I really enjoy reminding them that Satan only kills about 10 people in the Bible. He temps others to do things, but he's only responsible for a handful.
God on the other hand... much more direct and merciless. Doesn't really seem to give a shit at all about killing people actually. Like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.
He wanted the result, but needed it to be our 'fault' for weird passive aggressive reasons and so he could hold it over our heads for eaons. "Sorry son, I'd drive you to the store but you ate that apple. Remember the apple I told you not to eat?"
Why are there two different creation stories in the Bible? If Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, how could Cain come upon a city while he was wandering the earth? Why are there two conflicting versions of the Ten Commandments? Etc. Etc.
...if you are Christian, it doesn't matter, it isn't your book. It is reference for what IS your book. The one that says god's son came to earth and told us to love one another leading to his nailing to a tree....err...
If you're not looking for a genuine answer from a Christian, skip this.
First thing: the translation of "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" isn't really that good of a translation. It's closer to "the right to define good and evil. That means that eating the fruit is basically saying "fuck you, God. Imma do my own thing". That's not how God designed humans to live, and is incompatible to living alongside someone as powerful as God, which is why God told them not to eat it.
But why create that tree in the first place? Essentially, choice. When you're in the supermarket and you see 50 different flavors, but everything is from the same brand, do you really have any choice? Same thing with God. Unless you have the option of rejecting God, choosing to him means nothing.
You don't have to agree with the poster but they already answered that. There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent. Theodicy is a different matter.
If god is all powerful everything is a choice and there are no natural restrictions. Why an omniscient and supposedly loving deity created us to suffer and die is a question of theodicy and that is separate from the question of free will. Because god is a jerk is a likely and valid argument in this framework.
A better example for the god is a jerk is Satan/Lucifer. Angels were not given free will and are servants of God by design. Still, Satan and his host were cast down and separated from the light of God's love for their rebellion. Not being endowed with free will, the angels were apparently set up. In this situation, god made beings a certain way and then punished them for it while not giving them access to the tools of salvation (free will.)
Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn't.
Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for "I can't predict the behavior of this thing". For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.
Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that's what trips people up so much.
To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can't hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?
The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn't, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!
Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. "Of course the first three don't have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics"
Why not? It might seem absurd, but can you prove they don't "choose" to flit about here or there? A super-intelligent AI might also be able to "pierce the veil" and determine the underlying mechanics, like a video game character determining the math behind the random number generator that powers their world.
That's also only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, mechanistic interpretations aren't ruled out (though a number of variants have been).
If free will is observer dependent than why would the omniscience of some other observer relieve us, the observer who is not omniscient, of free will? Something else being able to predict my actions has no effect on my ability to predict the actions of others.
We're not "relieved" of free will. It's not an intrinsic property that one "has". It would be like having "big" or "near". You don't "have" big, it's a relative term.
It's simply a description of observed behavior. That's all it really is in the end, even though people treat it as this super mysterious thing.
I've never heard that translation, how does that justify them noticing they're naked as a bad thing? The idea there is simple with the fruit granting the knowledge, but doesn't make sense with a fruit that allows you to define good and evil. But even then there's another thing you got wrong, they're not kicked out of paradise for eating from the tree, they get punished for that but the reason why they're kicked out is so that they don't eat from the immortality tree:
22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever".
the reason they're kicked out is so that they don't eat from the immortality tree
I said that having eaten from the tree of good and evil put them in a state that humans were not designed to be in, so by kicking them out God is basically saying "it's better for them to die than it is for them to live forever like this"
Well, as a descendant from someone who ate of the tree and understands good and evil I would say that's pretty evil and egotistical, he expulsed them so they don't become like him in two fields since they were already like him on one.
Also, you didn't explained how they knew to cover themselves.
This boils down to the best of all possible worlds argument, already well-skewered in Candide centuries ago.
Why create the world exactly the way it was? Is it impossible to create it, so that of their own free will, one more person makes the "right" choice? That's some sorry omnipotence if so. If not one person, why not two? And so on, until you face the question of, "Why not create the world so that everyone, of their own free will, makes the 'right' decision".
Calvinists are intellectually brave enough to accept the metaphysical consequences of their beliefs. Others, not so much.
In a really generalised way, the tree and the fruit is kind of a metaphor.
If you live the life style I tell you to, then live in this garden and I will care for you. If you want to make your own rules then you're on your own.
I've never seen it this way before but this actually makes sense really.
Just to add to the great answers already given by others, another aspect to it all is that the mythology that developed into Judaism/Christianity/Islam was originally polytheistic. The god known as YHWH/Yahweh was one of many, but had a dedicated cult (not unlike Greco-Roman deities that often had cults of their own, revering one specific god to the exclusion of others who were nevertheless acknowledged).
So in that sense, the idea of Yahweh being omnipotent and omniscient is a bit of a retcon, meant to highlight the superiority of Yahweh over other gods as his henotheistic sect gradually developed into a more zealous monotheistic religion that rejected the legitimacy of all other gods entirely
That being said, the idea of Satan as a sort of antagonist character to tempt humans towards sin did not emerge until much later either, after the aforementioned omnipotent/omniscient revision of Yahweh. It really just boils down to whatever plot contrivances were convenient for the successive works of religious fan fiction that would later come to be canonized within each Abrahamic religion.
Worth remembering about the Gospels, which were all written decades later and served the purpose for which they were written (which was to speak to different groups at the time, which is why they all emphasized different things).
I mean the Judeo-Christian god is also omniscient so he did so knowing they wouldn't, meaning them eating the apple was the point in the first place. Otherwise he just wouldn't have created the tree.
PS: I'm Muslim and this story is a bit different in Islam but I'm pretty sure I got it right.
