Critique of Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, by Paul Doland

[OAG]

Mr Doland begins his critique with the grand statement that Strobel and the men he has interviewed have "serious logical faults and therefore do not adequately answer the objections Strobel raised."

First of all, I"m inclined to believe that a great many people, if they found themself sitting across a table from God Himself, would find God's explanations for Himself "inadequate".

Secondly, I find Mr Doland's first serious logical fault to be merely a matter of Paul's opinion about who we are, or more accurately should be, in comparison to God.

Quoth Mr Doland, "But still, you'd think God would want more of a peer-level relationship." Who is to say that Adam wasn't precisely that? If we are to believe the Genesis account, Adam did name all of the plants and animals. God came to the garden to ask Adam what was on his mind. After the fall into sin God no longer wanted to know everything on man's mind because He couldn't bear the corruption of it. IMHO, it was not God's choice that humans are less like peers and more like pets, it was man's choice. We are corrupted by sin and exist as utterly temporal beings because of it. How could God elevate us to peer status once again? I believe the Bible answered that question as well but I'm inclined to believe Mr Doland will find that explanation inadequate too.


So, I don't understand why God didn't give us more understanding.

This doesn't make for a logical fault. Mr Doland's inability to understand something doesn't constitute logical fault unless Mr Doland is the sole possessor of the yardstick by which logic is measured.

Having discovered the bias with which Paul has approached Strobel's book and the low level at which Mr Doland is able to argue against the content I'll forgo any further reading of his critique lest I find more nonsense and less reason to respect someone I don't know.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.shtml) by Paul doland (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Paul Doland]

OAG,

Your suggestion, of Adam having more of a peer level relationship with God prior to the fall seems rather bizarre, given that they didn't know "good and evil" before the fall. Also, in your scenerio, you don't explain why, based on what Adam and Eve may or may not have done, explains why every human being afterwards carries 'Original Sin" and therefore no longer have a peer level relationship. So your "explanation" seems to be quite inadequate.

Regardless, while I said that it didn't seem likely to me that God would have given us such meager understanding that we are like the bear, I didn't say that was specifically a logical contradiction. While I say that it seems to me that such a situation seems unlikely, but I can't say it is a logical contradiction. Yes, my paper, in its introduction, said that I focused mainly on what I saw as logical contradictions in Strobel's work. But that doesn't to me mean that you should infer that every single argument I present is asserted as a logical fallacy.

Basically, the way you approach my paper is, you found one argument I present that you don't like, and shazam, you decide it is all garbage and not worth reading. Is that normally how you approach materials with opinions that you disagree with, find one thing to take exception to, pounce on it, and run for the hills? I present many arguments in my paper. Do I expect everybody to agree with every one of my arguments, of course not.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Paul Doland
[B]OAG,

Your suggestion, of Adam having more of a peer level relationship with God prior to the fall seems rather bizarre, given that they didn't know "good and evil" before the fall. Also, in your scenerio, you don't explain why, based on what Adam and Eve may or may not have done, explains why every human being afterwards carries 'Original Sin" and therefore no longer have a peer level relationship. So your "explanation" seems to be quite inadequate.

My explanation is based on the fact that Adam and Eve were not initially created as temporal beings. They were not yet subject to temporal death. As far as them not "knowing good and evil" I usually reply,'well duh.' Evil was to rebel against God. They knew darn well that this was the wrong thing to do but they hadn't done it yet. They had not experienced acting in an evil manner. Once they had, they became corrupted, impure or, to use a word most skeptics dislike, sinful.

Regardless, while I said that it didn't seem likely to me that God would have given us such meager understanding that we are like the bear, I didn't say that was specifically a logical contradiction. While I say that it seems to me that such a situation seems unlikely, but I can't say it is a logical contradiction. Yes, my paper, in its introduction, said that I focused mainly on what I saw as logical contradictions in Strobel's work. But that doesn't to me mean that you should infer that every single argument I present is asserted as a logical fallacy.

Pardon my inference then.

Basically, the way you approach my paper is, you found one argument I present that you don't like, and shazam, you decide it is all garbage and not worth reading.

No I read quite a bit more of it. I found it not worth rebuttal. The rest of your critique of Strobel's book followed similar lines and similarly false premises.

Is that normally how you approach materials with opinions that you disagree with, find one thing to take exception to, pounce on it, and run for the hills?

Not at all. I took quite a bit of time to read, analyze and answer your article on the improbability of Satan. THOSE arguments were much better stated than those in your critique of The Case for Christ.

What I have read of your work so far displays an obvious, glaring bias. You presuppose that the Bible is errant, God is not who and what the Bible claims He is, Satan does not exist, etc. and then expound on those presuppositions. You are searching for and presenting evidence to back your presupposition that God does not exist and the whole thing is bunk are you not?

I have a similar bias. I presuppose that God DOES exist and I have yet to encounter reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary. Some of your arguments are quite good. Please forgive my lack of tact in addressing them but I have seen them all before with only minor variations. My patience for answering some of them has worn thin through no fault of yours and it was not proper for me to take it out on you.

I present many arguments in my paper. Do I expect everybody to agree with every one of my arguments, of course not.

That is a very reasonable position.:)

I saw this same review elsewhere on the web with a different last name, Eberlund or something. Would that be another pen name or did you recently change names? :cool:

[-DM-]

A few comments awaiting Paul Doland's reply . . .

Originally posted by OAG
Adam and Eve . . . knew darn well that this was the wrong thing to do but they hadn't done it yet.A careful reading of this mythical tale in Genesis indicates that Adam received the admonition with regard to eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil but that there is no "record" of Eve having received that admonition.

