Did Adam make the right choice?

[Revelations won]

Did Adam make the right choice?

Did Adam make the right choice in partaking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge and should we be grateful to him and give due respect and honor our first earthly parents?

2. Did Adam’s choice prohibit anyone from receiving ALL that our Father in heaven has ever promised us pertaining to our eternal destiny?

Kind regards,
RW

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #79]

Why are you equating relying on an invisible God with relying on a concept of a God?

Because it happens. The God is not present in the world to be seen by the world for what the God is.
I am not necessarily equating the one with the other, but pointing out that this is observably what occurs, especially re religious mythology, one of which is the topic of this thread.

Why should concepts which have created images in peoples minds and not shown to be true, be regarded as reliable ways to "see God"?

I’m not arguing for concepts being necessarily reliable. I think logic, history, science, philosophy, personal experience, etc. are all needed to form a reliable picture.

I think stepping back further to take it all in without the influencing of bias formed through favorite religious mythology lying around as a potential stumbling block, is the best foot forward in the continuing search for correct knowledge.

Why do you think eyesight is the only thing that is reliable?

Are you suggesting that if a God-concept actualized by returning to this planet and setting up his throne and getting about with the sharing hiss wisdom and influence in a visible manner, would be unreliable and cannot be trusted?
If so, then why have a visible God at all? Adam had a visible God who he believed had created him and placed him in the garden, if the authors notes are anything to go by...

As the story would have us believe, the rest of us Humans lost that too, and have to rely on our ability to image things in the minds-eye.
Thus, religious mythology was born.

Why should the mythology be trusted, and our eyes abandoned?

If you don’t think it is, then what did you mean when you wrote: “Unless one can see the God, how is one not blind in one’s obedience to said God?”

I meant that we are dealing with a God-concept which remains invisible to our eyes, so the question points to "how" an individual might enable themselves to "see" a God, who remains invisible.

I am asking you whether you have questioned the concepts of the God that you believe in.

Yes, I have from before becoming a Christian and ever since. I’ve done it with you (and many others) openly on this forum many times.

And yet here we are - still unconvinced the other has explained anything.

Clearly Adam relied on the story the God told him, was true. Doubt came into the story line after that.

Clearly the God wasn't always present, and clearly the God put the forbidden fruit tree in the Garden and also the Serpent.

So by “relying on stories” you mean relying on something other than direct personal experience of X?

I will go along with that for the time being, yes.

Then, why do you think that Adam and Eve directly experiencing God’s trustworthiness on A and on B and on P is not enough for them to view God as trustworthy on X?

Define A and B and P, and I will get back to you on that.

Why must they also have direct experience of X before knowing whether God is probably trustworthy about X as well?

Define X and I will get back to you on that.

Indeed - it is the stories and the conflicting nature of said stories which confused Adam rather than helped Adam form reliable trustworthy information in which to make decision.

I’ve seen no evidence from you that the stories are of a conflicting nature. You’ve shared some thoughts and I’ve critiqued those, though, so if you’ve nothing new to add to that part of the conversation, neither do I.

I did not write the story under question. I am simply pointing out the conflicting nature of the two stories Adam got. One from the God and one from the Serpent.

Are you saying they have never been objectively answered sufficiently?

I have seen no such evidence. If you think such evidence exists, provide it.

Okay, so you aren’t saying they have objectively been insufficient, just that you disagree with the answers given? I’ve offered thoughts here and elsewhere. You’ve responded to those thoughts and I’ve responded to those. I’ve nothing new to add at the moment.

Yes - I am saying that what you have given as evidence has not been sufficient for me and what I have given as evidence has not been sufficient for you.

In that, my attention turns to others who are more open to my speculations and I generally leave Christians to their love of a good story and their battles over who's interpretations image the God under question/review the best.

I think that many who focus on their love of said good story, don't notice the God standing behind them watching what they are doing.

We each have our Journey to attend to...

[The Tanager]

Because it happens. The God is not present in the world to be seen by the world for what the God is.
I am not necessarily equating the one with the other, but pointing out that this is observably what occurs, especially re religious mythology, one of which is the topic of this thread.

Are you claiming this is known to occur some of the time or all of the time with theists? If all of the time, then provide proof of that claim. If some of the time, then I agree, but then my next question would be: so what?

I think stepping back further to take it all in without the influencing of bias formed through favorite religious mythology lying around as a potential stumbling block, is the best foot forward in the continuing search for correct knowledge.