Aha! The question that has many pastors digging deep to get a good answer too. And usually they end up with the age old âmysterious waysâ.
The âbestâ one is usually along the lines of: god wanted a relationship which involves choice and free will, so he had to create a division that would allow humankind to have a choice in the matter.
So god feels lonely, causes all misery on earth that ever was and ever will be. Because free willâŚ
On top of that he also indirectly (oh screw it, itâs god) directly causes eternal torture in the afterlife for a vast majority of humankind. Because also, free will (I keep stressing that because that in itself is a huge problem for theologians).
And then all that leads to god killing itself in the form of its own son. Because some of you touch your own genitalia in glee.
Free will. The idea is that for free will to exist you must be able to choose the wrong action.
If a supreme being rules out all wrong actions or prevented you from taking wrong actions, how could there be free will? How could you even be responsible for your own thoughts and actions. How are you not just a puppet?
Alternately you can think of it as a leveling up. It seems like the Apple is always represented as âknowledge of good and evilâ. So originally theyâre just animals. They take actions but there is no morality, nothing is good or bad. But if they use their free will to take this one forbidden step, they receive the knowledge of good and evil, they can act good or act bad, they know itâs good or bad, and they have the free will to choose their path. And they are accountable for those choices. Now theyâre human
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but donât eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting âGotcha.â It wouldnât have made any difference if they hadnât eaten it.
Arthur Dent: Why not?
Ford Prefect: Because if youâre dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they wonât give up. Theyâll get you in the end.
But if god is omniscient, then he knows what they're going to do. And if he already knows that, then do they really have free will? Or do they just think they do?
There's 3 philosophies I've seen on that question.
One is the planned domino effect, which another commentator already mentioned.
The next is the "paradoxical being" one, which is that something that is omniscient is paradoxical by default, therefore it can both know what will happen and simultaneously not know what will happen.
The last is the "unknown destiny" one, which is that even if we don't actually have free will, as long as we think we do and can't prove we don't, then does it matter? Because ultimately it would be no different to us than if we actually did have it.
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn't, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn't omniscient (if he exists at all).
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
Well that's the nature of paradoxes, isn't it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you've probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I've also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it's really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it's no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.
This s is where you have the argument that a supreme being might have set the universe in motion but deliberately does not interfere with the way it evolves. The conditions are as close to even as possible so things can go either way âŚ. For an infinite number of decisions for an infinite time
It's not a question of interfering or not though, it's about foreknowledge.
Either god had foreknowledge of their choice, and therefore A&E couldn't have made any other decision than they did, or they had genuine free will meaning he wasn't omniscient.
And while we're at it, wouldn't the Reality Stone trump all the others because reality is all there is and contains everything the other stones represent?
Yes, correct, the logic of reality does not apply to works of fiction, which may have their own rules that may or may not be logical or internally consistent.
You'd think so, but get this: all the stones only work in the reality they're from, and are worthless trinkets in any other reality. It's ridiculous! They're not called the "infinity (of only this reality) stones" ffs!
Because that god is a crazy tyrant that had to prove he had total control over his creations (despite giving them free will), and threw a tantrum like a child when they disobeyed. And we have another example of his childish tantrums when he flooded the world because his toys weren't playing the way he wanted.
It explains a lot of why Christianity is so fucked up
God is also supposedly an all-knowing being, while at the same time excuses his shitty decisions and faulty creations with not being responsible for men's actions and decisions, and also free will is a thing.
Pick a lane. Either god is all-knowing and knows what every single human being who ever lived/lives/will live did/will do in their lifetimes and free will is an illusion, or he's not an all-knowing being.
Or... hear me out on this... He's not real! Crazy, I know.
One could (and does) ask the same thing about the universe. What created the universe? If something created the universe, what created the thing that created the universe? I'm not religious AT ALL. I fucking despise religions. But at least with science, they're trying to figure it out. With religion, it's just "god did it. No more questions". Fuck religion.
Christianity is only one of the many interpretations of reality. Not reality itself. Other doctrines like gnosticism, hinduism, etc... Will give you another view.
Ah the good old epicurean paradox :3. The christian god can't be all loving, all knowing, all powerful, and all present all at once, otherwise the whole religion makes no sense. If you solve that one you may become the new messiah, but otherwise the answer is "no reason" because none of it makes sense
I actually came up with a solution! Somehow it was missed by all the theologians over the years, but I'm quite sure it is a correct solution and out of the many solutions I've read, this is the only one that seems valid.
What if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good but just... isn't very smart? He's doing his best, okay?
You may wonder, if he's omnipotent, couldn't he increase his intelligence to solve this? Yes. Yes he could. If only he was smart enough to realise that =(
I always wondered what "doing things that are illegal in 30 states" meant. Anal isn't and never has been (I think) illegal here, so I wondered wtf it could be.
Would it really be free will if there was fate or destiny? Would he be a Laplace demon and by thinking about mankind eating the apple he was creating a simulation where mankind actually does eat an apple?
It's allegory and shouldn't be taken literally. At all. One possible interpretation is that eating the apple symbolises the birth of empathy or understanding of other consciousness, thereby giving humans both the ability to be kind and to be cruel.
Adding on to this, god asking them not to eat it was the basic human understanding of god's cosmic warning of the responsibility and consequences of doing so. The lesson is that we can't trust humans to make the right choice with something so profound, hence now we have nukes. And monkeys on the firing buttons.
Yeah, all sects that believe in biblical literism need to be abandoned. If christianity were ever to be a useful religion it needs to leave room for intreptaion and creativity.
Fanfiction/Please permit me to make wild allegations, I was also looking at this yesterday and wondered: is it the apple of knowledge of sexual reproduction? (I know the book says good and evil, I get it)
The other tree was the fruit of eternal life. They did not consume this fruit.