I presuppose that God DOES exist and I have yet to encounter reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary.This is not unlike what Muslim visitors to this site contend. Muslims presuppose that Ala exists and that the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammed by Ala. Similarly, they claim to have yet encountered reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary.

The same kind of argument could be used, of course, to argue for the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. "I presuppose that xxxx exists and I have yet encountered reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary." What it boils down to is what one considers reasonable evidence for the nonexistence of what one presupposes to exist. It seems to me, however, that the more reasonable approach is to base one's belief--not on the absence of evidence against existence--but rather on the evidence for existence.

-Don-

[Paul Doland]

I use a pen name of Jacobsen on my own site. Since I have been using my own real name here, it is probably silly to bother using a pen name there, but I do. So, yes, you have seen the same critique by another name.

As far as my bias, although at this point I pretty much consider myself an athiest--believe it or not--at the time I read Strobel's _The Case for Faith_, I still considered myself a Christian, albeit a weak one. And I hoped that Strobel did find good answers. You misinterpret my refusal to accept bad answers as bias. This is not true, I did want Strobel to have good answers.

By the way, you erroneously referred to my critique as being of _The case for Christ_.

[OAG]

Originally posted by -DM-
A careful reading of this mythical tale in Genesis indicates that Adam received the admonition with regard to eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil but that there is no "record" of Eve having received that admonition.

I find it pretty plain that she knew it was the wrong thing to do.

This is not unlike what Muslim visitors to this site contend. Muslims presuppose that Ala exists and that the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammed by Ala. Similarly, they claim to have yet encountered reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary.

I'll take your word for it.

I presuppose that xxxx exists and I have yet encountered reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary." What it boils down to is what one considers reasonable evidence for the nonexistence of what one presupposes to exist. It seems to me, however, that the more reasonable approach is to base one's belief--not on the absence of evidence against existence--but rather on the evidence for existence.

-Don-

Keep in mind that the presupposition, either yours or mine, did not materialize out of thin air. Your path from belief to non-belief was paved by some sort of evidence leading to your conclusion that unbelief was the more reasonable POV. My path was obviously otherwise paved as it has led me to conclude that belief is the more reasonable POV until such time as the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.

My POV IS based on the evidence that God exists.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by OAG
I find it pretty plain that she knew it was the wrong thing to do.Provide the evidence, and perhaps I will be convinced as well.

Keep in mind that the presupposition, either yours or mine, did not materialize out of thin air. Your path from belief to non-belief was paved by some sort of evidence leading to your conclusion that unbelief was the more reasonable POV. My path was obviously otherwise paved as it has led me to conclude that belief is the more reasonable POV until such time as the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.Were you ever on the other side of the fence, i.e., with the nonbelievers? Have you looked into the evidences for Judaism or Islam?

-Don-

[Biff the unclean]

OAG I can't help but wonder what book you are reading that is giving you this information about Adam & Eve? It certainly isn't Genesis.
Adam and Eve were not initially created as temporal beings.
Nowhere does Genesis even imply this.
God threatens to murder Adam in (2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Such a death threat would be meaningless if death didn't exist

As far as them not "knowing good and evil" I usually reply,'well duh.'
Perhaps you would be better served by actually reading Genesis than by making rude noises
(3:5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Not before, not when this conversation is taking place, but only after they had eaten the fruit. And if there is any doubt (3:7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Just as soon as they take a bite they suddenly know the difference between right and wrong. But not before they took it.

And as for your ridiculous claims of a peer relationship with god…
(3:22 )And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (24 ) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
God kicks man out BECAUSE he was becoming a peer, just as the talking snake said in 3:5. And putting this weapon of mass destruction in front of the tree of life, the fact that there was such a tree, shows that men, in this myth, were always going to die. Why a tree of eternal life in a world without death?
And where in this myth does Adam name the plants?

It's embarrassing enough to believe a Bronze Age myth in the Space Age, at least get the fairy tale right.

[OAG]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
OAG I can't help but wonder what book you are reading that is giving you this information about Adam & Eve? It certainly isn't Genesis.
Adam and Eve were not initially created as temporal beings.
Nowhere does Genesis even imply this.
God threatens to murder Adam in (2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Such a death threat would be meaningless if death didn't exist

That is an interesting concept. So God told someone who was going to die that if they ate from the tree they would die?

As far as them not "knowing good and evil" I usually reply,'well duh.'
Perhaps you would be better served by actually reading Genesis than by making rude noises
(3:5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Not before, not when this conversation is taking place, but only after they had eaten the fruit. And if there is any doubt (3:7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Just as soon as they take a bite they suddenly know the difference between right and wrong. But not before they took it.

The Bible says in several places that so-and-so took so-and-so into his tent and KNEW her. By your logic that means she was a complete stranger to him before that event and perhaps somewhere in that tent introductions were made.

By your logic then Adam and Eve had not the slightest clue that it would be wrong to do what God forbade them to do. They had no knowledge of right or wrong whatsoever right? The whole thing was just a setup guaranteeing they would fail because they wouldn't know eating the apple was wrong until AFTER they ate it. Have I read you correctly?

And as for your ridiculous claims of a peer relationship with god…
God kicks man out BECAUSE he was becoming a peer, just as the talking snake said in 3:5. And putting this weapon of mass destruction in front of the tree of life, the fact that there was such a tree, shows that men, in this myth, were always going to die.

Really? What was the tree of life for then? There is no mention of God forbidding them to eat from that. It was apparently there in the garden within their reach. It also apparently renders one immortal.