Everyone has bias to contend with, including the one who sheds all religious claims.

Are you suggesting that if a God-concept actualized by returning to this planet and setting up his throne and getting about with the sharing hiss wisdom and influence in a visible manner, would be unreliable and cannot be trusted?

No.

If so, then why have a visible God at all? Adam had a visible God who he believed had created him and placed him in the garden, if the authors notes are anything to go by…

As the story would have us believe, the rest of us Humans lost that too, and have to rely on our ability to image things in the minds-eye.
Thus, religious mythology was born.

Don’t just state it, support it. Why isn’t the language metaphorical?

Why should the mythology be trusted, and our eyes abandoned?

I think Genesis should be trusted because of the various arguments for the existence of God, those that narrow that down to the Abrahamic kind of God, the historicity of the resurrection which, if true, points to truth of Jesus’ claims about Himself, and the reliability of the Biblical documents in relaying Jesus’ teachings, which include acceptance of the metaphysical claims in Genesis.

And yet here we are - still unconvinced the other has explained anything.

So what?

Define A and B and P, and I will get back to you on that.

There is no reason to rationally limit these things to only what is spoken of in the narrative as though this is an exhaustive theological treatise, but the narrative talks of God giving them all (save one) of the plant yielding seeds for food (there is nothing listed that goes against God’s trustworthiness in them eating those things), God helped Adam in the watering of the garden, God gave Adam a partner in Eve.

Define X and I will get back to you on that.

Should I trust what God said about this fruit even though the serpent and my eyes are telling me to do something else?

I did not write the story under question. I am simply pointing out the conflicting nature of the two stories Adam got. One from the God and one from the Serpent.

Oh, I thought you were saying something else. A will isn’t free if there aren’t options to choose from or if only one option has anything going for it.

In that, my attention turns to others who are more open to my speculations and I generally leave Christians to their love of a good story and their battles over who's interpretations image the God under question/review the best.

Being open isn’t the same thing as agreeing with. And all people, including you, “battle” over whose interpretations image reality the best. If you only turn your attention to those who don’t disagree with you, then you aren’t growing as much as you could be.

I think that many who focus on their love of said good story, don't notice the God standing behind them watching what they are doing.

We each have our Journey to attend to...

I agree.

[Purple Knight]

If they thought God was the right source and they would die, they were lemmings, not just fools. It's reasonable to say they didn't know what would happen for certain. In that case, the best option is to try to learn what will happen. If that comes by way of doing it, I don't see the problem as human beings all do it.

Yes, it’s reasonable to say they didn’t know with certainty. In that uncertainty, they decided to follow their wishful thinking, in spite of knowing they are limited in their knowledge of things and God has never failed them, rather than God’s advice. They devalued their relationship with God and overvalued perceived control and pleasure. I don’t see how that is a better choice.

If it was pleasure then why didn't they do it before the serpent convinced them? The fact that the tree was there, all that time, with them not touching it until somebody suggested they should, indicates to me that Adam and Eve were deferring their desires and choosing to obey. It is when they got conflicting information, and thought that what they were doing might be the wrong choice, that they acted. This suggests they acted on, primarily, reason, and not impulse or desire.

You're listening to someone who says yes, you can do something (in this case, draw Mohammed) over those who say no, you cannot do that thing, it is evil. Maybe you're not, but I find most people overly dismissive of the idea that it is really sacrilege. What if it is?

I’m still confused about your point in saying this. Are you saying we are all just listening to other humans, whatever we choose? Are you saying I believe it’s not a sacrilege just because I’m a Christian, without giving it further thought? Something else?

You've made a choice, when there are opposing voices, and the choice you've made is, yes it is permissible to do that thing. Even though some people say it isn't. So this is not an alien concept to you, to select "yes it is permissible" over "no it is not permissible" when, strictly speaking, you don't know what will happen. I know what I'm doing every time I make this kind of a choice and maybe it is sacrilege. If it is, I'm hurting people on my ignorance if I say people should be able to make the drawing. If it is not, and again out of ignorance, I say people should not be allowed to make the drawing, again I am hurting people because I am ignorant.

I'm going to default to yes someone may do that thing, if I have very little or no information. And when they do it and earn a lightning bolt directly from God, I may change my opinion. Someone had to get hurt first, but at least in this hypothetical I then know for sure. Without the knowledge that can only come from somebody doing it, all I have is an uneducated guess, and that's bad. In order for understanding to be upgraded even to educated guess, someone has to do the thing.