So, as for the story, humans could neither sexually reproduce nor live forever/a long time prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of sexual reproduction. Life and death. Good and evil.
They ate it, wanted to have sex with each other and were ashamed and covered themselves to avoid sexual arousal.
The free will they received was the ability to sexually reproduce.
In the story, angels cannot sexually reproduce with each other?, but seemingly live forever/a long time, and angels supposedly did get very excited that they could now sexually reproduce with humans: nephelim. Hybrids. There are no female angels.
Two different technology trees: humans with sexual reproduction and limited lifespan and angels with longevity/eternal life/angel powers/no females.
This gave the world a third (unintended?) hybrid nephelim class and this upset the balance of power on earth/the creation.
The chaos that ensued inspired yahweh to flood his creation and try again?
Wild shit! For me these are the chaotic and confused retelling of a story of extraterrestrial influence on the development of the human species.
This particular chapter is focused on origins and bloodlines of humanity so it makes sense to me in that way đ
Because you can say anything you want about a god that doesn't actually exist. He could cure cancer, turn you inside out, and show you the inside of a black hole. Just pray and interpret silence as a "no" but that doesn't mean he couldn't if he felt like it.
Recall that there were two trees: the Tree of Life was okay, the Tree of Knowledge was not. Why? Because if they had both the ability to live forever and the knowledge of good and evil, they would be like gods.
One, can't have competition. Two, then they would see how fucking awful Yahweh was and be able to do something about it. Once they had the knowledge, that apparently couldn't be taken away (?), so deprive them of eternal life and make them suffer as a distraction from what they know is true; Yahweh is a dick.
Recall that there were two trees: the Tree of Life was okay, the Tree of Knowledge was not. Why? Because if they had both the ability to live forever and the knowledge of good and evil, they would be like gods.
But as far as I remember that was what the snake said.
First of all, Adam and Eve didn't write the bible. You aren't even getting THEIR recounting of a story, you're getting the story recounted thousands of years later by some dude in the Middle East.
Second: In Christianity, God wrote the bible through others. That is why it is called the "word of God." So if you're a believer, you're getting told by God himself what happened.
I find the story better with "all-knowing" meaning know what is and had been and the future being unknown. A fact created by have multiple beings of free will.
That said eating the apple is very low stakes way to let someone choose to disobey you and thus learn what that means. The "punishment" seems like the plan all along.
At some point, one of y'all is going to have to admit that the story doesn't actually make any sense, instead of reinterpreting it again to make yourselves feel comfy.
The "punishment" seems like the plan all along.
Then your god is a vengeful, evil monster, unworthy of worship
I understand the epicurean paradox but I also understand for god to exist as some believe it would have to be paradoxical. I also understand that any true religion, anything not just societally and culturally forced, would not take hold as a probability based on geographical location of birth. I believe in a god that can give humans divine inspiration but I do not believe in a religion that is just a long tradition of group think. Any god that choses to create these structures of religion and call them right and just is of no interest to me.
what a disgusting god. People actually believe this shit? God WANTED his creations to be kicked out of paradise? Holy fuck, and people say he is "all loving". JFC.
The old reverse psychology and It's all part of the plan bit.
maybe I would do it and claim its a test to see if what i created are capable of thoughts outside my commands so they can be used for the next phase but im not all knowing. sooo it was all a waste of time for eve and them? Maybe.
The only justification I could think of is actually the garden is a incubation area and god needed a reason to kick them out for phase 2 and guilting them while giving them the intelligence to survive was the only option viable for the "long term plan". Like some kind of wierd motivation to stay alive. Still feels like a jerk move no matter how you slice it.
The story was adulterated, & that is visible in the text of that part of the bible, there was no apple.
"women ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good & Evil ( MORAL UNDERSTANDING ), & shared that with men".
Yes, mothering enforces more moral-understanding than does male-ego-persuits, traditional or modern.
As women have noticed, & evidence absolutely does back it, women bring life into the world, & men persue killing, consistently more than women do.
( the insecurity displayed by the "god" of that story is idiotic, & the blunt fact that help has been provided to humankind, repeatedly, since then, falsifies the message in that part of their bible that "god" wants us kept down, as pets: it investes in our evolving, & there's even a book specifically on that, though from an Abrahamic-religion perspective, called "The Evolution of God", which .. isn't written by a believer, but comes to the conclusion that someone has been cultivating evolution, consistently, among the peoples of that "god". )
The "grace" left-behind by ones who experience moral-anxiety is the "grace" of being mere-animals, who don't have moral-anxieties.
This is an absolutely-factual metaphor/parable about the mere-animal ancestors of humankind vs the moral-anxiety/moral-difficulties condition of our "generation".
Also, there's another corroboration, but much more recent..
there's a yt vid on how Gobekli Tepe somehow was a metropolis without agriculture: Natural Abundance was sufficient for them to do that, & they didn't break their ecology, the way we do..
But you've still got the "grace"/"non-grace" difference between the people who just lived in natural-abundance & didn't break their ecology vs our-generation..
Oh, & as far as I can tell, the Abrahamic-religion authorities are looking totally at the wrong frame-of-reference, in trying to discern where the "Garden of Eden" was: it means Earth, not some limited-locale of it.
Earth was pristine, lush, drenchingly-alive ( I've read that the cod were sooo thick in off the Atlantic coast of Canada, that the fishermen said you could walk from ship to ship .. exageration, certainly, but .. the fish were, on average, 80y old, back then, & huge. Nowadays, they're .. a few years old, 8yo was what I'd read last century, & then we broke the coral-forests they breed in, & the cod-fishery collapsed, & never recovered. We're incompetent at preserving natural-wealth, & we do it in ALL contexts, all fisheries, all forests, .. where's all the BEST farmland on Earth? under concrete, because we converted it all to cities, since that was where the people were.