God kicks man out because he was corrupt, NOT because He would or could become anything but human. The friendship and trust were broken. Man was no longer pure enough to remain in God's presence.

Why a tree of eternal life in a world without death?

Why indeed? So that man wouldn't die perhaps?

And where in this myth does Adam name the plants?

Oh right. Adam only named the livestock, the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. The plants must have named themselves.

It's embarrassing enough to believe a Bronze Age myth in the Space Age, at least get the fairy tale right.

Well gosh don't I just feel silly now that you've so brilliantly pointed out your vastly superior knowledge and interpretation of Genesis?:notworthy

[OAG]

Originally posted by -DM-
Provide the evidence, and perhaps I will be convinced as well.

Genesis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

I guess you can interpret it otherwise if you please but to me that shows Eve had a pretty clear understanding of God's prohibition.

Were you ever on the other side of the fence, i.e., with the nonbelievers? Have you looked into the evidences for Judaism or Islam?

-Don-

When I was a young man drying out from drugs and feeling a bit lost in the world I looked into, studied and attended church services of a great number of religions both Christian and not. I figured that the Chinese had been civilized much longer than westerners and studied eastern philosophy. That got me started on a study of western philosophy that continues to be a hobby today. I gave up on the eastern philosophies and religions because their fractioning is exponentially more difficult to keep track of than even Judeo/Christian fractioning. Eastern mysticism has some strong points and eastern philosophy provides a flavor of wisdom and perspective that western philosophy does not. What can I say though? I'm a westerner. Existentialism simply held more appeal.

Judaism is a fine tradition but it doesn't suit me either. I'm not Jewish. I can't argue that there is anything wrong with their tradition or their holy book(s). It just doesn't work for me.

The only major religion I have not looked closely at and/or attended a church service for is Islam. I'm aware of the Qur'an and some of the content. I'm aware of it being derived from the Jewish tradition. That's about it. I don't really care about the rest of the dogmatic differences or similarities. If it works for people then more power to them. I have not seen it work miracles on people's lives like I have Christianity but that is probably because I don't personally know any Muslims.


Islam doesn't work for me. Atheism , Objectivism, Secular humanism and Catholicism don't work for me. There are innumerable religions, ideologies and isms out there that I have no awareness of that would probably not work for me either. What DOES work for me is the idea that I was created by a perfect, supreme being. It works for me that His name is Jehovah. It works for me that His son's name is Jesus. I did not come by this through ignorance, superstitious nonsense, religious hokum, brainwashing or delusion. I came by it reasonably, through experience, through detached scientific analysis, study and meditation.

One of my basic beliefs is that if my basic beliefs are not defensible they are not worth keeping. I have been willing and able to defend my beliefs without resorting to slight of hand, semantic parlor tricks, self-deception, lies or anything short of logic and reason. If at any time one of those beliefs is challenged such that I see an error in it then out it goes and I adopt a better one. I do not believe that an error in dogma will cost me my soul as some people seem to.

I believe that organized religion is a hugely flawed means of expressing faith and worship. I don't believe that any one church has a lock on truth. I don't believe that most people who consider themselves Christians are anything at all like Christ nor do they try to be. I believe that humans are motivated by greed and self interest and frequently use religion to justify what they darn well know is rotten behavior...or if they don't they are too stupid to bother much about.

It is not religion or faith or theism that is wrong with humanity. It is being human that is wrong with humanity. That humanness manifests itself in billions of ways but for some reason the religious ones seem to rub some people the wrong way more than the billion others. Many of those people focus on the religion and forget that there is a human behind that.

I believe the Bible is God's means of contacting, guiding, enlightening and offering the gift of salvation to His creation. In spite of the fact that humans have been screwing with it for centuries, I believe it still accomplishes that. Humans invariably screw up and destroy everything they touch. It is precisely their inability to irradicate, not for lack of trying by many, the message of the Bible that gives it a supernatural quality unlike any other text on earth.

That is where I'm coming from. Feel free to have the last word.:p :)

Dean

[Biff the unclean]

That is an interesting concept. So God told someone who was going to die that if they ate from the tree they would die?
Ahh, I knew you hadn't read it. God told him that he would die the very day that he ate the fruit. Not eat the fruit and you will eventually die. Eat the fruit and you'll die right away. A murder threat that would make no sense if Adam had no idea what death was. But of course god lies through his teeth, just like snake said he was. Adam doesn't die "that every day" but lives another 900+ years

The Bible says in several places that so-and-so took so-and-so into his tent and KNEW her. By your logic that means she was a complete stranger to him before that event and perhaps somewhere in that tent introductions were made.
"Knew" was an Elizabethan euphemism for "fucked" But there are no euphemisms in the passages sited. Or are you just unhappy because they don't say what you want them to?

By your logic then Adam and Eve had not the slightest clue that it would be wrong to do what God forbade them to do.
The knowledge of good & evil would encompass right & wrong. The knowledge of being buck naked too apparently.

They had no knowledge of right or wrong whatsoever right?
That's what the good book says. Pretty stupid isn't it?
The whole thing was just a setup guaranteeing they would fail because they wouldn't know eating the apple was wrong until AFTER they ate it. Have I read you correctly?
Me?!! It's not my magic book.

Really? What was the tree of life for then? There is no mention of God forbidding them to eat from that.
God sets a monster with a flaming sword to keep them from getting at this magic tree.
It was apparently there in the garden within their reach. It also apparently renders one immortal.
Yes, it's left over from an earlier Pagan version of this same story. Though in the earlier version man chooses to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of culture (not good & evil) and pass on eternal life. But in the Jewish version the tree of life doesn't show up until it's too late to get at.

