How many wives did Adam have?

[quodlibet]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i think there are several tools available to us to accomplish that kind of discernment.

science and logic being two very important ones.

science clearly proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that genesis is not factual.

what then needs to happen is for that realization to be extrapolated- because if there was no fall, then all the christians who have mucked up Yashua's teachings are going to have to go back to the drawing board.

Likewise, all the Jews and Moslems. </div></div>

huh?

[rudemonk]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

if creation is a myth and did not happen the way genesis records- twice- then it follows that because there was no actual fall, it is impossible for God to seek to set things right the way it is claimed he did.

it is also impossible for a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, moral god to allow many of the things in the OT and new. This *should* only be obvious. Men wrote these things down and did what they always do, find an excuse to justify their crimes.

with all this evidence mounting into converging streams of discovery, it's time to separate the bible from the god it claims it describes- IF there is a God, he needs desperately to be recontextualized in the face of what we now know.

we can't have people worshipping meteorites or killing each other over where someone mounted a magic horse to fly into heaven, or tossed down stone tablets with some rather ridiculous - if you think about them- 'laws'. as if God would really write shyte down on stone tablets, or some crackpots to explain his teachings or what he wants from people.

Come on.

If you treated your child the way God treats his in the Bible you would be in jail and nobody would look twice at why you were put there.

[quodlibet]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if creation is a myth and did not happen the way genesis records- twice- then it follows that because there was no actual fall, it is impossible for God to seek to set things right the way it is claimed he did.

it is also impossible for a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, moral god to allow many of the things in the OT and new. This *should* only be obvious. Men wrote these things down and did what they always do, find an excuse to justify their crimes.

with all this evidence mounting into converging streams of discovery, it's time to separate the bible from the god it claims it describes- IF there is a God, he needs desperately to be recontextualized in the face of what we now know.

we can't have people worshipping meteorites or killing each other over where someone mounted a magic horse to fly into heaven, or tossed down stone tablets with some rather ridiculous - if you think about them- 'laws'. as if God would really write shyte down on stone tablets, or some crackpots to explain his teachings or what he wants from people.

Come on.

If you treated your child the way God treats his in the Bible you would be in jail and nobody would look twice at why you were put there. </div></div>

While I am not arguing for or against the creation story (I am letting it stand by itself), there are some fallacies in the above statements.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if creation is a myth and did not happen the way genesis records- twice- then it follows that because there was no actual fall, it is impossible for God to seek to set things right the way it is claimed he did
...</div></div>
Even if creation itself were a myth, it does not necessarily follow that there was no actual fall. The latter event is not predicated on the former.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
it is also impossible for a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, moral god to allow many of the things in the OT and new.
...
</div></div>
That all depends on your construct of &quot;benevolence&quot;, &quot;moral&quot; and &quot;impossible&quot;. Firstly, it is contradictory to consider the same being omnipotent AND at the same time write that there is some action that this omnipotent entity cannot perform (&quot;also impossible&quot. If all things are possible for an omnipotent God, <span style="font-weight: bold">then ALL things are possible</span>, including the things that you may object to.

Also, I may suggest that morality is based on a construct of learned behaviors or empathetic constraint. Based on that, neither of these processes would be applicable to a creator.

[rudemonk]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if creation is a myth and did not happen the way genesis records- twice- then it follows that because there was no actual fall, it is impossible for God to seek to set things right the way it is claimed he did
...</div></div>
Even if creation itself were a myth, it does not necessarily follow that there was no actual fall. The latter event is not predicated on the former.

</div></div>

while this is technically not a false statement, it's not enough to simply show that something <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be fallacious. It has to be shown that the conclusion IS fallacious. An important, and sometimes subtle distinction.

We know that serpents do not talk. We also know their genetic and evolutionary path.

If it was Satan, then God is unethical to curse a species when it was not at fault.

In this case it goes to the truth claims made about God by the Abrahamic religions and some of the more fundamental sects. Considering the Big Claim of John, the Garden of Eden and Fall of Man can not make any logical sense, given that God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

There is no logical reason God would require himself to sacrifice himself because of a &quot;sin&quot; he should have and could have - if he were moral and all loving- prevented. Twice.

And rather than starting over right there, he lets creation develop and then knowing it would displease him later, decides to flood out the world.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
it is also impossible for a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, moral god to allow many of the things in the OT and new.
...
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: qoud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That all depends on your construct of &quot;benevolence&quot;, &quot;moral&quot; and &quot;impossible&quot;. Firstly, it is contradictory to consider the same being omnipotent AND at the same time write that there is some action that this omnipotent entity cannot perform (&quot;also impossible&quot. If all things are possible for an omnipotent God, <span style="font-weight: bold">then ALL things are possible</span>, including the things that you may object to.
</div></div>

the definitions of omnipotence have been adjusted in recent theodices defending against the logical problem of evil to give God exactly this wriggle room- I feel fine granting that the definition in some recent ones states that omnipotence can not mean that something that is logically impossible to do can be done.

also, I don't feel it is necessary to begin with an omnipotent God at all in the first place. A limited God may exist and in fact is far more acceptable as plausible than something that does not make sense, occam's razor being what it is.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, I may suggest that morality is based on a construct of learned behaviors or empathetic constraint. Based on that, neither of these processes would be applicable to a creator. </div></div>

Of course a sense of self evident, intrinsic truths, a morality is applicable. You stated 'learned' and there you have it. nobody would agree to take an innocent baby and thrust it into a lion's den for it to 'learn'.

