2010-12-02, 05:00 PM
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
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
DustBunny Wrote:Supposedly it probably didn't but clearly the message could be argued it did, intentional or not.
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?