Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Some people actually like Iraq. They might say Detroit doesn't seem like a very nice place.

 

 

In case you don't get it, grab a Bible and look at the map below.

Tigris-euph.png

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

The big curses of leaving the garden of eden were that Adam had to eat of the plants of the fields by the sweat of his brow. In the garden, he supposedly could live from the natural bounty of the trees, which would have been more leisurely. Eve's curse was to experience pain in childbirth, so presumably she could have lived in the garden without worrying about herself, her husband, or her children dying and there would have been enough food to sustain unlimited growth. That would have been a pretty care-free life, don't you think? Living without labor, pain, or worries and being able to devote your life to being fruitful (sexually and in any other constructive/creative undertaking you choose) and multiplying (having children who don't bicker and behave in negative ways - only engage in constructive life-enhancing activities)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

 

It seemed like a pleasant enough place. I've heard claims both that Adam had to work a bit to get his food (take care of the garden at least), and also that there was just plentiful food there for the taking and he didn't have to work. Nothing about there being no change, nor no challenges, nor no stimulation, nor not being allowed to question things or try things. Those you just made up to try to make some point. The only suggestion that it might have been sub-par was that Adam was lonely, but then god yanked a rib out of him and made him a girl and then everything was great.

 

However, I must say that Adam and Eve were seriously lacking in moral character. Specifically, they were completely amoral and wouldn't know good or evil if it bit them in the arse. In fact, the Bible is very clear that people should do good and avoid evil, but Adam and Eve were incapable of doing so. I don't think I'd even qualify them as human -- even animals know about morality. Also, the whole thing about having a lying totalitarian tyrant must have been a big turn-off (compare Genesis 3:22 to what god said earlier about the fruit).

 

16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

 

Anesthesia and egalitarianism. In your face, god.

 

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”

 

Tractors and herbicides. In your face, god. Next up, we're making a bit of progress toward a cure for aging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anesthesia and egalitarianism. In your face, god.

I forgot about the part where men dominate women by their worship of men. Where are the feminists to address that conundrum of women's liberation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

Who knows whether people wanted to learn then?

 

Anyway, God was there, and since he has infinite knowledge, one could learn from him forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

Genesis does not support the claims above (bolded by me), and in fact —

  • As for challenges and stimulation, Genesis portrays Satan as both. (Gen 3)
  • As for nothing new or no changes, Genesis tells Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and have dominion over all creatures (which would present new things and changes as well as being stimulating challenges). (Gen 1:28)
  • As for not being allowed to question or try anything, Genesis neither promotes nor prohibits questioning or trying things (except for trying that one particular tree).
  • As for never dying, Genesis says that Adam and Eve were not immortal. (Gen 3:22)
  • As for not exercising free will, Genesis says that Adam and Eve exercised their free will. (Gen 3:6)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

 

I agree. Eden would be like death.

 

This clip shows an analogy of man living in Eden without the knowledge of good and evil.

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+time+machine&mid=A09177855E7FF56AF1D1A09177855E7FF56AF1D1&FORM=LKVR38#

 

Thank God, so to speak, we escaped that imaginary place or mankind would not have the great history of progress that we have. No, I have not forgotten the wars and hardships but better progress with hardships than stagnation.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

The big curses of leaving the garden of eden were that Adam had to eat of the plants of the fields by the sweat of his brow. In the garden, he supposedly could live from the natural bounty of the trees, which would have been more leisurely. Eve's curse was to experience pain in childbirth, so presumably she could have lived in the garden without worrying about herself, her husband, or her children dying and there would have been enough food to sustain unlimited growth. That would have been a pretty care-free life, don't you think? Living without labor, pain, or worries and being able to devote your life to being fruitful (sexually and in any other constructive/creative undertaking you choose) and multiplying (having children who don't bicker and behave in negative ways - only engage in constructive life-enhancing activities)?

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+time+machine&mid=A09177855E7FF56AF1D1A09177855E7FF56AF1D1&FORM=LKVR38#

 

 

Sure. Except for the fact that mankind would be as bright as your average cow.

 

Only sheeple would want to live such lives.

 

We could all do it though. Frontal lobotomies are cheep in bulk.

 

If one of your frolicking children from A & E happened to have an accident or fall in the water, they would not know it was evil and just watch.

 

Only fools would want such a place of ignorant bliss and even they would be too dumb to know it was not good as again, they would know nothing of good or evil.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

After that, the Bearodactyl

bearodactyl-1.png

 

Wow. look at those drumsticks.