Idiocy ).
We're destroying the Garden of Eden, globally.
No matter: The Great Filter, our species-puberty, will force-exterminate our race, if we won't grow-up quick enough, completely enough.
148 Comments
jordanlund@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 127d
It was a test, but if he was omniscient, he would have known the results without having to run it. đ
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 24 pts · 127d
See how i didnt mention he is also "benevolent."
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 27 pts · 127d
There's quite a bit of evidence to argue he is actually malevolent.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 127d
Christians then start applying "ends justifies the means" logic.
Calvin ball. Its all just Calvin ball.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 127d
Try telling that to a Christian and you'll hear the battered wife type arguments come out sooooo quick.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 9 pts · 127d
I really enjoy reminding them that Satan only kills about 10 people in the Bible. He temps others to do things, but he's only responsible for a handful.
God on the other hand... much more direct and merciless. Doesn't really seem to give a shit at all about killing people actually. Like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 127d
MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 126d
I love the story where he kills everyone in the world except for that one disfunctional family.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 127d
I don't quite have the urge to believe this, you could say I have a demiurge
notsure@fedia.io · 6 pts · 127d
beat me to it
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 127d
He wanted the result, but needed it to be our 'fault' for weird passive aggressive reasons and so he could hold it over our heads for eaons. "Sorry son, I'd drive you to the store but you ate that apple. Remember the apple I told you not to eat?"
Monument@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 127d
Embarrassment kink followed by the lack of emotional regulation to handle the outcome of a scenario they asked asked for.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 127d
The god character in Oglaf is probably the most accurate representation of God.
https://www.oglaf.com/parenting/
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 32 pts · 127d
If I've learned something from listening History in the Bible podcast is that Yaweh is an asshole and that there are layers of bad translations.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 127d
Evangelicals sweep that all under the rug with "divine inspiration."
Strider@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 127d
Yet here we are with rich assholes running the world and chasing the Antichrist story and trying to summon the end of the world.
You'd think they'd be more intelligent.
remon@ani.social · 30 pts · 127d
Yeah, that story has a lot of plot holes.
notsure@fedia.io · 9 pts · 127d
...talking snakes?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 29 pts · 127d
Fuck you, Zootopia 2 was a masterpiece.
irate944@piefed.social · 11 pts · 127d
Yeah that was a weird chapter in the bible
mech@feddit.org · 24 pts · 127d
Why are there two different creation stories in the Bible? If Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, how could Cain come upon a city while he was wandering the earth? Why are there two conflicting versions of the Ten Commandments? Etc. Etc.
kyonshi@dice.camp · 5 pts · 127d
@mech @Daft_ish well... if he wandered long enough while his siblings were busy procreating... I mean, it wasn't like he was come across anything else
notsure@fedia.io · 4 pts · 127d
...if you are Christian, it doesn't matter, it isn't your book. It is reference for what IS your book. The one that says god's son came to earth and told us to love one another leading to his nailing to a tree....err...
Mr_Fish@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 127d
If you're not looking for a genuine answer from a Christian, skip this.
First thing: the translation of "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" isn't really that good of a translation. It's closer to "the right to define good and evil. That means that eating the fruit is basically saying "fuck you, God. Imma do my own thing". That's not how God designed humans to live, and is incompatible to living alongside someone as powerful as God, which is why God told them not to eat it.
But why create that tree in the first place? Essentially, choice. When you're in the supermarket and you see 50 different flavors, but everything is from the same brand, do you really have any choice? Same thing with God. Unless you have the option of rejecting God, choosing to him means nothing.
dandi8@fedia.io · 16 pts · 127d
Couldn't he have created the world in a way where all that is not necessary? Or one where there would be no bad choices?
Seems kinda evil on his part to design for the option of evil.
WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 127d
You don't have to agree with the poster but they already answered that. There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent. Theodicy is a different matter.
dandi8@fedia.io · 11 pts · 127d
If god is all-powerful, then that is a choice, not a natural restriction.
So the answer is "because god is a jerk"?
WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 127d
If god is all powerful everything is a choice and there are no natural restrictions. Why an omniscient and supposedly loving deity created us to suffer and die is a question of theodicy and that is separate from the question of free will. Because god is a jerk is a likely and valid argument in this framework.
A better example for the god is a jerk is Satan/Lucifer. Angels were not given free will and are servants of God by design. Still, Satan and his host were cast down and separated from the light of God's love for their rebellion. Not being endowed with free will, the angels were apparently set up. In this situation, god made beings a certain way and then punished them for it while not giving them access to the tools of salvation (free will.)
m_f@discuss.online · 4 pts · 127d
Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn't.
Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for "I can't predict the behavior of this thing". For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.
Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that's what trips people up so much.
To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can't hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?
The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn't, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!
Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. "Of course the first three don't have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics"
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 127d
So, subatomic particles have free will, but humans don't?
m_f@discuss.online · 1 pts · 127d
Why not? It might seem absurd, but can you prove they don't "choose" to flit about here or there? A super-intelligent AI might also be able to "pierce the veil" and determine the underlying mechanics, like a video game character determining the math behind the random number generator that powers their world.
That's also only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, mechanistic interpretations aren't ruled out (though a number of variants have been).
WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 127d
If free will is observer dependent than why would the omniscience of some other observer relieve us, the observer who is not omniscient, of free will? Something else being able to predict my actions has no effect on my ability to predict the actions of others.
m_f@discuss.online · 1 pts · 127d
We're not "relieved" of free will. It's not an intrinsic property that one "has". It would be like having "big" or "near". You don't "have" big, it's a relative term.
