God didn't keep his words

[Compassionist]

In Genesis 2:16 and 17 the Bible (New International Version) says:
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

If after eating the forbidden fruits, Adam and Eve died just as God had said, then that would have been just and consistent with God's Words. However, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruits, instead of just Adam and Eve just dying:
1. God evicted them from Eden.
2. God punished Eve and all her daughters (an estimated 54 billion and counting) with painful childbirths.
3. God evicted all the other species from Eden, too, and makes herbivores, parasites, carnivores and omnivores instead of making all the species non-consumers.
4. God punished humans with having to toil to survive.
5. God commanded humans to reproduce which leads to more suffering and death. Ruling over other creatures causes suffering and death to those creatures, too. "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”" - Genesis 1:28, The Bible (NIV)

These acts are cruel and unjust and totally inconsistent with what God had said to Adam and Eve which was they would just die if they ate the forbidden fruits. God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve.

I didn't ask to come into existence. No living thing does. I would have preferred it if I never existed. If God is real and actually did the things the Bible claims, then these cruel, unjust and inconsistent actions make the Biblical God evil.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #18]

As much as I’d love to pursue reasoning for souls, heaven, hell, we should keep it focused on the two issues we’ve been talking about.

Issue #1 - Gen 2:16-17

Yes, and the ceasing to exist comes through physical death. But let’s use your focused language. The text does not say “you will certainly cease to exist”, it says you will certainly die. So, no, I’m not adding extra bits when you are just taking it for what it says. We are both interpreting the term. I’ve given reasons for my view and you just claim your view is right because that’s what it says, i.e., “I’m right because I’m right”.

And you are still misunderstanding what I’m saying about the principle of charity. I’m not saying the principle of charity helps us know what is true; I’m saying it helps us know what someone is claiming so that we can then better analyze if what they are saying is true.

Issue #2 - Suffering and death being bad

You said

When I say that we don't have free will, what I mean is that we do not have the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. “

Yes, now prove this to be the most reasonable view to take. Not about choosing to come into existence, choosing our genes, choosing the environments, personality proclivities (being a risk taker or not, etc.), if we can survive in 200 degrees Celsisu, etc. because hardly anyone believes in that kind of freedom. The data you pointed to, even in those things, you say led to 40% of the variance, 12% of the variance, INFLUENCES on decision making, etc. Determinism needs 100%, so you are far short of that. Why do you then jump to near 100% on determinism in everything? That’s an irrational jump.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #17]

Those problems depend on a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis. Why is that interpretation correct?

[1213]

...
I would have preferred never existing.

Would be nice to know why. But, if so, maybe you don't have to exist forever.

[1213]

Your claim is pure nonsense. This is an extremely common and well-known Hebrew idiom. When an infinitive verb ("dying") appears with the finite of the same verb ("you die"), it is regarded as an intensifier, emphasizing the assurance that the event described is certain to happen.

Why should I believe it is so in this case?

I think your interpretation is wrong, because it is not logical.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #19]

I know the Bible contains passages that appear contradictory, yet I still see a quiet beauty in the truths that remain within it. I believe God breathed inspiration into parts of these writings, and because of that, I feel drawn to keep searching—patiently and lovingly—to uncover whatever goodness they hold.

In the past, my instinct was to clash with any viewpoint that differed from my own. Now I’m learning to pursue truth itself, even when it challenges my preferences is my ultimate goal.

Harboring resentment toward the Bible won’t bring real answers; patient reflection and thoughtful study, however, can deepen both knowledge and understanding.

I respect everyone's human rights. One of these rights is the right to follow any or no religion. So, I respect your right to be a Christian even though I am a secular sentientist.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #17]

Those problems depend on a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis. Why is that interpretation correct?

The Bible is fiction. It's irrelevant what interpretation one makes. I think my interpretation is correct because it doesn't assume anything beyond the literal words, while your interpretation does. I have read many religious books of many religions - they are all fiction. I am convinced that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil, just as Voldemort in the Harry Potter books is imaginary and evil. If you can prove with incontrovertible evidence that the Bible is 100% factual, please do.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #18]

As much as I’d love to pursue reasoning for souls, heaven, hell, we should keep it focused on the two issues we’ve been talking about.

