The "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was a test of obedience for Adam and Eve. God had given them everything they needed for life and health, so that tree was like "candy". Had the serpent(Satan) not tempted(dared) them to eat it, they would not have given its presence a second thought. By eating what was forbidden, Adam and Eve suffered the consequences of their disobedience...both spiritual AND physical death. Otherwise they would have lived forever. The "Tree of life" was the key to physical immortality, which would have removed one of the consequences of their disobedience...physical death. God wanted them to experience the full consequences of their disobedience by removing their access to the "Tree of life".That is as simple as I can explain this. PM me if you would like to discuss it further with me.
Because we were created to be free and make choices even if they are bad for us, God wants us to love him with our hearts and not be robotic slaves with no free will. He gave humans a choice and look at the mess this world is becoming.
Why do parents have children and have things in their home that children can't touch? Or is it more about something that's inherently human?
You ever know a parent that had infinite power? You ever know a parent with infinite power who wouldn't safeguard their children's home from the devil? Comparing the god myth of Eden to parenting is a gigantic fail.
I'm sorry, but your inability to follow simple logic is the gigantic fail. The essential point is that boundaries are inherent in human nature. Try again. Think really slowly.
When parents have things in their homes they don't want their children to touch, they don't leave them out in the open and hope that their inability to understand bad is enough to understand it's a bad thing. The point of the myth is to explain why women are inferior, while childbirth is painful, it's a curse, and why all humans are wicked, but making sure the blame is on women. It's a story that puts blame on human nature, the opposite of what a loving parent does. Try to actually think beyond your so called boundries.
Your whole line of reasoning is a straw man. Don't know if you've studied philosophy, but in other words, you've reduced the myth to something it isn't saying, and then refute that (which is you unable? to think beyond your own boundaries). Honestly, I could explain this to anyone with an open mind, but that's not where you're at. I would have the same problem trying to argue with a fundamentalist that this is probably a myth.
Having an open mind is what enables one to see the absurdity in comparing god in Eden to a parent and child. Having an open mind clearly exposes the misogynist undertones in the myth. It's a horrid story to explain human nature.
Summary = 'Having an open mind is what enables' you to ... conclude what you already believe about your antagonism to the story. A little ironic. I don't take this story literally, and so have no stake in it. There is no inherent misogyny in this passage - you read that in based on a biased interpretation. The comparison to parent and child is not absurd - no parent can protect a child forever from the inevitability of choices with consequences. An analogy is a comparison made to illustrate a single point (in this case, unlike animals, human volition implies ethical or moral limits), but taking it beyond that is fallacious (infinite parents can tidy up the house to avoid all such choices).
Now whose using a strawman-to conclude what I already believe. When I said the myth had misogynist undertones I was referring to the entire story in genesis, not just the passage presented here. Eve ate first, and tempted Adam to eat too, more of what I was referring to. Man was made in god's image, women in man's image. I wouldn't guess you'd agree that the story in its entirety wasnt misogynist. Since the heavily implied tones of the story are its all womens fault we all fell from grace I'd hardly consider that a story worth mention. But it is easy to skip over the surface in such tales I suppose.
Your arguments are straw men because your reading comprehension of the passage isn't accurate:
1. Where does this passage say anywhere that woman wasn't also made in god's image? (Hint: It doesn't.)
2. 'Eve ate first...' You decide that makes it her fault. That does not follow logically anywhere in life (You were caught shoplifting. /Yeah but she did it first) Yet that's your conclusion to the passage? In the passage itself, both are held accountable. So you didn't read it properly.
3. 'All women's fault'. You actually contradict the passage completely here because it holds all to blame for their specific actions.
4. The passage itself clearly implies misogyny is a curse. You appear to have completely missed that as well.
Other passages in the bible are misogynist, but that is not the topic here. By the way, so is virtually every document written prior to 1970 in every culture and language. So? Do you dismiss everything ever written on that basis, or read every document intelligently within its culture and context?
1. Nor does it say woman was, god created man first, women were created from man at Adam's request. God specially made Adam prior to woman, for his own delight. Women were made from man, I suppose you can play dense and not see anything else behind that. I cannot. 2. Eve blamed the snake, Adam blamed Eve, this became the basis for lots of future biblical writings that justified rules against women, you talk as if Christianity did not have thousands of years of this sort of crap, you don't think this story might of had a bit to do with it? Paul certainly did. Whose talking about life logic with such ancient myths? Your shoplifting example is yet another strawman thrown into the mix. 3. Again, its quite clear which sex was given far more blame in Christianity. 4. I disagree. And so indeed! Here you refrain from going off topic to other misogynistic passages in the bible and instead go WAY off topic and bring up something that I never mentioned, in the form of a question, then tear that right down..whats that called again when someone does that?
1. "Nor does it say woman was...I suppose you can play dense and not see anything else behind that. I cannot."
(there's your problem, playing dense and not reading properly: "in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them" It says woman was made in the image of God. Clear as can be in the text. Grade 6 level reading error.
2. "Eve blamed the snake..." I already disproved this argument and you failed to respond to that. This is just a rant. No points.
3. "Again, its quite clear which sex was given far more blame in Christianity."
Irrelevant. The topic is not 'christianity' but this passage. No points.
4. "I disagree."
'To the woman he said,“... Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Misogyny is part of the punishment, as clearly stated in the text 'he will rule over you'. Once again you can’t read. No points.
You can't follow basic reasoned argument, you can’t read a simple text. This conversation is a waste of time.
Because it's a stupid myth written by stupid men from an era filled with ignorance. How the hell could god NOT of kept the damned devil away from paradise? Why didn't god just infuse Adam and eve with total understanding? Why is free will a gift yet punished forever the moment it's used? SO many valid questions not enough people ask.
Sorry to sound so blunt:
But people made god in OUR image, not the other way around.
sounds like a myth to me. You realize, according to the story Adam and Eve had to disobey God for His plan to work? Then when they finally did he punished not just them but all of their descendants (us). What kind of ****** up person would do that?
It is an allegory about man loosing his innocence and becoming responsible for his own action Ha he not eaten the bad fruit his excuse that god would have accepted would have been he doesn't know better
says the race that genetically engineers itself. lol
It's a metaphor ding dong