It's simply a description of observed behavior. That's all it really is in the end, even though people treat it as this super mysterious thing.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 4 pts · 127d
âIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â
osanna@lemmy.vg · 1 pts · 125d
if there was a god, there wouldn't be a trump. That's all the proof i need that god doesn't exist.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 9 pts · 127d
His design was flawed, then, if humans managed to do something they were not designed to do.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 127d
I've never heard that translation, how does that justify them noticing they're naked as a bad thing? The idea there is simple with the fruit granting the knowledge, but doesn't make sense with a fruit that allows you to define good and evil. But even then there's another thing you got wrong, they're not kicked out of paradise for eating from the tree, they get punished for that but the reason why they're kicked out is so that they don't eat from the immortality tree:
Mr_Fish@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 127d
I said that having eaten from the tree of good and evil put them in a state that humans were not designed to be in, so by kicking them out God is basically saying "it's better for them to die than it is for them to live forever like this"
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
Well, as a descendant from someone who ate of the tree and understands good and evil I would say that's pretty evil and egotistical, he expulsed them so they don't become like him in two fields since they were already like him on one.
Also, you didn't explained how they knew to cover themselves.
RattlerSix@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
I'd like to see some citations on that. They're are several scholarly theories about the what the tree represents, but I've never heard this one.
m_f@discuss.online · 2 pts · 127d
This boils down to the best of all possible worlds argument, already well-skewered in Candide centuries ago.
Why create the world exactly the way it was? Is it impossible to create it, so that of their own free will, one more person makes the "right" choice? That's some sorry omnipotence if so. If not one person, why not two? And so on, until you face the question of, "Why not create the world so that everyone, of their own free will, makes the 'right' decision".
Calvinists are intellectually brave enough to accept the metaphysical consequences of their beliefs. Others, not so much.
fizzle@quokk.au · 2 pts · 127d
In a really generalised way, the tree and the fruit is kind of a metaphor.
If you live the life style I tell you to, then live in this garden and I will care for you. If you want to make your own rules then you're on your own.
I've never seen it this way before but this actually makes sense really.
magnetosphere@fedia.io · 17 pts · 127d
Donât try to apply reason/common sense/logic to ANY religion. Youâll end up with more questions than answers.
Besides, I was told that the point of the story was resisting temptation. God wanted to see if Adam and Eve could do that. Spoiler: they couldnât.
kureta@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 127d
Even though he new exactly what they would do beforehand. Being all-knowing.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 127d
Just to add to the great answers already given by others, another aspect to it all is that the mythology that developed into Judaism/Christianity/Islam was originally polytheistic. The god known as YHWH/Yahweh was one of many, but had a dedicated cult (not unlike Greco-Roman deities that often had cults of their own, revering one specific god to the exclusion of others who were nevertheless acknowledged).
So in that sense, the idea of Yahweh being omnipotent and omniscient is a bit of a retcon, meant to highlight the superiority of Yahweh over other gods as his henotheistic sect gradually developed into a more zealous monotheistic religion that rejected the legitimacy of all other gods entirely
That being said, the idea of Satan as a sort of antagonist character to tempt humans towards sin did not emerge until much later either, after the aforementioned omnipotent/omniscient revision of Yahweh. It really just boils down to whatever plot contrivances were convenient for the successive works of religious fan fiction that would later come to be canonized within each Abrahamic religion.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 127d
Worth remembering about the Gospels, which were all written decades later and served the purpose for which they were written (which was to speak to different groups at the time, which is why they all emphasized different things).
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 126d
The usual explanation is because God wanted humans to have free will, so interfering in their ability to self-determine would negate that.
The reality is because it makes no fucking sense, like much of the Bible.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 127d
Bad character and plot writing. The Bible was written by hacks and scabs.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 13 pts · 127d
I mean the Judeo-Christian god is also omniscient so he did so knowing they wouldn't, meaning them eating the apple was the point in the first place. Otherwise he just wouldn't have created the tree.
PS: I'm Muslim and this story is a bit different in Islam but I'm pretty sure I got it right.
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space · 12 pts · 127d
Aha! The question that has many pastors digging deep to get a good answer too. And usually they end up with the age old âmysterious waysâ.
The âbestâ one is usually along the lines of: god wanted a relationship which involves choice and free will, so he had to create a division that would allow humankind to have a choice in the matter.
So god feels lonely, causes all misery on earth that ever was and ever will be. Because free will⌠On top of that he also
indirectly(oh screw it, itâs god) directly causes eternal torture in the afterlife for a vast majority of humankind. Because also, free will (I keep stressing that because that in itself is a huge problem for theologians).And then all that leads to god killing itself in the form of its own son. Because some of you touch your own genitalia in glee.
Genius.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 127d
Jason got it? Jason? Well, this is a new low. Yeah, this one hurts.
dethedrus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 126d
MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 127d
Where do I sign up!
fizzle@quokk.au · 12 pts · 127d
As in all theological questions, it really requires faith.
If you have faith then you don't need to worry about the details.
If you don't have faith then none of it makes any sense.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 127d
Faith comes up with answers and then tries to explain those answers. Faith changes reasons as necessary to keep the believed ideas believed.
Science tries to explain observations and confirm theories. Science updates beliefs based on new information.
Faith will always be wrong, behind the times, out of date. Science is constantly improving.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 127d
Free will. The idea is that for free will to exist you must be able to choose the wrong action.
If a supreme being rules out all wrong actions or prevented you from taking wrong actions, how could there be free will? How could you even be responsible for your own thoughts and actions. How are you not just a puppet?