God kicks man out because he was corrupt, NOT because He would or could become anything but human. The friendship and trust were broken. Man was no longer pure enough to remain in God's presence.
What friendship? What trust? God makes a death threat, see how many friends you keep if you start behaving like that. God kicks them out because they couldn't tell good from evil and blundered unknowingly into evil. You'll note that the second they eat the magic fruit they know for the first time what evil is.

Oh right. Adam only named the livestock, the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. The plants must have named themselves.
I just pointed that out because it's something else you are adding to the story that isn't there

Well gosh don't I just feel silly now that you've so brilliantly pointed out your vastly superior knowledge and interpretation of Genesis?
Oh come on. It's a silly story for children. There's a fearsome monster with a sword of flame, magic produce, and a talking snake. A talking snake, for pities sake, how ridiculous.
You better never watch the Muppets if you think this story is real. "Hi Ho, Kermit the Snake here. Yeeeeeeah!!!!!!"
:rolleyes:

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Yes, it's left over from an earlier Pagan version of this same story. Though in the earlier version man chooses to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of culture (not good & evil) and pass on eternal life. But in the Jewish version the tree of life doesn't show up until it's too late to get at. OT, but would you mind telling me where I could get some info on this earlier story? I hadn't heard of there being a proto-Genesis of this type before. Thanks

[OAG]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Ahh, I knew you hadn't read it.

It is pretty obvious that I have read it and you know it. We are not here to debate that point and this condescension is childish and I've seen it way too many times to find it even remotely entertaining. It is chapter one of the skeptic's handbook. I'm not looking to debate beginners.

God told him that he would die the very day that he ate the fruit. Not eat the fruit and you will eventually die. Eat the fruit and you'll die right away.

If God were talking to an immortal it would make perfect sense. The moment you eat the fruit you will no longer remain immortal but die. So simple a child could understand it. As you've already demonstrated the mentality of a child I'm surprised it eludes you.

A murder threat that would make no sense if Adam had no idea what death was.

Yet it makes perfect sense if Adam understood what immortality was.

But of course god lies through his teeth

Yes, of course he does.

just like snake said he was. Adam doesn't die "that every day" but lives another 900+ years

Obviously the whole point of the story was to let everyone know the snake was right. How silly of me not to see it. This book is all about why we should worship the snake. Thanks for clearing that up Conan.

"Knew" was an Elizabethan euphemism for "fucked" But there are no euphemisms in the passages sited. Or are you just unhappy because they don't say what you want them to?

Nothing about you or your diatribe makes me unhappy. You amuse me in fact. The point is that you understand the euphemism for knew because you choose to understand what it is talking about rather than take it literally. When it comes to certain passages of the Bible you willfully choose to do the opposite. You unequivocally state that there are no euphemisms in the passages cited but admit that there are Elizabethan euphemisms elsewhere in the same book. Give it up rookie. The Bible says what it says. Your spin on it is harlequin.

That's what the good book says. Pretty stupid isn't it?

What's stupid? Is it that you ignore the text which makes it plain that Eve understood what God had forbidden and why? It isn't stupid but it is a rookie mistake.

Me?!! It's not my magic book.

Ah but it IS your magic interpretation which seems to have little to do with the text.

God sets a monster with a flaming sword to keep them from getting at this magic tree.

After they sinned.

Yes, it's left over from an earlier Pagan version of this same story.

So we're done discussing the actual text and are moving on to the skeptic's handbook chapter two? This is the chapter where you decry the whole thing as a stolen myth compiled from myths of the world by Joseph Campbell or something like that.

What friendship? What trust? God makes a death threat, see how many friends you keep if you start behaving like that.

Oh THAT'S right. God was just the bad boyfriend in the story who drank all their beer and kicked their dog.

God kicks them out because they couldn't tell good from evil and blundered unknowingly into evil. You'll note that the second they eat the magic fruit they know for the first time what evil is.

Right. They sensed that evil had entered their nature. Until that point it was only potential in their nature, now it was there.

Oh come on. It's a silly story for children. There's a fearsome monster with a sword of flame, magic produce, and a talking snake. A talking snake, for pities sake, how ridiculous.
You better never watch the Muppets if you think this story is real. "Hi Ho, Kermit the Snake here. Yeeeeeeah!!!!!!"
:rolleyes:

I don't care if it is just a story. Your editorial comments are here out of sheer spite and condescension. I'm only arguing the text not the veracity of it. You've given your spin on it for what it is worth. You're only point seems to have been that you had some sort of better understanding of the story and what it means and how it progressed. Having failed to demonstrate any such thing you've resorted to childishness. Your entire intent was obviously to demonstrate your massive brilliant intellectual superiority to me. Congratulations little boy. I'm really very impressed.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Weltall
OT, but would you mind telling me where I could get some info on this earlier story? I hadn't heard of there being a proto-Genesis of this type before. Thanks

In the earlier version the god has made the garden to entertain the other gods in. But he hates the work needed to keep it up so he creates people to be slaves. There are two snakes and they help the people by telling them about the magic trees. Eat one and they will live forever (the god planned that they would die when they started to complain and he'd just make some more) but be slaves. Eat the other and they would be free but would die. In this story they choose death and freedom.
Since you are interested you can find much more than you ever wanted to know in Occidental Mythology---the Masks of God series by Joseph Campbell

[OAG]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Since you are interested you can find much more than you ever wanted to know in Occidental Mythology---the Masks of God series by Joseph Campbell

Did I call that one or what?

[Biff the unclean]

It is pretty obvious that I have read it and you know it.
Reading comprehension problem then?

