On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:49:58 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote:

The Christian god - is he intelligent?

When the Christian god created the first humans, his highly emotional
reaction to their first case of disobedience was such that it showed a
total
lack of understanding as to why his creatures would do such a thing, not
to
mention he also appeared to be taken by surprise, which is strange since
he's supposed to be omniscient.

Taken by surprise? I think its a lesson in not taking God, and
ourselves, for granted. The story is a story, or representation of a
truth, which is in context with the rest of the story of the Bible.
With "story" meaning at least 'parable', if not literal truth.

Eating of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is to satisfy the
curiosity to know what you want to know, while ignoring the
conscience; even if one cannot see an overt (or proven) cost
otherwise. That the word 'good' is included acknowledges there are
reasons for wanting to eat it, and there could even be good reasons.
How often is anything ALL bad? Even if you don't believe in a
punishing God, you know this is what temptation into real trouble is
all about. But from the beginning God has told mankind it WILL cost,
and it will cost us with Him.

This may be your main complaint, and it is concerning education. The
question being isn't all knowledge good? Even if it is of both good
and evil? It isn't good if it extends past learning the warning, and
therefore consuming it, that it may become part of us.
And looking at it from the other side, who are the serpents who
would incourage (if not outright force) us to get so involved and eat
that cr*p? Actors come to mind, as do professors who take the
teaching of (and accepting of) many things so seriously. And there is
the profit motive by everyone else.
Of the sexes, who is the first one to venture from 'secure'
tradition? Within the sexes, who are the first ones to venture from
'secure' tradition? (With the single quotes around 'secure' being
deserved, of course...)

What is interesting about this story is that God was not offended by
their nudity, at least not at the start. God did not instruct them
beforehand concerning their dress. It was only after they ate that
Adam and Eve realized they were naked. And their nakedness was not
incidental to the story. This is very odd, especially if this were a
parable contrived by strict moralists. But is this a contradiction of
God? Later, God is to have said, and strongly, that uncovering the
nakedness of family members (not husband and wife) was wicked. I'm
not aware of anything explicit further than this. Others may have
their definitions of what coveting their neighbor's wife is, and how
their neighbors should avoid it. Or what might offend their eye such
they should pluck it out. (This last one worries me, to the point of
seriously doubting its legitimacy.)

The story of Adam & Eve's fall is not an accidental event, but one
that occurred after discussion, hearing all sides. WE ALL know We
have to deal with this circumstance; but don't eat it, not even once.
So the morally inclined (aren't we all?) will discipline our thoughts
against doing what we are, at least, curious about; for its internal
compromises (affects to the soul), and to avoid the social cost for
those group-minded. Others who decide what they want to do will do
so as if it were impossible (or immaterial, and the second definition
for 'immaterial' is 'spiritual') for us to dishonor ourselves, since
it was our choice; as if it is our choice that makes anything
'special' (honorable) in the end. Those who hate discipline may act
on their want, yet their hate will grow. For it is not just God, or
those disciplined around them, who are responsible for the common
sense which would guard them. They must hate themselves. The hate is
not so difficult now, for they have learned to hate others around
them. It is not just the disciplined who think they have valid
reasons to hate.

But at the beginning of mankind, through Adam & Eve (Eve first, in
this case) God states that it WILL cost us, and our children. This is
helpful to those who believe, and even to those who do not believe
(even if it angers them, but to a point). That the sins we commit can
cost even our children should not surprise even an athiest. And if
God overtly punishes them then He only takes away from that particular
creation what they've proven to themselves they never deserved in the
first place. God showed that He isn't ashamed for blessings to
overflow, but is also guarding their worthiness. They disobeyed God's
word, and they only did so after being talked into it by the serpent
(proving they knew it was wrong; it was not a casual act) so they were
punished. It is an unusual story, but the lesson is completely
natural, practical, and timeless.

God punished, (so He also taught), but He did not abandon.

--Michael

You must be one of those who keep fish as 'pets', as dogs, cats, or the
like who would find insulting because of the praise and worship they
display toward thear owners