This is the best little set of analogies you have to offer, for real? Are you trying to make a mockery of our conversation?
The analogies of parental warning with less than exhaustive consequences explained is generally approriate.
Are you real in hoping that I will be gaslighted into thinking I have offered a wrong analogy?
You make decisions based on less than exhaustive realization of consequences.
Both negatively and positively you have and will continue to do so.
@sonship saidGaslighting? We just disagree, thats all. Your analogy is a complete dud and may well effectively invalidate what you might now go on to claim about the moral question mark hanging over your God figure's behaviour as depicted in the Garden of Eden allegory.
Are you real in hoping that I will be gaslighted into thinking I have offered a wrong analogy?
@sonship saidDid your God, as depicted in the Bible, do everything he possibly could to convince Adam not to eat the fruit and so prevent 6,000 years of abject misery and human suffering? Or did he do less than everything he possibly could?
What you are doing is exactly what Adam did in reacting to transgression. When confronted by God, he blamed God.
@FMF
I think the one attempting to make mockery of the conversation was you.
God did not force Adam and Eve to obey.
And God will not force you to believe His word.
We are free to make choices.
We are not always free to escape the consequences of those choices.
We have limited knowledge of the consequences which is less than exhaustive.
Still we make choices based on the limited understanding we have.
How much Adam knew would result from being the disobedient forefather of the entire human race, I do not know. He knew he had great responsibility and great managerial dominion over all of creation.
He knew he would die if he disobeyed God.
At least he was justly TOLD so by his Creator.
FMF
"For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous." (Rom. 5:19)
I don't spend time trying to turn the blame on to God.
I would rather contemplate how the second man, Jesus Christ, obeyed His Father
and reversed the curse of Adam's fall to those who believe in Him.
You have a better way to live?
You go for that and see how it turns out for you.
You run with "My sin is God's fault" and see if that will turn out to be true.
Did your God, as depicted in the Bible, do everything he possibly could to convince Adam not to eat the fruit and so prevent 6,000 years of abject misery and human suffering? Or did he do less than everything he possibly could?
God did what He deemed necessary.
If I repeat the answer too many times someone will accuse me of spamming.
As to your philosophy that God should be faulted, God should be blamed, and God was irresponsible, I say this:
In human history the person most qualified to point out wrong doing on the part of the God of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus, knowing full well the Scripture, called His Father "Righteous Father" .
"Righeous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25)
GIven the option of trusting your philosophy of finding unrighteousness in God and Jesus' declaration that His Father was righteous, I am going to trust Jesus.
@sonship saidWhat was the moral purpose of giving Adam "limited understanding" when the stakes - for the 40,000,000,000 humans that came after him - were so high? Make this withholding of information about the consequences morally coherent to me, if you can.
We have limited knowledge of the consequences which is less than exhaustive.
Still we make choices based on the limited understanding we have.
@sonship saidThen perhaps the fact that God did less than he could have, according to the allegory/account, to convince Adam and so prevent six millennia [so far] of human suffering, is one of the evilest acts ever described by literature. Can you see how the allegory can be seen as describing that?
God did what He deemed necessary.
@sonship saidI'm finding the allegory/account to be a story of arguably enormous evil that you are unable to render morally coherent. I don't believe in your God figure or the ideology surrounding it, and, as for Jesus, whoever he was, he has been stone dead for 2,000 years. But, be that as it may, if you want to "trust Jesus" instead of me, you go ahead and do that.
GIven the option of trusting your philosophy of finding unrighteousness in God and Jesus' declaration that His Father was righteous, I am going to trust Jesus.