Adam & Eve: Why the Christian God is an ASS

I’d like to bring some arguments out regarding free will and original sin as well, because even assuming that the bible has it right, there are some issues I can’t get past when considering original sin:


1. Adam and eve existed before sin and evil came in to existence and were in perfect harmony with god, i.e. the "perfect humans", or "humans as god intended them to be". Correct that if it is wrong. Now, if those two were initially perfect, what does it say about their character that Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge in spite of the fact that god said not to? It means that the perfect humans, the ones that were in perfect harmony with god, chose to disobey him. It follows that by even perfect human nature, evil, sin and disconnection from god are more attractive to us or more part of our character than is the love of God. Why would and omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god create creatures like this in the first place? One might then say, however, that this choice to disobey God came from free will, which was given to us because God loved us (your position, yeah?). Now, if it was out of our own free will that Adam and Eve ate from the tree and you say it is NOT in our nature to disobey God even as perfect, sinless humans, why not just create more Adam's and Eve's until they don't disobey him? Why not just let every person decide on his or her own whether to eat from the tree of knowledge? This brings me to my second argument.


2. Let's say Eve chose not to eat from the tree of knowledge. That's a decision of inaction; there was no "one action" she could have done to ensure that humans would be with god and without sin forever. Her and Adam were just like that (with God) to begin with, and had the choice to take action and eat from the tree, or remain inactive and not eat. That being said, it was incredibly unfair of god to put that tree there because sin is a one-time choice that changes everything forever, whereas staying with god must be a constant choice...

In essence, if one has freedom of action and no knowledge of evil (as Eve did), when there is a choice of action vs. a choice of inaction presented to them, it is guaranteed that at some point in time, that individual will exercise their free will and choose the choice of action. It must logically be true then, that if God is all-knowing, he knew upon creating humans that if he were to give them free will, an option to sin but no knowledge of sin, we would choose evil eventually. It follows that either it was God's intention for his creation to disobey him and be forced to endure the consequences of their inevitable choice (he is not all-loving), or he did not foresee this event happening (he is not all-knowing).

Furthermore, even if God told Eve not to eat from the tree, that means that to remain in connection with god infinitely, Eve could not truly exercise her "free will"! To have truly been in eternal harmony with God, the original humans were required to live with a limiting condition on their free will, imposed by God himself! So, either we had to live without being able to exercise our free will, or we could exercise our free will and be forever plagued with sin. These issues make me very frustrated at God, should he exist.

So about yesterday...

I thought about it more and i kind of agree and don't at the same time... it makes perfect sense that we all came from the same cell sure, but my argument was that the constituents of the cell didn't come from the same chemicals per-say. Also should we use this like a chat or just post complete stuff? Probably just complete ideas...
- Torin

At this point in the discussion it is important do use the definition of life. Wikipedia states that something is called life when it has a self-sustaining process. I'm rusty on my biology but I would dare to claim that nothing  will be categorized as life on a sub-cellular level. Therefore all those constituents off a cell you talk about have not existed with a self-sustaining process, thus not life. The cell constituents that existed in the first self-sustaining cell  back in the days are not remotely similar to the ones we see today and were just mere complex chemical reactions. I believe that when they by coincidence started to collaborate, evolution exploded and all life originates from that one cell. I would think that the odds for all those complex chemical reactions and molecules to come together so perfectly is so small that it is most likely that life originated only once on planet Earth.
- Magnus

I agree we must use the definition of life, and therefore sure, we all came from the same cell. YAY we agree, except that the definition of life is not simply a self-sustaining chemical reaction; Even in labs today scientists have made self-replicating molecules but do not remotely classify them as life. I was looking this up today and that was part of the reason i decided to side with the last universal ancestor theory. What got me is that if you look at all life now, it is composed of one or more very similar, basic cells (human DNA can be transplanted into bacteria and it the human genome will be replicated, even though it's useless to the bacteria), all divisions of a parent cell... so yes, i think we all originated from the same cell :). My point is that the constituents of a cell would've been self sustaining or else they would not have lasted long enough to become integrated into a cell. In other words, a cell is a big sack of self-maintaining chemical reactions that happen to be beneficial to each other?
- Torin

Hlo sir

Test post

HI TORIN