Alternately you can think of it as a leveling up. It seems like the Apple is always represented as âknowledge of good and evilâ. So originally theyâre just animals. They take actions but there is no morality, nothing is good or bad. But if they use their free will to take this one forbidden step, they receive the knowledge of good and evil, they can act good or act bad, they know itâs good or bad, and they have the free will to choose their path. And they are accountable for those choices. Now theyâre human
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 127d
Ahh so the real original sin is entrapment. Got it.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 126d
sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 126d
But if god is omniscient, then he knows what they're going to do. And if he already knows that, then do they really have free will? Or do they just think they do?
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 126d
There's 3 philosophies I've seen on that question.
One is the planned domino effect, which another commentator already mentioned.
The next is the "paradoxical being" one, which is that something that is omniscient is paradoxical by default, therefore it can both know what will happen and simultaneously not know what will happen.
The last is the "unknown destiny" one, which is that even if we don't actually have free will, as long as we think we do and can't prove we don't, then does it matter? Because ultimately it would be no different to us than if we actually did have it.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 126d
Interesting, thanks.
Addressed the first one on that other comment.
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn't, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn't omniscient (if he exists at all).
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 126d
Well that's the nature of paradoxes, isn't it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you've probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I've also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it's really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it's no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 126d
This s is where you have the argument that a supreme being might have set the universe in motion but deliberately does not interfere with the way it evolves. The conditions are as close to even as possible so things can go either way âŚ. For an infinite number of decisions for an infinite time
sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 126d
It's not a question of interfering or not though, it's about foreknowledge.
Either god had foreknowledge of their choice, and therefore A&E couldn't have made any other decision than they did, or they had genuine free will meaning he wasn't omniscient.
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 127d
And while we're at it, wouldn't the Reality Stone trump all the others because reality is all there is and contains everything the other stones represent?
Klear@quokk.au · 5 pts · 127d
It is by far the most powerful one in the comics, though most beings are not able to use it because it's use is too abstract.
Notably The Magus was given a fake one for his Infinity Gauntlet and didn't even notice.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 127d
Only in reality? Doesn't your theory fall apart with the fact that Marvel is not reality?
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 127d
Oh, are you starting to get the picture?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 127d
As far as I know, reality doesnt actually contain the reality of the marvel universe. Only an imagined one.
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 127d
Yes, correct, the logic of reality does not apply to works of fiction, which may have their own rules that may or may not be logical or internally consistent.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 127d
So the reality stone is limited to only the reality where it exists. The other stones could exist in a reality that doesnt require the reality stone.
SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 127d
You'd think so, but get this: all the stones only work in the reality they're from, and are worthless trinkets in any other reality. It's ridiculous! They're not called the "infinity (of only this reality) stones" ffs!
Klear@quokk.au · 3 pts · 127d
Correct:
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 127d
Wait, so all they had to do was bring thanos to a different dimension? Shouldn't the mirror realm have been enough to defeat him?
ripcord@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 127d
They're trying to point out how the bible stories are fiction too and that is the real answer
Klear@quokk.au · 1 pts · 127d
itisileclerk@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 126d
It's a judeo-christian-muslim god.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 127d
Because that god is a crazy tyrant that had to prove he had total control over his creations (despite giving them free will), and threw a tantrum like a child when they disobeyed. And we have another example of his childish tantrums when he flooded the world because his toys weren't playing the way he wanted.
It explains a lot of why Christianity is so fucked up
village604@adultswim.fan · 3 pts · 127d
Tower of Babel too.
Triumph@fedia.io · 10 pts · 127d
And if Yahweh is omniscient, he knew they would eat it, so he put the situation together so that they could be "punished",
Yahweh is a sadist.
Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 127d
God is also supposedly an all-knowing being, while at the same time excuses his shitty decisions and faulty creations with not being responsible for men's actions and decisions, and also free will is a thing.
Pick a lane. Either god is all-knowing and knows what every single human being who ever lived/lives/will live did/will do in their lifetimes and free will is an illusion, or he's not an all-knowing being.
Or... hear me out on this... He's not real! Crazy, I know.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
If God created everything, who created God? And who created the thing that created God?
Or, if God just sprang into existence, then the universe could have sprung into existence and saved a complicated and useless step.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 1 pts · 125d
One could (and does) ask the same thing about the universe. What created the universe? If something created the universe, what created the thing that created the universe? I'm not religious AT ALL. I fucking despise religions. But at least with science, they're trying to figure it out. With religion, it's just "god did it. No more questions". Fuck religion.
harmbugler@piefed.social · 9 pts · 127d
Just some light tomfoolery.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 127d
Hes a playful god.
tiredofsametab@fedia.io · 9 pts · 127d
Do you want snakes with legs? Because this is how you get snakes with legs.
funkajunk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 127d
Lizards?
randomdeadguy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 127d
Original scapegoat
arielbnz@piefed.social · 7 pts · 127d
Christianity is only one of the many interpretations of reality. Not reality itself. Other doctrines like gnosticism, hinduism, etc... Will give you another view.
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 7 pts · 127d
Ah the good old epicurean paradox :3. The christian god can't be all loving, all knowing, all powerful, and all present all at once, otherwise the whole religion makes no sense. If you solve that one you may become the new messiah, but otherwise the answer is "no reason" because none of it makes sense
Klear@quokk.au · 6 pts · 127d
I actually came up with a solution! Somehow it was missed by all the theologians over the years, but I'm quite sure it is a correct solution and out of the many solutions I've read, this is the only one that seems valid.
What if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good but just... isn't very smart? He's doing his best, okay?