And because "no you cannot do that thing" could have us hurting all of us in ignorance, in perpetuity, it's a bad default. The "yes you can do that thing" is a better default because then, worst case, somebody gets hurt but at least we know.

And you think the Genesis story is making a claim that Adam and Eve fell for it (or would have fallen for) every single attempt they faced?

I don't see a positive claim there, but they had never experienced deception before, and doesn't everybody fall for it once or twice before they learn better?

I’m not sure I see as clear cut a separation between our rationality and emotionality as you might. I think we often use our intellect to try to justify our emotional desires. This is true whether we are spurned into such thinking via someone else’s words or our own thoughts.

I wish that didn't happen, because I sometimes find myself in a place where the rational choice happens to be the apparently emotional one, and I usually feel a lot of pressure to then make an irrational choice just to try and make sure nobody thinks ill of me. This could very well be what's happening to Adam and Eve right this moment.

[William]

Why should the mythology be trusted, and our eyes abandoned?

I think Genesis should be trusted because of the various arguments for the existence of God, those that narrow that down to the Abrahamic kind of God, the historicity of the resurrection which, if true, points to truth of Jesus’ claims about Himself, and the reliability of the Biblical documents in relaying Jesus’ teachings, which include acceptance of the metaphysical claims in Genesis.

How is what you think not equated with what you believe and what you believe, not equated with blind trust?

Why should anyone trust what you think or what you believe might be true?

Why call the story metaphysical and not mythological?
While metaphysical questions can sometimes touch on mythological themes and vice versa, they are distinct fields of inquiry. Metaphysics is concerned with abstract concepts such as being, causality, and substance, while mythology deals with the interpretation of stories and symbols that are part of a culture's collective imagination.

You appear to want to argue the story of Adam in a metaphysical way...is that correct?

Even so, we are dealing with something that cannot be said to something which actually happened and so any claim that it actually did must be regarded as opinion rather than fact.

The story itself is just presented. It implies that it is factual rather than fictional, but even the implication may be a false interpretation.

I think it best to regard the story as fiction/myth.

Why must they also have direct experience of X before knowing whether God is probably trustworthy about X as well?

Define X and I will get back to you on that.

Should I trust what God said about this fruit even though the serpent and my eyes are telling me to do something else?

Should I trust someone who places temptation in my way and leaves the scene willing to stand back and watch a world of humans suffer for the sake of one fictional man's choice to eat something he was told not to eat?

Or should I simply accept that the story is a vain attempt at telling a moral which has no power to make a God look as good as the God is claimed to be and that perhaps that was the authors intention?

For my part, it is far more appropriate to discard the story as bad fiction and that no command was ever given by any God and that pain and death have always been an inbuilt requirement re experiencing this reality and nothing untoward is involved in that purpose of this creation.

What use is my believing that Jesus came along and will come along again, that I should place any hope and trust in that promise, when I can just as easily accept that nothing wrong happened in the first place because no God made any command and no punishment or requirement for blood sacrifice was ever ordered by any God?

What purpose is their in having blind faith in such stories?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #83]

If it was pleasure then why didn't they do it before the serpent convinced them?

This is why I think the story is best considered to being fiction. It makes the God look like he made Adam aware enough not to want to disobey the command of his own volition independent of any external influences, whilst at the same time, implies that the God is also an external influence, even by being visible and giving instruction/command.

And that external influences where the only means by which Adam could be made to potentially succumb to temptation, should there be some type of faulty thing in Adam which the God is shown by the author to be testing for.

Why not just let Adam be and naturally evolve without being externally influenced in any way by means of temptation and learn "good" and "evil" through that natural process?

When I couple evolution with the idea that we exist within a creation then I see that humans have been allowed to evolve naturally without those external influences "God" and "Serpent" and everything falls nicely into place.

Add those external myths, and we have good explanation for why human history went the way that it did. Folk were willing to murder one another and enslave entire cultures, by believing the mythologies were actually true.

Meantime, folk still suffer and die of natural causes and Jesus is nowhere to be seen.

[The Tanager]

If it was pleasure then why didn't they do it before the serpent convinced them? The fact that the tree was there, all that time, with them not touching it until somebody suggested they should, indicates to me that Adam and Eve were deferring their desires and choosing to obey. It is when they got conflicting information, and thought that what they were doing might be the wrong choice, that they acted. This suggests they acted on, primarily, reason, and not impulse or desire.

