A question about the morality of God

[Evointrinsic]

This question has been plaguing my mind ever since I learned more about the bible when I was younger. No one seems to be able to answer it, quite soundly at least, and thus the reason why I am creating this topic.

In the bible God is said to be all knowing. During the creation of the universe, planet earth, Man and animals comes a troubling event. That is the additional - and seemingly unnecessary - creation of the forbidden fruit.

Surely, if God is all knowing then he would have known that the forbidden fruit were to be eaten. At the very least the fruit could have been something a bit less tantalizing. Perhaps "do not drink from the stinking bog of acid that burns flesh at the very touch of it's liquid."

It seems a bit irresponsible to place something that would essentially destroy that which man had at the time of creation and in the garden that god also knew they would consume, ultimately bringing their doom upon them. The same goes for the great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If he knew that these people would be so evil in their hearts and so wrong, why allow their creation in the first place?

The worst of it all is that the people who commit these acts - of which could have been prevented - burn in hell for their sins. For eternity! Constant torture day after day for ever. Infinity is quite the scale of time. So long that our minds have a massive difficulty trying to comprehend it's vastness.

What could possibly be so needed as to let these events and lives come to this level without intervention or preventative measures?

[Wootah]

Cnorman - you aren't ignored I just want to stay on topic.

[cnorman18]

Cnorman - you aren't ignored I just want to stay on topic.

You haven't shown me that I have been OFFtopic yet...

But then I never expected an acknowledgment that there could possibly be more than one way to take the Bible seriously, other than with the usual dogmatic literalism.

In other words, rest easy -- you haven't broken my heart, just lived up to my expectations.

[bluethread]

Cnorman - you aren't ignored I just want to stay on topic.

You haven't shown me that I have been OFFtopic yet...

But then I never expected an acknowledgment that there could possibly be more than one way to take the Bible seriously, other than with the usual dogmatic literalism.

In other words, rest easy -- you haven't broken my heart, just lived up to my expectations.

I think the OFFtopic thing has to do with not accepting the premise of eating from the tree as a sin. However, your pointing to that as a rabbinic tradition is interesting. How does one get past;

Gen. 2:16-17 "ADONAI, God, gave the person this order: "You may freely eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die.""

Is this a mistranslation or, if not, how is disobeying the command not a sin.

[Quath]

Here is a slight retelling of the story:

Take two kids and put them in a playground. Tell them not to eat from the candy tree because it is bad for them. Then leave the playground.

Send in another adult who says that it is ok to eat the candy. Have this adult say that the first adult was mistaken and that the candy was not bad.

The kids eat the candy. Come back in and see them with chocolate on their face and tell them you know what they did. Kick them out of the house for it. Curse them to a life of hardship and make sure that one of them gets extra pain. Oh, and tell one of the kids to serve the other one. And say that you will punish any offspring they may ever have.

In this version, it is very apparent that the kids were set up to fail and be punished. But this is very similar to the Eden story.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another retelling:

God makes Bod and Debbie instead of Adam and Eve. It turns out that Bob has fruit allergy and Debbie has ophidiophobia (fear of snakes). They live happily ever after.

[cnorman18]

Cnorman - you aren't ignored I just want to stay on topic.

You haven't shown me that I have been OFFtopic yet...

But then I never expected an acknowledgment that there could possibly be more than one way to take the Bible seriously, other than with the usual dogmatic literalism.

In other words, rest easy -- you haven't broken my heart, just lived up to my expectations.

I think the OFFtopic thing has to do with not accepting the premise of eating from the tree as a sin. However, your pointing to that as a rabbinic tradition is interesting. How does one get past;

Gen. 2:16-17 "ADONAI, God, gave the person this order: "You may freely eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die.""

Is this a mistranslation or, if not, how is disobeying the command not a sin.

Try to think a little more deeply. Why is "the knowledge of good and evil" something that humans ought not have? Isn't it necessary to have the ability to distinguish between good and evil before a person can understand what "sin" even means?