You may wonder, if he's omnipotent, couldn't he increase his intelligence to solve this? Yes. Yes he could. If only he was smart enough to realise that =(
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 1 pts · 127d
But omniscient means having knowledge of everything, so he can't be dumb, cause then it would mean there's something he doesn't know :3
Klear@quokk.au · 6 pts · 127d
Having information and being able to use it are two separate things.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
So god has high INT but WIZ was a dump stat
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 120d
An Ai has more information than the average human and yet...
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 127d
same reason you can have anal sex and still be a virgin!
osanna@lemmy.vg · 1 pts · 125d
I always wondered what "doing things that are illegal in 30 states" meant. Anal isn't and never has been (I think) illegal here, so I wondered wtf it could be.
timestatic@feddit.org · 6 pts · 126d
Because he gifted humanity free-will? I thought that was like the main reason
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 126d
He's also omniscient and created every atom of their being, meaning he knew exactly how it would play out. It was a setup.
timestatic@feddit.org · 2 pts · 126d
Would it really be free will if there was fate or destiny? Would he be a Laplace demon and by thinking about mankind eating the apple he was creating a simulation where mankind actually does eat an apple?
osanna@lemmy.vg · 1 pts · 125d
you're trying to bring logic where logic goes to die. It won't work.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 127d
It's allegory and shouldn't be taken literally. At all. One possible interpretation is that eating the apple symbolises the birth of empathy or understanding of other consciousness, thereby giving humans both the ability to be kind and to be cruel.
Adding on to this, god asking them not to eat it was the basic human understanding of god's cosmic warning of the responsibility and consequences of doing so. The lesson is that we can't trust humans to make the right choice with something so profound, hence now we have nukes. And monkeys on the firing buttons.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 127d
Yeah, all sects that believe in biblical literism need to be abandoned. If christianity were ever to be a useful religion it needs to leave room for intreptaion and creativity.
NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 0 pts · 127d
It is extremely useful. Just not for anyone outside the inner party.
For anyone else, it's not only useless, it's a threat.
sompreno@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 127d
Something, something lego movie
basketugly@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 126d
Fanfiction/Please permit me to make wild allegations, I was also looking at this yesterday and wondered: is it the apple of knowledge of sexual reproduction? (I know the book says good and evil, I get it)
The other tree was the fruit of eternal life. They did not consume this fruit.
So, as for the story, humans could neither sexually reproduce nor live forever/a long time prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of sexual reproduction. Life and death. Good and evil.
They ate it, wanted to have sex with each other and were ashamed and covered themselves to avoid sexual arousal.
The free will they received was the ability to sexually reproduce.
In the story, angels cannot sexually reproduce with each other?, but seemingly live forever/a long time, and angels supposedly did get very excited that they could now sexually reproduce with humans: nephelim. Hybrids. There are no female angels.
Two different technology trees: humans with sexual reproduction and limited lifespan and angels with longevity/eternal life/angel powers/no females.
This gave the world a third (unintended?) hybrid nephelim class and this upset the balance of power on earth/the creation.
The chaos that ensued inspired yahweh to flood his creation and try again?
Wild shit! For me these are the chaotic and confused retelling of a story of extraterrestrial influence on the development of the human species.
This particular chapter is focused on origins and bloodlines of humanity so it makes sense to me in that way đ
Thank you for your time.
ActualGrapesTasteGreen@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 127d
Because you can say anything you want about a god that doesn't actually exist. He could cure cancer, turn you inside out, and show you the inside of a black hole. Just pray and interpret silence as a "no" but that doesn't mean he couldn't if he felt like it.
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 127d
God is a kind of a lazy bitch
BaraCoded@literature.cafe · 4 pts · 126d
Because he doesn't exist, so even questioning it is irrelevant
osanna@lemmy.vg · 6 pts · 125d
When one person believes a delusion, it's schizophrenia. When millions do, it's religion.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 3 pts · 127d
When he knew the apple wasn't good for them, why wouldn't he tell them?
Triumph@fedia.io · 2 pts · 127d
Recall that there were two trees: the Tree of Life was okay, the Tree of Knowledge was not. Why? Because if they had both the ability to live forever and the knowledge of good and evil, they would be like gods.
One, can't have competition. Two, then they would see how fucking awful Yahweh was and be able to do something about it. Once they had the knowledge, that apparently couldn't be taken away (?), so deprive them of eternal life and make them suffer as a distraction from what they know is true; Yahweh is a dick.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 0 pts · 127d
But as far as I remember that was what the snake said.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 125d
because he was a pussy
plyth@feddit.org · 2 pts · 127d
Who can guarantee that it was him who gave the instruction?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 2 pts · 127d
Genesis 2:16 and 2:17
mitram@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 127d
How do I know that is not written by some devil spirited no good doer?
plyth@feddit.org · 2 pts · 127d
We take Adam's and Eve's word that that voice was God. But how can they know that it was the creator god?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 5 pts · 127d
First of all, Adam and Eve didn't write the bible. You aren't even getting THEIR recounting of a story, you're getting the story recounted thousands of years later by some dude in the Middle East.
Second: In Christianity, God wrote the bible through others. That is why it is called the "word of God." So if you're a believer, you're getting told by God himself what happened.
ripcord@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 127d
Third, it's made up
plyth@feddit.org · 1 pts · 127d
The story of Adam and Eve is older than the Christian part. The dude in the Middle East must have heard it by word of mouth.
But if it came by inspiration from God, how does the dude know that it is the omni-powerful creator god and that the story is true?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 6 pts · 127d
Yeah. God's mouth. Or so they claimed. đ
God gave me some gold tablets that say all this. What? No, God said I can't show them to you. Just trust me, bro.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 127d
He sounds pretty serious. I think we should trust him.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 127d
The story written by the dude in the middle east would have been Jewish, because the old testament is part of their Torah.
mental illnessfaithslazer2au@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
control
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 127d
Not cool, god. Not cool.
moondoggie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 127d
âCause heâs a dick.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 126d
I find the story better with "all-knowing" meaning know what is and had been and the future being unknown. A fact created by have multiple beings of free will.