We are not here to debate that point and this condescension is childish and I've seen it way too many times to find it even remotely entertaining. It is chapter one of the skeptic's handbook. I'm not looking to debate beginners.
And unbridled arrogance is a standard resort of Xians who can't back up their claims. Bluff away, you aren't fooling anyone.

If God were talking to an immortal it would make perfect sense. The moment you eat the fruit you will no longer remain immortal but die. So simple a child could understand it. As you've already demonstrated the mentality of a child I'm surprised it eludes you.
Insults now, how typical of the Credulous when faced with logic.
Adam, that pile of dust who became a real boy when he was blown on by magic breath, was not immortal. Nowhere does the story say he was immortal. The loving God threatens him with death. So he can't be immortal because death is meaningless to immortals.
It's a very simple, very primitive myth. It's clearly written. Why do you insist on changing what the story says?

Yet it makes perfect sense if Adam understood what immortality was.
How do you know what immortality is if nothing has ever died? Why must you add things to this fable that aren't in it?

Obviously the whole point of the story was to let everyone know the snake was right. How silly of me not to see it. This book is all about why we should worship the snake. Thanks for clearing that up Conan.
2:17 (God) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God is quite clear, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. The talking snake says that God isn't telling the truth. Adam passes away at the ripe old age of nine hundred and thirty.
Worshiping snakes is about as stupid as worshiping anything else in this children's story

The point is that you understand the euphemism for knew because you choose to understand what it is talking about rather than take it literally.
Because it is a euphemism. As opposed to the language in this story. You don't happen to like what it says so you think you can twist it and no one will notice.

You unequivocally state that there are no euphemisms in the passages cited but admit that there are Elizabethan euphemisms elsewhere in the same book. Give it up rookie. The Bible says what it says. Your spin on it is harlequin.
Rookie? Oh I'm an old white beard who has been at this since the 60's. I've seen cherry pickers like you come and go. All bluster no content. Are you trying to say that this whole story about the naughty animated rib is all a euphemism now? Or are you just floundering?

What's stupid?
Punishing someone for doing evil when you have prevented them from knowing what evil is.
Is it that you ignore the text which makes it plain that Eve understood what God had forbidden and why? It isn't stupid but it is a rookie mistake.
And you ignore that the story repeatedly says that A&E do not have the knowledge of what is right or wrong. That's not a Xian mistake. You know it's there, you just want it to go away so Genesis will say what you want it to say instead of what it actually does.

Ah but it IS your magic interpretation which seems to have little to do with the text.
That's not an interpretation, that's a straight reading of the text.

So we're done discussing the actual text and are moving on to the skeptic's handbook chapter two?
Only I have been discussing the actual text. You've been discussing some fantasy of your own.

This is the chapter where you decry the whole thing as a stolen myth compiled from myths of the world by Joseph Campbell or something like that.
Are you threatened because I've read Campbell? Xians hate comparative mythology don't they. Shows their stories for what they are.

Right. They sensed that evil had entered their nature. Until that point it was only potential in their nature, now it was there.
So what do you think they were snacking on? An apple? This was THE FRUIT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. They ate it and suddenly had the knowledge of what was good and what was evil. It's a very simple minded story…but apparently too complicated for you to follow.

I don't care if it is just a story. Your editorial comments are here out of sheer spite and condescension.
Poor baby, did I speak poorly of your talking snake? Aaaah.

I'm only arguing the text not the veracity of it.
Without consulting the text apparently.

You've given your spin on it for what it is worth. You're only point seems to have been that you had some sort of better understanding of the story and what it means and how it progressed.
No spin, just a straight reading. You are the only one spinning around here.
Having failed to demonstrate any such thing you've resorted to childishness.
Am I not showing enough respect for the boy who was a pile of magic dust or the girl who was a spare rib? Am I not taking the talking snake and the magic fruit seriously enough for you?

Your entire intent was obviously to demonstrate your massive brilliant intellectual superiority to me.
Oh that wasn't hard at all. You really aren't a challenge. You don't appear to be prepared to debate anyone, just to bluster and to pose.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by OAG
Did I call that one or what?
And your problem with citing a world famous expert in his field is what?

Just close your eyes tight and maybe all human learning will go away and no one will laugh at your myths and know them for what they are.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Just close your eyes tight and maybe all human learning will go away and no one will laugh at your myths and know them for what they are.

[Dorothy voice]There's no place like home x 3[/Dorothy voice]

Adam doesn't die "that every day" but lives another 900+ years

And just how would someone die 'every day'? ;) Another stray letter. :)

[-DM-]

Originally posted by OAG
]Genesis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

I guess you can interpret it otherwise if you please but to me that shows Eve had a pretty clear understanding of God's prohibition.Thank you. I want to acknowledge the fact that I had forgotten about that verse, and to better explain what I had in mind.

In this story, the prohibition itself was given directly to Adam, only, so far as we can tell [GE 2:16-17], and that was even before Eve had allegedly been created. There is no biblical "record" of the prophibition having been given directly to Eve. If she heard the prohibition through Adam, then it would have been hearsay to her. But I do agree that GE 3:2 indicates that she was at least aware of it.

-Don-

[OAG]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Reading comprehension problem then?

Gee, that was a clever, original and unpredictable comeback.

And unbridled arrogance is a standard resort of Xians who can't back up their claims. Bluff away, you aren't fooling anyone.

