The first 3 chapters of Genesis

Not foregone. But as the story is written, inevitable. They do not know right from wrong. God tells them don't do it.ENTER STAGE RIGHT: the serpent.The playwright then brings in the serpent. Serpent points out that God is just joshing them, they will not die that day, and that they will learn from eating the fruit.(cue voice off stage) Less FillingTastes Great(/cue)In the story the outcome is inevitable, as I said. They were two total innocents manipulated by outside forces.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Except what was in the box was some kind of "running man" arena, where the contestants are doomed to die (spiritually of course)no way out... unless a saviour (arnie) of some sort comes along and offers a way out..wayyyyt a minute!.....

Where do you see THAT in the text?

iano But when children get noisy in the lunch line after being told not to, do you say their behavior is immoral?How much is a naive child's compliance with orders to be equated with Moral Good?How much is a naive child's failure to comply with orders to be equated with Moral Evil?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And I pointed you to those message in order to underline your correct observation that my agreement was only apparent. One doesn't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to know about consequences. And it is not necessary to know full consequences either - just sufficient to match the level of temptation. Increase the knowledge of depth of consequence (which you seem to demand) and you also need to crank up the temptation in order for a balanced choice to exist (which you seem to forget about)Providing choice is the issue at hand I argue. Jar is in the process of arriving at "they had no choice" I do not agree - not even apparently - with this.

That they would eat was inevitable given the manipulants. So God punishes them for doing something that they had no choice but to do (they could not obey God you said).What angle to you now travel down so as to not make God a jerk.

Funny that in the "free world" we don't see "I was only following orders" as an excuse for Moral Evil.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm afraid Jar is the one who introduced the analogy of innocent little children - not me. I am following his analogy in so far as it is useful to. I don't see them as little children myself. Created beings well undertanding of someones rightful dominion over them is how I see it. That there would be serious consequences was known to them.

I see it in the change that took place in Adam and Eve once they ate the fruit. They became ashamed of their nakedness.

I don't. That was covered way, way back in this thread, Message 80 IIRC.If the story is factual then God is a Jerk.The only way that any other conclusion is possible is if the Garden of Eden story is as I have described it throughout this thread. It is a Just So story, written to explain life and our relationships. It is a description of a God that is totally different from that found in Genesis one, a personal God, one that walks with us, that punishes us but then forgives us, that clothes us. It is a far different picture than the aloof, transcendant, distant God found in the much later creation myth found in Genesis 1.Also see Message 54 and Message 60 for more on the relationship between Gen 1 & teh GOE tale.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, Augustine thought it was about sexual sin too, but there's a lot more to it than that. It wasn't sexual sin Adam and Eve committed, it was simply disobedience of God, disobeying a direct command.Nakedness in scripture is symbolic of sinfulness in general, rather than just about sexual sin. The blood of Christ, as also the blood of the sacrificial animals in the sacrificial system, is a "covering" that protected in some sense of "hiding" sin from God's view. The skins God clothed them in signify sacrifice in the same way, covering them, covering their sin, and demonstrating that death had to occur for the purpose. Also, the plan of the tabernacle, every bit of it, is symbolic of salvation through Christ, of Christ Himself, of a saved soul even, and the badger skins that cover it are part of the symbolism of sacrifice that saves.To "die in your sins" is to die with your sins exposed to judgment, without the covering of the blood of Christ. As He died on the cross with our sins all piled on Him as if they were His own, so that He could bear the punishment for them, so we may die in the garment of His righteousness thanks to the exchange He made there.With the whole context in mind, and especially the Ten Commandments, it should be pretty clear that their recognizing their nakedness was simply their recognition of their sinful condition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

don't you just love a symbolic reading of the Bible? seeing as how you interpreted the symbols and what they mean, rather than sticking to a literal reading of it. Or is this all literal? (it doesn't look like that to me, but then, I could have misinterpreted what you said)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I didn't mean their sin was sexual. I meant their lack of knowledge was sexual. "Good and Evil" refers to sexual good and evil. Before they were sexually innocent.

This is your method of explaining it away and turning it into something more agreeable to modern sensibilites.

I really don't know what you are saying or asking. People have some odd ideas about what a "literal" reading of the Bible is. I read it according to what it is intended to convey. That's the only way I've ever claimed to read it "literally." Where it's symbolic I read it as symbolic and so on. There are some great studies available about the symbolism in the design of the tabernacle and the temple and so on. And they were "literally" actual buildings constructed in real historical time too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.