tezts

braddick

Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
This is logically problematic. In the first place, Eve had no "Knowledge of Good and Evil" prior to eating that particular fruit. Without a basic understanding of ethics/morality, one cannot "sin", so Eve merely took the advice of the serpent.

But Jehovallah did not command them not to eat the fruit "on my say-so", he told them that by eating it, they would die: he said it was poison. By that measure, there is no moral concern with eating the fruit, only a physiological one. Jehovallah gave them a specific reason not to eat the fruit, which is really quite a bit different from unqualified "thou shalt nots".

Then after chomping into it, Eve said "awesome" and took it over to Adam. At this point, she had tasted of "Knowledge of Good and Evil", hence had acquired a sense of morality, yet, somehow, she did not think it wrong or sinful to give it to Adam.

Conceptually, this whole "original sin" idea just seems like a massive logic fail.
Eve took the word of the Serpent that God was lying, and the Serpent *was* telling the truth. And as you said she and Adam really had no idea of right and wrong, yet they were held accountable? Hmmm.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. [...]
I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
—Psalm 82:1, 6-7

I don't think there has ever been an issue with the notion of there being many supernatural beings, but there is only one God, the almighty, the one who is above all.
What was the context of this prose? More than one God? I'll have to look that one up...

MrLee