We'll see who can back what little boy. You start this post, and your previous ones, with arrogance and condescension and then act as though my alleged arrogance is an affront to you. You are classic dude. You are a cookie cutter skeptic if I've ever seen one. You are following the skepticism for dummies book chapter by chapter. I predicted your appeal to authority right down to the authority figure you would appeal to. If there were a way to do it in any believable fashion I could probably write your next dozen or so replies pretty accurately. However, if I post them prior to you, you'd simply deny that's what you were going to write. If I post them after you, you'd have no way of knowing I did it before hand.

Insults now, how typical of the Credulous when faced with logic.

How typically hypocritical of jokers like you to throw around insults and then the moment you receive one get offended by it.

Adam, that pile of dust who became a real boy when he was blown on by magic breath, was not immortal. Nowhere does the story say he was immortal. The loving God threatens him with death. So he can't be immortal because death is meaningless to immortals.

Yes, we've already covered your spin on the story. It's adorable enough that it was perhaps worth repeating.

It's a very simple, very primitive myth. It's clearly written. Why do you insist on changing what the story says?

I insist on nothing. I read the words and they have meaning to me. I have shared that meaning with you. You take other meaning from the words. I can't help that. In the end it really doesn't concern me whether you get what the story is telling you or fancy the snake a big hero or whatever. It just doesn't matter to me. You are simply quite amusing and this has been fun but now you're getting redundant and boring. You were always predictable.

How do you know what immortality is if nothing has ever died? Why must you add things to this fable that aren't in it?

I'm not adding nor subtracting anything. This story tells of the fall of man from perfect creation to corruption and death. I cannot help it if you see the characters as something other than what they are. This story does not exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of the story. You see it as one little myth, replicated from somewhere else. YOUR perspective on it is that it is a fable with a beginning at creation and an ending at the eviction. The story goes well beyond that and the character of the major players is much further developed and elaborated. Your unwillingness or inability to incorporate those characteristics into this story is not my problem.

God is quite clear, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. The talking snake says that God isn't telling the truth. Adam passes away at the ripe old age of nine hundred and thirty.

We've already covered this. The moment they ate of the apple they were condemned to die. I can tell you with absolute certainty that YOU WILL DIE. That does not mean this instant.

Because it is a euphemism. As opposed to the language in this story. You don't happen to like what it says so you think you can twist it and no one will notice.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Rookie? Oh I'm an old white beard who has been at this since the 60's. I've seen cherry pickers like you come and go. All bluster no content. Are you trying to say that this whole story about the naughty animated rib is all a euphemism now? Or are you just floundering?

Well I think you are either lying or you should find a hobby for which you can improve you skill with 40 years practice. Now you resort to the all or nothing ploy? Man THAT is kindergarten stuff. You have GOT to be kidding me.

Punishing someone for doing evil when you have prevented them from knowing what evil is.

God told them what not to do and told them precisely what the consequence would be. They chose to do it anyway. God kept His word and gave them the consequence. I see no flaw in that.

And you ignore that the story repeatedly says that A&E do not have the knowledge of what is right or wrong. That's not a Xian mistake. You know it's there, you just want it to go away so Genesis will say what you want it to say instead of what it actually does.

It says they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. It does not say anywhere that they had no clue it was wrong to disobey God. The story clearly shows that Eve knew damn well it was forbidden but let the serpent talk her into it with his lies.

That's not an interpretation, that's a straight reading of the text.

You aren't very clever are you? If you post the text or read it aloud to me that is straight reading. When you start telling me what you think it says that is known as interpretation...yours specifically. It is subjective and open to my subjective criticism.

Only I have been discussing the actual text. You've been discussing some fantasy of your own.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Are you threatened because I've read Campbell?[quote]

I don't find anything about you threatening. I don't find any thoughts or ideas threatening. I find some of them noteworthy and some of them laughable and the rest somewhere in between. I have read Campbell and found his work noteworthy. However, just like you interpretation of the Bible, your interpretation of Campbell is going to be less than inspiring to me. If I wish to get inspiration from Campbell or anyone else I would certainly not get it second hand from the likes of you but go directly to the source.

[quote] Xians hate comparative mythology don't they. Shows their stories for what they are.

I'll assume from the lack of a question mark that this is a declarative statement and not a question. I don't speak for all Christians so I have no idea what X number of them hate. I LOVE mythology. I think it is great. I think Campbell had tremendous insight into the importance of it in human society. I also think some of his ideas and conclusions were a wee bit kooky.

Poor baby, did I speak poorly of your talking snake? Aaaah.

I didn't write the story did I? I don't really have a vested interest in how poorly you read it. I'm only arguing with you for the sheer entertainment of it.

Without consulting the text apparently.

OOO gosh that stung.

Am I not showing enough respect for the boy who was a pile of magic dust or the girl who was a spare rib? Am I not taking the talking snake and the magic fruit seriously enough for you?

Like I said, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the end. I don't give a crap about your irreverence for the story. That, in itself, is a little adolescent but you are who you are and no maturity is required as far as I'm concerned.

It is simply the condescension that was unwarranted. Every skeptic of your caliber that I've encountered has displayed the same adolescent bravado, arrogance and condescension, the quick fall into puerile behavior and the immediate hypocrisy of whining about any such behavior received in return. Like I said, you are textbook and I expected nothing less of you. I just thought I'd point it out for your edification in the vain hope that you might try to avoid such foolishness and at least TRY to behave like an adult.

Oh that wasn't hard at all. You really aren't a challenge.

Not for someone with a brain as large and impressive as yours, surely.

You don't appear to be prepared to debate anyone, just to bluster and to pose.

Yes, you've already established your perception problem.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by OAG
Gee, that was a clever, original and unpredictable comeback.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/red_herring.jpg

We'll see who can back what little boy.

