Was he surprised when she gave the fruit to Adam? If he was surprised then he's not the all knowing God people think of him to be. If he wasn't surprised then he's kind of a d*ck for putting the temptation there in the first place.

Either way the whole situation is flawed.

Chameleonic Wrote:Look it at this way. God is the Author of your choose-your-own-life-adventure book(you have heard of them right), he knows every outcome of every choice you make just like an author knows all the endings of the book. However, you have complete freedom to choose whatever path you take. He is no way makes you do anything, he just knows the outcome and consequences.

God knew all the outcomes of Adam and Eve eating the fruit and all the outcomes if they didnt. He would have preferred they chose not to eat, obviously.

Knowing the outcome does not equal taking away free will.

DrRusty Wrote:I didn't say "take away" free will. Free will is an illusion based on that scenario. Basically it comes down to

Fate - the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; the decreed cause of events

taking away your free will and all of your choices going to happen no matter what are different. To me, taking away free will would be like a master and a slave relationship. They decide everything that you're going to do. Fate is basically a telescope into the future that won't be changed. God happens to be the owner of that telescope meaning that he already knows what we're going to choose making this whole facade called "life" pointless. He could save a bunch of time by sorting everyone into heaven and hell at the time of birth and have the same effect.

If he knew Eve would eat from the tree then feed the apple to Adam, then why the hell did he put the tree there at all? That's exactly the point I'm making, that there is no point. It's almost like he was toying with them. He knew they would do it but he put it there anyways.

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I sat here and thought of a way to counter that argument, and I came up with nothing. It doesn't matter if he knew or didn't know. It's like a little kid that knows he's going to get in trouble for eating candy before dinner but does it anyways. If he had no idea Adam and Eve would do what they did, then he's just not the all knowing God people think he is. He would make human mistakes like everyone else.

Quote:that was a story fabricated/manipulated in too teach kids too listen

DustBunny Wrote:I find it funny how most people don't ever consider that, the teachings of god, havent been corrupted by a human ego.