I’m not sure this means they hadn’t considered it before, perhaps they hadn’t, but, even if they had, hearing someone else suggest the action certainly makes it more appealing and justifiable to us. There was rational uncertainty and they acted on their desires. Genesis 3:6 says she did it because it was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and could make her wise like God. She had desires in the midst of rational uncertainty, and she rationalized her desires to eat it against God’s advice.

You've made a choice, when there are opposing voices, and the choice you've made is, yes it is permissible to do that thing. Even though some people say it isn't. So this is not an alien concept to you, to select "yes it is permissible" over "no it is not permissible" when, strictly speaking, you don't know what will happen. I know what I'm doing every time I make this kind of a choice and maybe it is sacrilege. If it is, I'm hurting people on my ignorance if I say people should be able to make the drawing. If it is not, and again out of ignorance, I say people should not be allowed to make the drawing, again I am hurting people because I am ignorant.

I actually think people should not draw Muhammad, out of respect for those who believe it is a sacrilege and that there are other ways to get one’s message across. The rightness or wrongness of my view there isn’t dependent on what other people do in response to that. That people disagree with me doesn’t necessarily mean I am hurting them by that view.

I'm going to default to yes someone may do that thing, if I have very little or no information. And when they do it and earn a lightning bolt directly from God, I may change my opinion. Someone had to get hurt first, but at least in this hypothetical I then know for sure. Without the knowledge that can only come from somebody doing it, all I have is an uneducated guess, and that's bad. In order for understanding to be upgraded even to educated guess, someone has to do the thing.

And because "no you cannot do that thing" could have us hurting all of us in ignorance, in perpetuity, it's a bad default. The "yes you can do that thing" is a better default because then, worst case, somebody gets hurt but at least we know.

If only humans are involved, sure. But God would know without the doing of the thing.

I don't see a positive claim there, but they had never experienced deception before, and doesn't everybody fall for it once or twice before they learn better?

That doesn’t mean it can’t be learned without deception. Are you saying everything we learn must come through being deceived?

I wish that didn't happen, because I sometimes find myself in a place where the rational choice happens to be the apparently emotional one, and I usually feel a lot of pressure to then make an irrational choice just to try and make sure nobody thinks ill of me. This could very well be what's happening to Adam and Eve right this moment.

Yes, these decisions are hard. I think Christianity speaks of a God who knows this and wants us to be in relationship with Him so that we will, more and more, make the wise choices.

[The Tanager]

I think Genesis should be trusted because of the various arguments for the existence of God, those that narrow that down to the Abrahamic kind of God, the historicity of the resurrection which, if true, points to truth of Jesus’ claims about Himself, and the reliability of the Biblical documents in relaying Jesus’ teachings, which include acceptance of the metaphysical claims in Genesis.

How is what you think not equated with what you believe and what you believe, not equated with blind trust?

Because it’s seemingly backed by arguments, reasons, and evidence rather than just being blind trust.

Why should anyone trust what you think or what you believe might be true?

If they agree with the arguments, reasoning, and evidence that support it. To mistrust that, they need to have good critiques of such things.

Why call the story metaphysical and not mythological?
While metaphysical questions can sometimes touch on mythological themes and vice versa, they are distinct fields of inquiry. Metaphysics is concerned with abstract concepts such as being, causality, and substance, while mythology deals with the interpretation of stories and symbols that are part of a culture's collective imagination.

You appear to want to argue the story of Adam in a metaphysical way...is that correct?

Even so, we are dealing with something that cannot be said to something which actually happened and so any claim that it actually did must be regarded as opinion rather than fact.

The story itself is just presented. It implies that it is factual rather than fictional, but even the implication may be a false interpretation.

I think it best to regard the story as fiction/myth.

I think it is metaphysical for sure, as it deals with questions about ultimate reality. I also think it is myth, but not in the sense of being fictional. Even if this event didn’t literally happen, I think it is speaking to the truth of the human condition in wanting to try to figure things out for ourselves.

Should I trust someone who places temptation in my way and leaves the scene willing to stand back and watch a world of humans suffer for the sake of one fictional man's choice to eat something he was told not to eat?

So, you’d rather God not give us a will of our own?

Or should I simply accept that the story is a vain attempt at telling a moral which has no power to make a God look as good as the God is claimed to be and that perhaps that was the authors intention?

I see no good reason to believe this.