Like THIS little boy? http://www.english-atheist.co.uk/cb1.gif

You start this post, and your previous ones, with arrogance and condescension and then act as though my alleged arrogance is an affront to you.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/special_pleading.jpg

You are classic dude. You are a cookie cutter skeptic if I've ever seen one. You are following the skepticism for dummies book chapter by chapter. I predicted your appeal to authority right down to the authority figure you would appeal to. If there were a way to do it in any believable fashion I could probably write your next dozen or so replies pretty accurately. However, if I post them prior to you, you'd simply deny that's what you were going to write. If I post them after you, you'd have no way of knowing I did it before hand.

You are classic dude. You are a cookie cutter theist if I've ever debated with one on the internet. You are following the Apologetics for Dummies book brainwashing word by brainwashing word. I predicted your appeal to authority right down to the authority figure you would appeal to. If there were a way to do it in any believable fashion I could probably write your next dozen or so replies pretty accurately. However, if I post them prior to you, you'd simply deny that's what you were going to write. If I post them after you, you'd have no way of knowing I did it before hand.

How typically hypocritical of jokers like you to throw around insults and then the moment you receive one get offended by it.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/pot_kettle.jpg

Yes, we've already covered your spin on the story. It's adorable enough that it was perhaps worth repeating.

I insist on nothing. I read the words and they have meaning to me. I have shared that meaning with you. You take other meaning from the words. I can't help that. In the end it really doesn't concern me whether you get what the story is telling you or fancy the snake a big hero or whatever. It just doesn't matter to me. You are simply quite amusing and this has been fun but now you're getting redundant and boring. You were always predictable.

Then why do you continue to reply?

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/high_horse.jpg

I'm not adding nor subtracting anything. This story tells of the fall of man from perfect creation to corruption and death. I cannot help it if you see the characters as something other than what they are. This story does not exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of the story. You see it as one little myth, replicated from somewhere else. YOUR perspective on it is that it is a fable with a beginning at creation and an ending at the eviction. The story goes well beyond that and the character of the major players is much further developed and elaborated. Your unwillingness or inability to incorporate those characteristics into this story is not my problem.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/unsupported_assertion.jpg

We've already covered this. The moment they ate of the apple they were condemned to die. I can tell you with absolute certainty that YOU WILL DIE. That does not mean this instant.

Irrelevant. That is NOT what the story says.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/shifting_goalposts.jpg

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Well I think you are either lying or you should find a hobby for which you can improve you skill with 40 years practice. Now you resort to the all or nothing ploy? Man THAT is kindergarten stuff. You have GOT to be kidding me.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg

God told them what not to do and told them precisely what the consequence would be. They chose to do it anyway. God kept His word and gave them the consequence. I see no flaw in that.

Do you type your posts with your walking stick, or does your guide dog do that?

It says they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. It does not say anywhere that they had no clue it was wrong to disobey God. The story clearly shows that Eve knew damn well it was forbidden but let the serpent talk her into it with his lies.

It also doesn't say whether or not they knew that it WAS bad to disobey god.

You aren't very clever are you? If you post the text or read it aloud to me that is straight reading. When you start telling me what you think it says that is known as interpretation...yours specifically. It is subjective and open to my subjective criticism.

And your criticism isn't?

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/special_pleading.jpg

I didn't write the story did I? I don't really have a vested interest in how poorly you read it. I'm only arguing with you for the sheer entertainment of it.

Well, so am I.

OOO gosh that stung.

About as much as an ant without mandibles who has been drinking water for the past ten years.

Like I said, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the end.

A hill of beans would not be sufficient to create all the hot air that you have posted here.

I don't give a crap about your irreverence for the story. That, in itself, is a little adolescent but you are who you are and no maturity is required as far as I'm concerned.

Atheism: The Teddy Bear for adults! At least it exists!

It is simply the condescension that was unwarranted. Every skeptic of your caliber that I've encountered has displayed the same adolescent bravado, arrogance and condescension, the quick fall into puerile behavior and the immediate hypocrisy of whining about any such behavior received in return. Like I said, you are textbook and I expected nothing less of you. I just thought I'd point it out for your edification in the vain hope that you might try to avoid such foolishness and at least TRY to behave like an adult.



[QUOTE][B]Not for someone with a brain as large and impressive as yours, surely.

Better than yours:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/brainwashing.jpg

Yes, you've already established your perception problem.

I can't see it anywhere.

[Biff the unclean]

Gee, that was a clever, original and unpredictable comeback.
Ahh, you hear that comeback quite often then. I'm not surprised. I should apologize for stating the obvious

You start this post, and your previous ones, with arrogance and condescension and then act as though my alleged arrogance is an affront to you.
Like so many Christians you seem to believe that whatever bizarre claims you make deserve respect.

You are classic dude. You are a cookie cutter skeptic if I've ever seen one. You are following the skepticism for dummies book chapter by chapter. I predicted your appeal to authority right down to the authority figure you would appeal to.
I was talking about comparative mythology and recommended a book by one of the top Mythologists that contained the earlier version of the Adam and Eve story that I had been asked about. We'll assume that you are upset about this because you don't want an earlier version of this story to exist. You don't seem to want the version that is in the OT to exist as you insist on changing it.

However, if I post them prior to you, you'd simply deny that's what you were going to write. If I post them after you, you'd have no way of knowing I did it before hand.
So in other words you intend to spew the standard Christian misrepresentations and you predict that I will correct you. You could be the new Miss Cleo

Yes, we've already covered your spin on the story. It's adorable enough that it was perhaps worth repeating.
That's because you prefer to attack me instead of my arguments. That's okay, you are a Christian and that is SOP for Christians.