In fact a creator is ethically and morally BOUND to a creation plan that is understandable and based in Justice for his entire creation. Of course what many people probably may not want to accept is that if there is a God, he may not be just or benevolent at all. In fact certain bronze age tribes in Palestine would already hold that view, considering what they had to deal with from him and his chosen people. one must wonder why he preferred to see entire populations wiped out in violent bloodshed when a wave of the hand could have painlessly delivered the very same result- or better yet, have set things up in the first place as to make such violence as a form of some kind of cosmic redress unneeded. granting the truth of the bible claims.


I can't, by any stretch of the imagination, say that a moral or just God would let people worship a meteor, allow people he loved or who loved him to remain in delusion about someone riding off on a flying horse and sit back while war and hatred seethed over these mythic representations.

If we look at the analogy of children- again I submit that anyone treating their child the way god is supposedly treating his creation, would be locked up and nobody would think twice about it.

Returning to the Fall, a theodice has not yet been put forward that can account for the suffering and evil of this world, both human and animal. So we can look at any stage of the Fall story, even if we grant the creation account- which we know is not true, but even if we do- and still be able to draw the same conclusion. In fact, that makes the point stronger, because it can be falsified.

[Seveen]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

hey if that's YOUR big question

keep reading!

[quodlibet]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

monk, while I appreciate the effort, I try very hard to make my arguments as short and as readable as I can, because I have every intent that my audience has limited time to read my writings if they go on for too much...

(hint hint...)

[johnnycakes]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

As an atheist I now and then check into this forum to see what the believers have to say to keep up on the latest.

After reading this thread I thought I'd post something I read in a &quot;letters to the editor&quot; section of the Boston Globe today which is pertinent to this and many other heated discussions about the literal translations of scripture .


&quot;.......A man blind from birth meets with a spiritual master asking to know about the color green. The master ponders for a moment, then answers &quot;The color green is like beautiful soothing music.&quot; Later a second man, likewise born blind , approaches the master with the same question. &quot;What is the color green?&quot; . &quot;The color green is like soft, plush velvet&quot; he is told.

Not long afterward, the spiritual master comes upon the two blind men kicking and gouging each other, alternately screaming &quot;It's velvet!&quot; &lt; &quot;It's music!&quot; , &quot;It's velvet!&quot; , &quot;It's music!&quot;.

The point is simple. The divine, whatever or whoever that may be, is far beyond our comprehension. All we can know or say about God is metaphor. To treat metaphors as actual truths that are subject to debate ( even as to their distinction or similarity) is to join in the slugfest of the blind.

There is a corollary to the story. One of the two men somehow gains his sight. The spiritual master comes upon him leaning over a rail fence, gazing at the verdant valley below.

&quot;So&quot; says the master&quot;now you know about the color green.
What do you think?&quot;
&quot;It's unbelievable&quot; came the reply &quot;Just unbelievable.
I've been listening to it all day.&quot;



I figure that any being so powerful, omniscient and so far advanced beyond our near-monkey existence is just as beyond our capability to grasp as is the color green is to a blind person, even more so.

Most of the bible IS metaphor. Genesis is clearly metaphor and definitely Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden.

It's not music, it's not velvet.

Were there just Adam and Eve and their progeny interbreeding we'd all be a race of retarded and defective beings.

On second thought, maybe there were just Adam and Eve and their progeny from whence we all derived.
It would explain a lot about Republicans.

[rudemonk]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk, while I appreciate the effort, I try very hard to make my arguments as short and as readable as I can, because I have every intent that my audience has limited time to read my writings if they go on for too much...

(hint hint...) </div></div>

that's fine but I am of the opinion that providing a more developed reply often saves time and moves the conversation into the meat of the issue faster rather than leave a bunch of open doors due to a desire to save a reader time.

these are big topics and require the necessary attention.

personally I prefer steak dinner as opposed to $1 menu.

speaking for myself.

[rudemonk]

Re: How many wives did Adam have?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I figure that any being so powerful, omniscient and so far advanced beyond our near-monkey existence is just as beyond our capability to grasp as is the color green is to a blind person, even more so.
</div></div>

personally i reject this notion johnny.

we seem as a species quite adequately equipped to understand complex systems and concepts, as evidenced by our mastery and application of such concepts and our ever growing knowledge.

i don't think a deity would be able to be called powerful or omniscient- at least and still keep him moral and ethical- according to how occluded he kept himself and the facts of his existence and creation.

certainly we don't know everything, but to suggest a deity is far beyond our comprehension I think introduces way too many problems for that deity's existence than it solves.