For my part, it is far more appropriate to discard the story as bad fiction and that no command was ever given by any God and that pain and death have always been an inbuilt requirement re experiencing this reality and nothing untoward is involved in that purpose of this creation.

I agree that pain and physical death have always been a part and that there is nothing untoward in this. So why, in post 85 do you say “Meantime, folk still suffer and die of natural causes and Jesus is nowhere to be seen”? You just said pain and death is not an untoward part of reality.

What use is my believing that Jesus came along and will come along again, that I should place any hope and trust in that promise, when I can just as easily accept that nothing wrong happened in the first place because no God made any command and no punishment or requirement for blood sacrifice was ever ordered by any God?

What purpose is their in having blind faith in such stories?

You definitely shouldn’t but blind faith in this (or any worldview). You should follow where reason leads. I think it leads to humans not being able to be sinless on their own power. It leads to us needing a relationship with God to achieve that. It leads to Jesus being He who came along to bring us into that relationship.

Many have used these stories to oppress and kill. They also have used science and every single worldview in existence. That’s what we do as humans; it’s not just religious folk. Jesus taught against such things.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #87]

Should I trust someone who places temptation in my way and leaves the scene willing to stand back and watch a world of humans suffer for the sake of one fictional man's choice to eat something he was told not to eat?

So, you’d rather God not give us a will of our own?

One does not lead to the other. As I wrote, for my part, it is far more appropriate to discard the story as bad fiction and that no command was ever given by any God and that pain and death have always been an inbuilt requirement re experiencing this reality and nothing untoward is involved in that purpose of this creation.
Will is not the issue, for it is required in order to make choice from the position of ignorance.

The issue is how another's ignorance and will is used to trap them into believing things blindly.
Blind belief is not an appropriate way in which to use one's will.

Or should I simply accept that the story is a vain attempt at telling a moral which has no power to make a God look as good as the God is claimed to be and that perhaps that was the authors intention?

I see no good reason to believe this.

Have you ever thought to investigate the "bad" reasons to believe this and if so, can you bullet point those, that we all might examine them together?

I agree that pain and physical death have always been a part and that there is nothing untoward in this. So why, in post 85 do you say “Meantime, folk still suffer and die of natural causes and Jesus is nowhere to be seen”? You just said pain and death is not an untoward part of reality.

The full content of post #85 is as follows:
This is why I think the story is best considered to being fiction. It makes the God look like he made Adam aware enough not to want to disobey the command of his own volition independent of any external influences, whilst at the same time, implies that the God is also an external influence, even by being visible and giving instruction/command.

And that external influences where the only means by which Adam could be made to potentially succumb to temptation, should there be some type of faulty thing in Adam which the God is shown by the author to be testing for.

Why not just let Adam be and naturally evolve without being externally influenced in any way by means of temptation and learn "good" and "evil" through that natural process?

When I couple evolution with the idea that we exist within a creation then I see that humans have been allowed to evolve naturally without those external influences "God" and "Serpent" and everything falls nicely into place.

Add those external myths, and we have good explanation for why human history went the way that it did. Folk were willing to murder one another and enslave entire cultures, by believing the mythologies were actually true.

Meantime, folk still suffer and die of natural causes and Jesus is nowhere to be seen.

The story of the second coming is questionable. Why would there be a requirement for divine intervention on a world-wide scale, if those things are natural and we needn't regard them as evil or punishment which require blood-sacrifice, blind faith and an eventual visible God to fix something which isn't really even broken?

I think it is metaphysical for sure, as it deals with questions about ultimate reality.

I think that it is best no to conflate things which "deal with questions about ultimate reality" as "truth".
Rather, they should be examined in light of what they actually are.

I also think it is myth, but not in the sense of being fictional.

This position may derive from the attempt to conflate.

Even if this event didn’t literally happen, I think it is speaking to the truth of the human condition in wanting to try to figure things out for ourselves.

My argument remains valid. There has obviously been a time where humans making the effort to figure things out for themselves, have produced stories which are questionable in light of modern evidence, awareness and understanding that pain and suffering are not punishments dished out by the Garden Variety God-Concept folk believe is "more true than not."
The image the story has created through said concept, does not align very well with reality, and further to that, allows for the probability that the image is false, and explains why humans are so disconnected with nature to the point where the disconnect has them working against nature, in the hope of divine intervention and other promises made through the instrument of religious mythology.

You definitely shouldn’t but blind faith in this (or any worldview). You should follow where reason leads. I think it leads to humans not being able to be sinless on their own power.