Issue #1 - Gen 2:16-17

Yes, and the ceasing to exist comes through physical death. But let’s use your focused language. The text does not say “you will certainly cease to exist”, it says you will certainly die. So, no, I’m not adding extra bits when you are just taking it for what it says. We are both interpreting the term. I’ve given reasons for my view and you just claim your view is right because that’s what it says, i.e., “I’m right because I’m right”.

And you are still misunderstanding what I’m saying about the principle of charity. I’m not saying the principle of charity helps us know what is true; I’m saying it helps us know what someone is claiming so that we can then better analyze if what they are saying is true.

Issue #2 - Suffering and death being bad

You said

When I say that we don't have free will, what I mean is that we do not have the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. “

Yes, now prove this to be the most reasonable view to take. Not about choosing to come into existence, choosing our genes, choosing the environments, personality proclivities (being a risk taker or not, etc.), if we can survive in 200 degrees Celsisu, etc. because hardly anyone believes in that kind of freedom. The data you pointed to, even in those things, you say led to 40% of the variance, 12% of the variance, INFLUENCES on decision making, etc. Determinism needs 100%, so you are far short of that. Why do you then jump to near 100% on determinism in everything? That’s an irrational jump.

We must prove the existence of the Biblical God, souls, heaven and hell before we can consider the Bible to be true.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die the word "die" has the following meanings:

1
: to pass from physical life : expire
died at the age of 56
die young
died from his injuries
a dying tree
2
a
: to pass out of existence : cease
their anger died at these words
b
: to disappear or subside gradually —often used with away, down, or out
the storm died down
3
a
: sink, languish
dying from fatigue
b
: to long keenly or desperately
dying to go
c
: to be overwhelmed by emotion
die of embarrassment
4
a
: to cease functioning : stop
the motor died
b
: to end in failure
the bill died in committee
5
: to become indifferent
die to worldly things

Which of these meanings is the correct meaning?

Genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences play a foundational role in the lives of all living things. When my Dad's sperm fused with my Mum's egg, a zygote was formed. If I were to go back in time and replace the genes in that zygote with the genes of a planarian, you would be able to behead me, and I would just be able to grow a new head and brain. You keep thinking that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences merely influence our choices. They don't. They determine our choices, and they constrain our choices. A planarian can't post my posts on this forum because he or she does not have my genes, my environments, my nutrients and my experiences. This is 100% certain. It is also 100% certain that no living thing chooses to come into existence, chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. We can't be blamed or credited for the foundational variables of our lives that we did not choose at all.

[Compassionist]

...
I would have preferred never existing.

Would be nice to know why. But, if so, maybe you don't have to exist forever.

The world is full of suffering, injustice and death. I am so sad and horrified by the past and the present. I long to go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and death, but I can't. I long to make all living things forever happy, but I can't. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. I can't do what I want to do. That's why I would have preferred never existing.

[mms20102]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #22]

Those problems depend on a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis. Why is that interpretation correct?

I understand your point about interpretation, but if the Genesis account is not taken at least substantially literally, then the text becomes vulnerable to subjective reinterpretation. This opens the door for each individual to tailor its meaning according to personal preferences or cultural trends. In such a case, how can any consistent, objective understanding of God's word be maintained?

If God's message is true and meant to guide all humanity, then surely it must be conveyed in a clear and stable form—not one that shifts with each reader's imagination. Otherwise, divine revelation risks becoming indistinguishable from human opinion.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #22]

Those problems depend on a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis. Why is that interpretation correct?

I understand your point about interpretation, but if the Genesis account is not taken at least substantially literally, then the text becomes vulnerable to subjective reinterpretation. This opens the door for each individual to tailor its meaning according to personal preferences or cultural trends. In such a case, how can any consistent, objective understanding of God's word be maintained?

If God's message is true and meant to guide all humanity, then surely it must be conveyed in a clear and stable form—not one that shifts with each reader's imagination. Otherwise, divine revelation risks becoming indistinguishable from human opinion.

The Bible is fiction written by people, not divine revelation.