A Modern Parable

Originally posted by no1marauder
Jesus didn't tell any parables?? You have read the Bible, haven't you?

Oh, brother .......

Originally posted by KellyJay
They knew quite a bit without experience, you too I imagine know
about things you have never experienced as well.
Kelly

You mean God, or perhaps that angel who features in Paradise Lost (can't remember its name) might have sat Adam & Eve for a chat about death to prepare them for their ordeal by temptation? The idea could not have occurred to them on their own: human beings raised in pure isolation do not develop language skills or the capacity for abstract thought.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What you don't like is the analogy's effectiveness , not that it matters since the same conclusion should be drawn from the original story.
Just one more bit of evidence that the story is not to be taken literally.

It is comparing apples and oranges, the way that people are trying
to make them look the same only shows that they don't have either
a clue what the Biblical story is, or that they have preconceived
ideas about God and are going to force them into the their
conclusions no matter if they fit that story or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
They knew quite a bit without experience, you too I imagine know
about things you have never experienced as well.
Kelly

How would you describe this fallacy?

Bill: How did Adam and Eve know about death without experiencing it or having a point a reference to base their fear/knowledge?
Jill: Well, you know about death.
Bill: But there were others before me who have died.
Jill: So?

Originally posted by no1marauder
How so? After all it is an Almighty God talking to the only two humans who ever existed supposedly. Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them since he is the one wh ...[text shortened]... s roughly akin to a three year old (perhaps even a younger child).

No1: "Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them"

Could you please quote Genesis and give the context if you wish where God says He will kill them after eating the fruit, genius.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You mean God, or perhaps that angel who features in Paradise Lost (can't remember its name) might have sat Adam & Eve for a chat about death to prepare them for their ordeal by temptation? The idea could not have occurred to them on their own: human beings raised in pure isolation do not develop language skills or the capacity for abstract thought.

I mean what I said, and what I said had nothing to do with Paradise
Lost. Adam knew where Eve came from just by looking at her, there
wasn't a conversation where someone told him. Those were two very
bright people, it wasn't because of lack of knowledge they fell, it was
because they wanted what they wanted.
Kelly

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1: "Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them"

Could you please quote Genesis and give the context if you wish where God says He will kill them after eating the fruit, genius.

Go f*** yourself. I've been taking your BS insults and trying to have a civil conversation, but a**holes like you don't know when to quit. I don't think you have any use at all anymore, not even as a jerkwad.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They are not alive now are they, they died didn't they?

The wages of sin is death, had they not sinned they would not have
died. Seems simple enough, and because they did what they did there
were other things that happened too. The o ...[text shortened]... n what ever you want, I was
responding to another poster.
Kelly

Would you care to address my "3 year old with the electrical cord" analogy?

Animals die; do they sin?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go f*** yourself. I've been taking your BS insults and trying to have a civil conversation, but a**holes like you don't know when to quit. I don't think you have any use at all anymore, not even as a jerkwad.

Man, you go around insulting people all the time, you're the RHP "King of Insults" ... and when I call you genius or dumbo, very mild and innocuous qualifications by the way for a person like you, your head explodes ..... wow !

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps another analogy would be helpful (my own this time): my three year old grandson is playing with the electrical cord from my PC. I yell to him," Don't touch that or you'll get electrocuted". Suppose later when I'm not looking, he plays with the electrical cord. Would it be just for me if I found out about it to electrocute him?

No, it would not be just for you to electrocute him, but if he died
because he did something with the electrical cord and he electrocuted
himself your warning even though you gave was not heeded. You
knew about the danger you gave a warning and it was rejected, that
is not the same thing as saying and doing, I’ll kill you if you touch
that.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think a parable or analogy CAN be a strawman fallacy. A strawman fallacy is replacing someone's argument with a distorted or exaggerated one i.e. (2 examples):

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went ...[text shortened]... Jesus yelling, "Strawman!" every time he made an "argument by analogy" i.e. told a parable.

No1: "Ivanhoe constantly makes this mistake and labels ALL arguments by analogy "strawmen"."

Simply not true. You're a liar, no1.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, it would not be just for you to electrocute him, but if he died
because he did something with the electrical cord and he electrocuted
himself your warning even though you gave was not heeded. You
knew about the danger you gave a warning and it was rejected, that
is not the same thing as saying and doing, I’ll kill you if you touch
that.
Kelly

WHAT? The analogy is perfect: God said don't eat from the tree or you'll die; I say don't play with the cord or you'll get electrocuted. A and C eat from the tree; my grandson plays with the cord. They don't die from eating from the tree; he doesn't get electrocuted. Then afterwards, God kills A and C eventually as punishment, and I electrocute my grandson as punishment. Where is the logical difference?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you look at OT law you will see there are several things people
were allowed and forbidden to do. Inside Genesis in the garden
there was only one, they were free to do and say anything they
put thier minds to, anything but that one thing. Now you do not
and I do not either put anything poisonous where my young kids
can get them. I do put them in pla ...[text shortened]... ad, or was told not to
touch, not to eat, not to do whatever it is that could hurt them.
Kelly

So, you agree that putting that which is dangerous in front of the inexperienced is not a good course of action ? And further that educating kids as to dangerous materials is a good option to follow up the above ?

God put the tree in front of them , and did not educate them sufficiently as to the consiquences . To say that this was the ONLY way they could have the option to excercise free will to do right and wrong is silly . Without the tree , adam could have hit for not doing his will eve , raped her , held her against her will . Eve could have stolen something from adam , lied to him , any number of other sins not predicated by the tree being there . So why did god put the means of their own death in front of their noses , called attention to it , and then left them ignorant and unsupervised KNOWING FULL WELL they'd eat it ? Very twisted portrait of your god .

Kelly you also didn't answer my question; if the wages of sin is death and animals die, does that mean they sin? Can a virus sin?