 

Regards

DL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about the part where men dominate women by their worship of men. Where are the feminists to address that conundrum of women's liberation?

 

 

WHAT? WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO WORSHIP MEN! WHY DIDN'T I GET THIS MEMO!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The Garden of Eden and the Flood of Noah or Utnapishtim

My Theory began when Iwas hunting for information about the Bible flood of Noah. I came across anarticle that described where the Garden of Eden was located from references inthe Bible. I then started my own investigation. I didn't just look for a placebut clues as to whether it was a place or an Idea. On my search I was ablethrough my Library to get hold of a book put out by one of the oil company'sexploration team about the Persian Gulf. Whilereading it I saw some time frame abnormalities in their geological analysis. Iam not saying that they were not right about their findings but in theirinterpretation.

 

The Information:

 

They explained that inthe main channel of the Persian Gulf that the layer that rested on the bedrockwas approximately 6000 years old and the layers that were on the bedrock alongthe tidal plains was only 3000 years old. At the mouth of the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hermouz the layers that rested on thebedrock was 11,000 years old. Also if you look at the geological structures onboth sides of the Straits of Hermouz the geological formations are exactly thesame except that on the southern shore it is the small end piece of the wholenorthern shore mountain range.

 

A missing piece:

 

I was watching one of myfavorite programs about Earth and its geology's. They were explaining about theMediterranean Sea and how it was formed. Theyexplained that originally there had been a dike that went across the Straits ofGibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea was originally a large desolate valley with some salt lakes init. This dike had broken and had let the Atlantic Oceanrush in.

 

Noah's Great Flood: Had this happened in the Persian Gulf?

 

It had all the ear marksof the same event happening and maybe this time in mans own history. Could the Persian Gulf have been the site of the Garden of Eden andNoah's Great Flood? I did some figuring and found that if the Great flood ofNoah had been world wide just to cover the lowest continental mass the floodwould have to have risen a few thousand feet or so and that didn't take in toaccount any mountains, and if it were to cover the world thousands of feet ofwater would have to have risen. In my studies of the earth at USLB I was informedthat if both Ice Caps were to melt that the water would raise only about ahundred feet or so. Also the debate about the 'Cubit' then came into play. Ifthe water were to rise 15 Cubits to cover the entire Earth the cubit wasenormous. Even to cover the lowest continent made the cubit to big even dividedby 10( as many believe that the source really says 150 cubits) would make thecubit to large for any rational measurement. Most cultures have flood legendsbut most cultures could have experienced large floods due to large lakes oreven inland seas held in by dikes or dam and being released. At this point Istarted to look at local flooding. The Arkof Noah is said to be 300x50x30 cubits in size. if we make an analysis of thesize of the ark using the information in the bible and the geologicalinformation and the earth was covered by water that rose 15 cubits the arkwould be approximately 23 miles long, even if the only the lowest continentalland mass (Asia) were covered the ark would be about 3 miles long (boy whatship builders they had then). I don't think a vessel this long could long staytogether in one piece. Therefore I believe that the flood was local to an areaand not a reoccurring local or even an enormous river flood would not fit thebill. Either the Black Sea inundation or the Persian Gulf inundation I believe is the site of theNoah's flood.

 

The Flood Story Origin

 

Prior to the Bible the story of Noahand the Arkwas told in the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh where he goes and meets Utnapishtimthe Sumerian version of Noah. The flood story also appears in the writingsfound at Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa in India as well as trading items fromSamaria.

 

The Garden of Eden'sLocation

 

The Garden of Eden in theBible is located at the junction of four rivers and each of these rivers goingoff in a different direction of the compass. Well there is a place at the headof the Persian Gulf that fits thatdescription. This is where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together. During satellite imagingit was been found that where these two rivers come together there is alsoremnants of two other rivers that have dried up and are only visible withultraviolet satellite images.