That said eating the apple is very low stakes way to let someone choose to disobey you and thus learn what that means. The "punishment" seems like the plan all along.
at least how i prefer the story
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 126d
At some point, one of y'all is going to have to admit that the story doesn't actually make any sense, instead of reinterpreting it again to make yourselves feel comfy.
Then your god is a vengeful, evil monster, unworthy of worship
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 126d
Im describing it purely from "as a story" concept.
The punishment is being a creature with free will on earth and the ability to comptemplatr shame for moral decisions (because we can fail).
At least at this point of the story
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 126d
No, the punishment was increased pain, hardship, expulsion from the garden of Eden, and mortality.
Have you even read the book? From an "as a story" concept, whatever that means?
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 126d
I think it means a story instead of as a historically accurate document of fact.
Because as a story theres lots of lessons we can draw from it, and interpret in many ways like literature enthusiasts do.
As a historical document holy fuck help me satan
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 125d
Exactly.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 125d
That is the same thing from a different perspective is what i am saying
mr_anny@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 127d
It was omnipotent until he created the free will. It's now close-to-omnipotent.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 127d
On Lemmy you're going to get a lot of "he wouldn't" answers.
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 125d
it sounds like you're flirting with the Epicurean Paradox
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 124d
I understand the epicurean paradox but I also understand for god to exist as some believe it would have to be paradoxical. I also understand that any true religion, anything not just societally and culturally forced, would not take hold as a probability based on geographical location of birth. I believe in a god that can give humans divine inspiration but I do not believe in a religion that is just a long tradition of group think. Any god that choses to create these structures of religion and call them right and just is of no interest to me.
I like that guy jesus, tho. He was a bro.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 125d
Ey Eve, bet you are too scared to try this apple.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 126d
Because he is a jealous god. He told people this.
firelight@startrek.website · 1 pts · 126d
The Jewish interpretation is that Eve 'knew' God wanted Adam to the eat the apple, so she tempted him with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXxZ7RMHt4g
osanna@lemmy.vg · 3 pts · 125d
what a disgusting god. People actually believe this shit? God WANTED his creations to be kicked out of paradise? Holy fuck, and people say he is "all loving". JFC.
Spacehooks@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 125d
The old reverse psychology and It's all part of the plan bit.
maybe I would do it and claim its a test to see if what i created are capable of thoughts outside my commands so they can be used for the next phase but im not all knowing. sooo it was all a waste of time for eve and them? Maybe.
The only justification I could think of is actually the garden is a incubation area and god needed a reason to kick them out for phase 2 and guilting them while giving them the intelligence to survive was the only option viable for the "long term plan". Like some kind of wierd motivation to stay alive. Still feels like a jerk move no matter how you slice it.
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 120d
I had never heard that interpretation but it basically sounds sort of like the premise for The Good Place
Paragone@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 125d
The story was adulterated, & that is visible in the text of that part of the bible, there was no apple.
"women ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good & Evil ( MORAL UNDERSTANDING ), & shared that with men".
Yes, mothering enforces more moral-understanding than does male-ego-persuits, traditional or modern.
As women have noticed, & evidence absolutely does back it, women bring life into the world, & men persue killing, consistently more than women do.
( the insecurity displayed by the "god" of that story is idiotic, & the blunt fact that help has been provided to humankind, repeatedly, since then, falsifies the message in that part of their bible that "god" wants us kept down, as pets: it investes in our evolving, & there's even a book specifically on that, though from an Abrahamic-religion perspective, called "The Evolution of God", which .. isn't written by a believer, but comes to the conclusion that someone has been cultivating evolution, consistently, among the peoples of that "god". )
The "grace" left-behind by ones who experience moral-anxiety is the "grace" of being mere-animals, who don't have moral-anxieties.
This is an absolutely-factual metaphor/parable about the mere-animal ancestors of humankind vs the moral-anxiety/moral-difficulties condition of our "generation".
Also, there's another corroboration, but much more recent..
there's a yt vid on how Gobekli Tepe somehow was a metropolis without agriculture: Natural Abundance was sufficient for them to do that, & they didn't break their ecology, the way we do..
But you've still got the "grace"/"non-grace" difference between the people who just lived in natural-abundance & didn't break their ecology vs our-generation..
Oh, & as far as I can tell, the Abrahamic-religion authorities are looking totally at the wrong frame-of-reference, in trying to discern where the "Garden of Eden" was: it means Earth, not some limited-locale of it.
Earth was pristine, lush, drenchingly-alive ( I've read that the cod were sooo thick in off the Atlantic coast of Canada, that the fishermen said you could walk from ship to ship .. exageration, certainly, but .. the fish were, on average, 80y old, back then, & huge. Nowadays, they're .. a few years old, 8yo was what I'd read last century, & then we broke the coral-forests they breed in, & the cod-fishery collapsed, & never recovered. We're incompetent at preserving natural-wealth, & we do it in ALL contexts, all fisheries, all forests, .. where's all the BEST farmland on Earth? under concrete, because we converted it all to cities, since that was where the people were.
Idiocy ).
We're destroying the Garden of Eden, globally.
No matter: The Great Filter, our species-puberty, will force-exterminate our race, if we won't grow-up quick enough, completely enough.
Natural Selection, but at planet-scale.
& finally, free-will requires ability-to-choose-wrong.
Puppets aren't what we are.
( it is continuums/souls which are ChildrenOfG-D/CellsOfG-D, it isn't our-lives/incarnations: those are children-of-souls, so grandchildren-of-G-D )
_ /\ _