Then I reasonably question why the God- concept from the story-teller/s, gave Adam a will and placed Adam in a situation where he would most likely stumble. The story shows that Adam was not able to sin on his own power, as it required external temptation and a rule.
Specific to the rule, focus is then placed upon that which was not to be consumed, providing the temptation.
The God-concept under question, had implied doubts about giving an ignorant human the ability to choose without the ability to understand consequence, that the human would choose to trust that his own ignorance would not suffice and he should rely on the Gods instruction, because the God was not always there and could not protect Adam from Adam trusting in his own ignorance and allowing that to override both the command and the promised penalty for breaking the command.

Further to that, the human just gets about naming things, and appears to have no interest in the forbidden tree but does appear to be lonely, so the God creates a Woman from the Mans own DNA [making Adam and Eve - not just brother and sister but making Eve a female version of Adam] and still there is no interest, so the only thing left which could get about testing Adam, is some cunning intelligent being which appears to have no other purpose, but to tempt Adam's ignorance with questionable stories to which Adam understood no come-back argument - implying the Garden-God didn't inform Adam to that degree, but wanted Adam to figure it out and make the right choice.
And somehow, the Gods doubt is confirmed, when - after leaving the pair to get about doing what they did, and having the serpent get in their ear, the pair ignorantly succumb to the temptation and end up "sinners".

It leads to us needing a relationship with God to achieve that. It leads to Jesus being He who came along to bring us into that relationship.

More to the point, what it has evidently lead to is a reliance on belief in questionable stories, worship of a book said stories are contained in, which give false images and require said believers to support the religious structures which produced said stories.

Many have used these stories to oppress and kill. They also have used science and every single worldview in existence. That’s what we do as humans; it’s not just religious folk.

"Don't look at us look at them" isn't a reasonable argument. The focus is on this particular story, which is not a scientific one, and the point being made is that such a story - believed to be truthful - is a religious invention for the purpose of controlling and directing blind ignorance.

Jesus taught against such things.

Then it is ironic that such teachings are mixed in with the fables. It can be reasoned that this is a purposeful and calculated addition, to give the impression they are true stories.

The thing I find strange about the Jesus story is that the idea those seeing him when he was there to be seen, that they who witnessed this, were "seeing God" in said visible manner.

But that was then and this is now.

If God became the blood-sacrifice in order to atone for sin, then that would only seem right and just, given the way the God handled his creation in the first place.

But - we are speaking of probable fiction re the God-concept, which is therefore questionable, and requires those who will to do so, to ask the right questions and get the right answers.

The best answer appears to be that humans made it up and that there is no such thing as sin or good or evil in nature, other than what humans falsely attribute to nature through belief in the stories handed down by abusers and create abusive systems in which to direct humans in an unnatural manner.

[The Tanager]

Should I trust someone who places temptation in my way and leaves the scene willing to stand back and watch a world of humans suffer for the sake of one fictional man's choice to eat something he was told not to eat?

So, you’d rather God not give us a will of our own?

One does not lead to the other. As I wrote, for my part, it is far more appropriate to discard the story as bad fiction and that no command was ever given by any God and that pain and death have always been an inbuilt requirement re experiencing this reality and nothing untoward is involved in that purpose of this creation.
Will is not the issue, for it is required in order to make choice from the position of ignorance.

The issue is how another's ignorance and will is used to trap them into believing things blindly.
Blind belief is not an appropriate way in which to use one's will.

It is logically impossible to have free wills and make it certain that no suffering will occur because of those free wills.

And there is no good reason to think the Genesis story talks of blind belief.

Have you ever thought to investigate the "bad" reasons to believe this and if so, can you bullet point those, that we all might examine them together?

I have done so on many occasions. You and others have offered reasons on this thread and I have responded to those.

The story of the second coming is questionable. Why would there be a requirement for divine intervention on a world-wide scale, if those things are natural and we needn't regard them as evil or punishment which require blood-sacrifice, blind faith and an eventual visible God to fix something which isn't really even broken?

I didn’t say all suffering and pain is natural to human existence. Our moral evils do show brokenness. Christianity is not about punishing us for our evils. Christianity doesn’t ask for blind faith.

I think that it is best no to conflate things which "deal with questions about ultimate reality" as "truth".
Rather, they should be examined in light of what they actually are.

I’m not conflating the two; of course not all metaphysical claims are true. One should also not conflate myth with fiction.