I have spoken elsewhere of the thread of Jewish thought which holds that God is as often Adversary as King and Creator. We must not only worship God; we must also struggle with God to be free of him and stand on our own feet and become fully human. That is what "Israel" means.

The meaning of Scripture isn't limited to a superficial reading of the narration. That doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me, and even the most conservative Christians acknowledge that fact. It's just when the possible meanings or ideas to be found there diverge from the rigid dogmatism in which some believe that they become unacceptable.

Not saying I'm right and you're wrong; just that there are other ways to think about the Bible.

[Wootah]

But then I never expected an acknowledgment that there could possibly be more than one way to take the Bible seriously, other than with the usual dogmatic literalism.

If something can be defended at point A why defend it from point B?

[cnorman18]

But then I never expected an acknowledgment that there could possibly be more than one way to take the Bible seriously, other than with the usual dogmatic literalism.

If something can be defended at point A why defend it from point B?

Because defending it from point A might be, to some people, meaningless, irrelevant, irrational, and unpersuasive, while defending it from point B might be considered meaningful, relevant, rational, and very persuasive indeed. It just depends on whether you're interested in talking only to people who already agree with you, or to everyone. "Preaching to the choir" is generally a waste of time, don't you think?

Since I have come on this forum, very many atheists/agnostics/nontheists here have specifically referred to my posts when mentioning that they have changed their opinions about religion, and have come to realize that there IS such a thing as a rational, intelligent belief in God that does not consist of mere dogmatism and literalism. I'd say that justifies going to point B. How many have YOU convinced to accept and adopt your fundamentalist/literalist view?

And I don't believe in point A anyway. Only dogmatic fundamentalists do. Why would I want to speak from a point of view that I don't hold?

[Wootah]

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor. The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously". Either God is real or not.

I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you. By your own words you say that.

[Thatguy]

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor. The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously". Either God is real or not.

I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you. By your own words you say that.

In my experience, a lot of the more bombastic atheists would agree with your position. Many atheists agree with the fundamentalists of various faiths that religion is meaningless unless texts are read literally. I think they do so because they find fundementalism easier to debate.

[cnorman18]

The compliments of an atheist is hardly a badge of honor. The subtext of what they think is "thank goodness that you don't take it seriously". Either God is real or not.

I think it is clearly you who is talking to people that already agree with you. By your own words you say that.

In my experience, a lot of the more bombastic atheists would agree with your position. Many atheists agree with the fundamentalists of various faiths that religion is meaningless unless texts are read literally. I think they do so because they find fundementalism easier to debate.

I've said that for years -- how odd that both hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore atheists agree on that one point, which is objectively and rationally very hard indeed to defend. EITHER the direct and absolute Word of God, or worthless nonsense. THAT'S nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that.

It is perfectly possible to believe in a real God and to take the Bible seriously without reading it literally. I myself worship God, not a book, and more particularly, not a particular rigidly dogmatic man-prescribed doctrine on how that book must be read.

The fact is, of course, that NO ONE actually DOES read the Bible literally; those who claim to do so merely define the parts that they DON'T care to read literally as "metaphor" or "poetry" or "symbolism," and ridicule those who define the parts that they LIKE in the same way. As I said, they don't even worship the Bible, as wrong as that would be in itself; they worship a particular way to read it, the way that they have been taught. No actual thought or questioning of that teaching allowed.

Literalism? Okay. How DO you not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, anyway? How do you read THAT literally? It's silly to talk about a "literal reading" of the Bible. Such a thing doesn't objectively exist. There are only SECTARIAN readings of the Bible, and the REALISTIC STUDY of it as what it is -- a collection of ancient documents. Inspired by God? Maybe, and we can argue about what that means. But -- read literally, a.k.a. with slavish obedience to its every word? NO ONE does that, and no one ever did.

Jews revere the Torah as the Word of God, but we also feel free to argue with it and overrule it when necessary. We don't stone disobedient children to death at the city limits any more. In fact, there's no evidence to indicate that we ever did.