 

The Theory

 

If a dike had been acrossthe Straits of Hermouz in our past and had given way the flood of Noah and theGarden of Eden would have been found. Noah could have very well seen that thedike was about to give way from good observation and was prepared for it. Alsoin the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh it intimates that the water around them issalty. It also says that the waters cameup from the bowels of the Earth as well as fell from the sky this would havebeen a very good description from a pre-written-historic man of the dikebursting. If you follow the line of the Persian Gulfand where the water would have channeled, Noah could well have ended in theMountains of Ararat. According to the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh he did not endin the Mountains of Ararat but in Dilmun (Thought to be the Island of Bahrain).This would make the cubit approximately the right size. The water that wouldhave come from the mountains on the north side of the gulf would have made thedesert, in the valley where the Persian Gulfresides, a paradise and people have a tendency to believe that where they comefrom is always the GARDEN OF EDEN...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I-racked my brain and I thought of Conway's Life. Hope that's not off the topic but I hope it does stimulate questions. For me the garden in the Pentateuch is no more or less interesting than any other ancient myth, but I do find them mildly interesting. What will we think of next?

 

In a cellular automaton, a Garden of Eden configuration is a configuration that cannot appear on the lattice after one time step, no matter what the initial configuration. In other words, these are the configurations with no predecessors.They resemble the concept of the Garden of Eden in Abrahamic religions, which was created out of nowhere, hence the name. According to Moore (1962), this name was coined by John Tukey in the 1950s.

 

A Garden of Eden is a configuration of the whole lattice (usually a one- or two-dimensional infinite square lattice). Each Garden of Eden configuration contains at least one finite pattern (an assignment of states to a finite subset of the cells) that has no predecessor regardless of how the surrounding cells are filled. Such a pattern is called an orphan. Alternatively, an orphan is a finite pattern such that each configuration containing that pattern is a Garden of Eden.

http://en.wikipedia....lular_automaton)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I meant Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

(Ephesians 5:22-24 ESV)

 

Edited to add: Thanks for the correction Phi.

Edited by JustinW
Link to post
Share on other sites

As some of you profess, I would love to be such a devout atheist. Problem is, I'm a cowardly agnostic; simply because I haven't the courage, faith or intellect to believe in "nothing at all".

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites
As some of you profess, I would love to be such a devout atheist. Problem is, I'm a cowardly agnostic; simply because I haven't the courage, faith or intellect to believe in "nothing at all".

Well spoken. Same here. I always thought there had to be something in the nothing to create something. If that makes any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As some of you profess, I would love to be such a devout atheist. Problem is, I'm a cowardly agnostic; simply because I haven't the courage, faith or intellect to believe in "nothing at all".

Perhaps part of your problem is you have no idea what atheism means. It does NOT mean "believing in nothing at all." It means not accepting the god concept as valid. It means, literally a*theist... or not*theist.

 

Further, you seem not to know what agnosticism means, as one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not simply agnostic.

 

EDIT: Apparently Justin suffers from the same misconceptions.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps part of your problem is you have no idea what atheism means. It does NOT mean "believing in nothing at all." It means not accepting the god concept as valid. It means, literally a*theist... or not*theist.

 

Further, you seem not to know what agnosticism means, as one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not simply agnostic.

 

EDIT: Apparently Justin suffers from the same misconceptions.

See what I mean? I'm not nearly intelligent enough to make such a distinction as you are capable of doing. Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe I know the difference. An agnostic believes that there is a creator, but cannot be proved or found.

 

An athiest, by definition doesn't believe in god period. Maybe there can be an agnostic theist, but it would be a little difficult to believe there is and isn't at the same time.

 

Please, further explain our misconception on this matter.

 

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheist&qpvt=definition+atheist&FORM=DTPDIA

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+agnostic&FORM=DTPDIA

Edited by JustinW
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe I know the difference. An agnostic believes that there is a creator, but cannot be proved or found.

 

An athiest, by definition doesn't believe in god period. Maybe there can be an agnostic theist, but it would be a little difficult to believe there is and isn't at the same time.

 

Please, further explain our misconception on this matter.

There was no misconception between us. An atheist doesn't believe in GOD, "period"! An agnostic doesn't believe in HIM either, but prays he is wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

See what I mean? I'm not nearly intelligent enough to make such a distinction as you are capable of doing.

Ignorance can be resolved with education and effort. Willful ignorance cannot.

 

 

I do believe I know the difference.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so. Your definitions are simply wrong. If you genuinely desire to resolve your misunderstanding, you might consider reviewing references like this:

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheist&qpvt=definition+atheist&FORM=DTPDIA

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+agnostic&FORM=DTPDIA

 

Oh I don't know what was so wrong about my definition. This is where I got it.

 

To have an agnostic atheist, with hindsight on my part, is feesable. Not believing and also believing that your belief cannot be proved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.