The image the story has created through said concept, does not align very well with reality, and further to that, allows for the probability that the image is false, and explains why humans are so disconnected with nature to the point where the disconnect has them working against nature, in the hope of divine intervention and other promises made through the instrument of religious mythology.

Got any evidence for these claims?

You definitely shouldn’t but blind faith in this (or any worldview). You should follow where reason leads. I think it leads to humans not being able to be sinless on their own power.

Then I reasonably question why the God- concept from the story-teller/s, gave Adam a will and placed Adam in a situation where he would most likely stumble.

That doesn’t reasonably follow. If Adam and Eve trusted God rather than relying on their own power, then they wouldn’t have stumbled.

The story shows that Adam was not able to sin on his own power, as it required external temptation and a rule.

It doesn’t show this at all. It’s possible the serpent is a metaphor for their own inner temptation. And if the serpent is an actual character, then the story is just sharing how the fall historically happened; it doesn’t make any statement on how they might have fallen (or not fallen) without the serpent. You are reading into the story what the story doesn’t address.

Specific to the rule, focus is then placed upon that which was not to be consumed, providing the temptation.

Free will logically requires a temptation towards different options.

... but to tempt Adam's ignorance with questionable stories to which Adam understood no come-back argument - implying the Garden-God didn't inform Adam to that degree, but wanted Adam to figure it out and make the right choice.

Adam and Eve did have come back arguments. Eve presented God’s advice at first as a come back, so the story clearly shows “Garden-God” did inform them.

More to the point, what it has evidently lead to is a reliance on belief in questionable stories, worship of a book said stories are contained in, which give false images and require said believers to support the religious structures which produced said stories.

Show this evidence instead of just stating your conclusions as though they are fact.

"Don't look at us look at them" isn't a reasonable argument.

I didn’t say “don’t look at us look at them”. You were talking about how these stories have been used to oppress and cause suffering, as though that proves something about their truth value being false. It’s reasonable for me to disagree with that because such a principle would result in viewing every worldview as being false.

The focus is on this particular story, which is not a scientific one, and the point being made is that such a story - believed to be truthful - is a religious invention for the purpose of controlling and directing blind ignorance.

Do you have any evidence that this story is a religious invention for the purpose of controlling and directing blind ignorance?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #89]

It is logically impossible to have free wills and make it certain that no suffering will occur because of those free wills.

Will is not the issue, for it is required in order to make choice from the position of ignorance.

The issue is how another's ignorance and will is used to trap them into believing things blindly.
Blind belief is not an appropriate way in which to use one's will.
Nor is suffering the issue.

As I wrote, for my part, it is far more appropriate to discard the story as bad fiction and that no command was ever given by any God and that pain and death have always been an inbuilt requirement re experiencing this reality and nothing untoward is involved in that purpose of this creation.

And there is no good reason to think the Genesis story talks of blind belief.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But blind belief is a condition built into the fabric of the religion and the garden story is part of that fabric.

Have you ever thought to investigate the "bad" reasons to believe this and if so, can you bullet point those, that we all might examine them together?

I have done so on many occasions. You and others have offered reasons on this thread and I have responded to those.

Where are these bullet points?

The story of the second coming is questionable. Why would there be a requirement for divine intervention on a world-wide scale, if those things are natural and we needn't regard them as evil or punishment which require blood-sacrifice, blind faith and an eventual visible God to fix something which isn't really even broken?

I didn’t say all suffering and pain is natural to human existence. Our moral evils do show brokenness. Christianity is not about punishing us for our evils. Christianity doesn’t ask for blind faith.

What is Christianity about, that my argument can be taken off the table?

I’m not conflating the two; of course not all metaphysical claims are true. One should also not conflate myth with fiction.

One should not conflate myth with fact.

The image the story has created through said concept, does not align very well with reality, and further to that, allows for the probability that the image is false, and explains why humans are so disconnected with nature to the point where the disconnect has them working against nature, in the hope of divine intervention and other promises made through the instrument of religious mythology.

Got any evidence for these claims?

They are observations and some of these observations have been mentioned and re-mentioned. It would be good if you could address the actual observations I have made - perhaps by explaining how the story fits in with nature.

Then I reasonably question why the God- concept from the story-teller/s, gave Adam a will and placed Adam in a situation where he would most likely stumble.

That doesn’t reasonably follow.

Of course it does and it has been pointed out to the reader in past posts.