I read the words and they have meaning to me. I have shared that meaning with you.
Except the meaning to you is from what you add to the story instead of from the actual story.
In the end it really doesn't concern me whether you get what the story is telling you or fancy the snake a big hero or whatever. It just doesn't matter to me.
You are throwing quite the pissy fit for someone who doesn't care

You are simply quite amusing and this has been fun but now you're getting redundant and boring. You were always predictable.
I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to get you to stop promoting such degrading primitive fables as fact.

This story tells of the fall of man from perfect creation to corruption and death.
Not according to the Jews, whose myth this is.

I cannot help it if you see the characters as something other than what they are. This story does not exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of the story.
And the fact that it is such an obvious primitive creation myth filled with the ridiculous and the provably incorrect shows that the rest of the story is fictional also.
You see it as one little myth, replicated from somewhere else.
Time and again it was replicated. You see it from Sumeria to "the Tree of the Hesperides". You can easily see that the story in Genesis is actually the combination of two of these earlier stories.
YOUR perspective on it is that it is a fable with a beginning at creation and an ending at the eviction.
Yes that is the story.
The story goes well beyond that and the character of the major players is much further developed and elaborated.
These are sequential stories. There is further development but that does not negate the initial story. Nor are these additional stories any less ridiculous.
Your unwillingness or inability to incorporate those characteristics into this story is not my problem.
You seem to have a certain inability to express your ideas. You can't seem to say why you think my version is incorrect but just become upset over it.
I did incorporate these stories because it is in them that Adam dies at age 930.


The moment they ate of the apple they were condemned to die. I can tell you with absolute certainty that YOU WILL DIE. That does not mean this instant.
The only problem is that the bible doesn't say this. It could have, the authors certainly had it in their power to have the characters say this. But they didn't. God says (Gen 2:16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Very specific as to time. "in the day that thou eatest…" Not some vague time in the future, not "spiritual death" It clearly goes out of it's way to state that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit.
Then the story clearly says that the snake tells them that they won't die.
Then the story tells how they lived about twenty times a normal human of the ages lifetime.

Well I think you are either lying or you should find a hobby for which you can improve you skill with 40 years practice Now you resort to the all or nothing ploy? Man THAT is kindergarten stuff. You have GOT to be kidding me.
I'm a touch shy of 60. Since you can't handle "kindergarten stuff" it doesn't speak well of you. If you could manage to squeeze just a bit of content into your bluster it would be a welcome change.

God told them what not to do and told them precisely what the consequence would be. They chose to do it anyway.
And on what were they able to base their "choice" on? If you were blind and I said pick the red card all you want but if you pick the blue that very day you will be killed--what would you base your choice on?
They were made without the knowledge of good and evil and then punished for doing evil.

God kept His word and gave them the consequence. I see no flaw in that. As soon as they gain the knowledge of good and evil there is a dramatic change in A&E's behavior. It is only after they eat the magic fruit that they gained the ability to know that what they did was wrong.

It says they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. It does not say anywhere that they had no clue it was wrong to disobey God.
Good & evil and right & wrong are the same thing. This is clearly demonstrated by their suddenly realization that they had done wrong.

The story clearly shows that Eve knew damn well it was forbidden but let the serpent talk her into it with his lies.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…

So they don't die that very day. The talking snake was telling the truth.
The talking snake says eating the fruit will make them like gods in 3:5. In 3:22 God confirms that snake had spoken the truth.. Try reading the actual bible for a change.

You aren't very clever are you? If you post the text or read it aloud to me that is straight reading. When you start telling me what you think it says that is known as interpretation...yours specifically. It is subjective and open to my subjective criticism.
Your criticism is whining that you don't like what the OT says, you want it to say something else.

I don't find anything about you threatening. I don't find any thoughts or ideas threatening.
Strange responses if what you say is true.

I have read Campbell and found his work noteworthy.
I'm sure he'd be thrilled to hear that if he was alive.

If I wish to get inspiration from Campbell or anyone else I would certainly not get it second hand from the likes of you but go directly to the source.
My goodness you certainly love you.

I'll assume from the lack of a question mark that this is a declarative statement and not a question.
You do have a reading comprehension problem, I knew it.

I think Campbell had tremendous insight into the importance of it in human society. I also think some of his ideas and conclusions were a wee bit kooky.
And if we were talking about any of his ideas or conclusions that statement might make sense

I didn't write the story did I? I don't really have a vested interest in how poorly you read it. I'm only arguing with you for the sheer entertainment of it.
You seem awfully desperate to insult me for someone who is being entertained.

I don't give a crap about your irreverence for the story. That, in itself, is a little adolescent but you are who you are and no maturity is required as far as I'm concerned.
I hate to mention it but of the two of us I'm not the one who believes in the talking snake, spare rib girl and the magic fruit.

It is simply the condescension that was unwarranted.
It is well warranted. This fairy tale is less sophisticated, less believable than Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. It is also highly demeaning to humanity.

Every skeptic of your caliber that I've encountered has displayed the same adolescent bravado, arrogance and condescension, the quick fall into puerile behavior and the immediate hypocrisy of whining about any such behavior received in return.
I don't doubt that you get a great many complaints about your behavior from Atheists who don't know their place.

Not for someone with a brain as large and impressive as yours, surely.
Well I'm a Ph D and a member of Mensa. I also wear a size 7 5/8 hat. My brain is one of my favorite organs.
I'm assuming, from your behavior, that you are attending some Christian University somewhere in the WI back woods, and are easily threatened in your shaky faith.