Adam and Eve and the Apple

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not me.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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).

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)

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.