If Adam and Eve trusted God rather than relying on their own power, then they wouldn’t have stumbled.

Break that down for the reader.
Why trust a visible being who claims to have created you?

That is the blind faith part.
Further to that, Adam obviously didn't concern his self with not trusting the being, until other elements where introduced into his situation - elements which allowed for alternative. Eve and the Serpent.

I noticed that in your post you always bring Eve's name into your arguments. Eve is not under question, either in this thread or whenever mentioned in the eventual Christian mythology.

The sin is always referred to as Adam's Sin.

The story shows that Adam was not able to sin on his own power, as it required external temptation and a rule.

It doesn’t show this at all. It’s possible the serpent is a metaphor for their own inner temptation.

There you go referring to the one [Adam] as if he were two.

But we should examine the idea that the story is really one examining the inner workings of a human being.

I mentioned observations [you called "claims"] and one observation I made was that such stories [religious mythology] are not related to external events but internal ones, re Jung's Archetypes.

In that - the God is also an Archetype, not to be conflated with any actual Creator God which may actually exist. It is a God-concept which Adam created in his mind.
Eve becomes a kind of feminine side to the masculine Adam - still the same personality, but female.
This come through in that the storyline tells us that - unlike Adam - Eve was created by the God through DNA, rather than from the dust of the Earth, and this means that Eve was not an individual in her own right, made from the dust of the earth, but a female replica of Adam himself, so they were closer to each other than blood siblings...but they were siblings nonetheless.

And if the serpent is an actual character, then the story is just sharing how the fall historically happened;

The Serpent represents opposition to the God.
If this is all happening in Adams subconscious realm, then the serpent represents another aspect enabling Adam to make a choice to go against his God's will, so he creates something which represents that which has reasoned that knowledge of good and evil is not evil but good.

He then allows his female image of self, to be tempted by the serpent character, in order to place someone in between his dominant male self and the tempter, in order that he maintains the illusion of integrity.
He is part of the interaction between his female side, and the tempter, even though he remains silent throughout, as if he were an innocent bystander.

it doesn’t make any statement on how they might have fallen (or not fallen) without the serpent. You are reading into the story what the story doesn’t address.

I will go along with that for the time being. If the story does not address this, then it is further evidence that the story is badly written, if indeed the story was meant to be understood as something more than simply religious mythology.
As mythology itself, it begs the question and thus the reader - at least the attentive reader - is forced to "read into the story" in order that the disconnect is addressed.

That is also why - when the reader treats the story as fiction, the reader can read it as a play which is an inner dialog of a human author placing himself in a story of creation to explain why he exists in a world of evil humans.

Specific to the rule, focus is then placed upon that which was not to be consumed, providing the temptation.

Free will logically requires a temptation towards different options.

Not temptation. Rather, experimentation. And that also requires ignorance.

For example, we know that there are things we should avoid consuming else they will kill us, because we have observed the death that follows such.

We also know that there are plants which we can consume which, not will not kill us, but can even enlighten us re the internal depths which can be experienced. Some resist such as if somehow this was something "tempting" and social laws have even been created by largely religious instigation, to make the natural somehow sinful.

... but to tempt Adam's ignorance with questionable stories to which Adam understood no come-back argument - implying the Garden-God didn't inform Adam to that degree, but wanted Adam to figure it out and make the right choice.

Adam and Eve did have come back arguments. Eve presented God’s advice at first as a come back, so the story clearly shows “Garden-God” did inform them.

Comeback after the deed. I was speaking of Adam, and I was specifically speaking prior to the deed.
I was speaking of Adams ignorance not allowing for him to question the command the God-Concept had made.
The questionable story was that Adam would die.

Even after the deed and expulsion, we are informed that Adam did not die for around 900 years.

Rather than attempting to examine the story by jumping from "fact" to "fiction", if the story is examined as an internal revelation of the story-teller re wanting/giving an explanation for why "unnatural" sin happens in his world, we can engage with the story-tellers understanding of 'good' and 'evil' where the story-tellers bias assumes that because humans don't listen to their inner voice of conscientiousness that their creator gave them, things go pear-shaped.

In that, we can also ascertain that the story-tellers own voice of conscientiousness regarding the story-tellers own knowledge of good and evil, are considered by the story-tellers to be correct knowledge.

But what is "correct knowledge" of good and evil? Obviously we are not directly informed, but the inference is that it has something to do with a disconnect between the individual and something called "GOD".