[WolvenLordSoulReaper]

Okay, a lot's been posted since I've had the chance to respond, I'll try going from the back on up.

The idea of whether God lied to Adam and Eve or not depend on how you view it. (Or as Obi-Wan said, 'From a certain point-of-view.' See, you're not the only SW fans here:-)

I use a threefold method for Biblical interpretation:
Literally: It is what it says it is.
Allegorically: It looks like this, but could mean that. (Superman as a representative of American ideals, etc.)
Metaphorically: It looks like this, and acts like that. (i.e., cold as ice, etc.)

With the Garden, the death predicted by God may have fallen under the last two. (I won't lie, it clearly does not fall under the first.)

So, in the allegorical sense, we may have Adam and Eve being corrupted and killed spiritually by the 'fruits' of their sin. This is a common belief among many churches, who are more considered with spiritual life, rather than physical life.

In the metaphorical sense, the death may have indeed been quite literal in its application, but not immediately so. I believe that the moment eternal man made the decision to eat of the fruit, they condemned themselves to death by aging, which gradually takes over a metaphorical sense if one thinks about it. (I.E.: They apparently 'lived', but the effects of aging and natural causes had already begun to kick in eventually exposing them to the finality of death, all due to the eating of the fruit which produces 'sin' through the knowledge of evil, etc.)

As far as the punishment and God, I do disagree with TA on this in one regard, my assesment, (it is due to my beliefs) is that the act of eating the Forbidden Fruit was an act of disobedience, and that's why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. Now, that said, your assessment carries a large amount of weight, as it is entirely correct barring one element; in order to assume that God was afraid of Adam and Eve becoming as Him (them), you have to work on the premise that A: God was not powerful enough to stop Adam and Eve should that happen, B: That it wasn't God who put the Tree into existence (why would he put something there which he couldn't control); and C: That God had enough power to prohibit Adam and Eve from ever entering the Garden again, but was too weak/stupid to simply destroy the Tree itself.

When we look at the story of the Garden, we see clear principles of behavioral modifiers in place. God controlled all the elements in the equation, he just took steps to keep humanity in 'check' should they violate the 'Rules of the Experiment', as it were. Everything was meant to anticipate the day Adam and Eve would make one fateful decision. When they did, they were punished accordingly. They could've also been rewarded accordingly.

I believe quite rightly that you are correct in the two-step deification process, as all elements present favor the scenario. There were two components of God-likeness present in the Garden (barring the fact that we were also made in His image). God wanted to give humanity the best option available to 'move up in the evolutionary ladder', so to speak. There were results for each decision and those results were carried out accordingly. Just because the consequences for the actions weren't pretty doesn't mean God 'tricked' anyone. it's lie throwing a lit firecracker in a gas tank. The car may blow up, it may not, but if it does, you're the one who made the decision, not anyone else.

Now concerning the serpent, yeah, he told the truth... to an extent, if you favor my above argument. But either way, he certainly wasn't lying. Which brings me to an interesting rant on Christian thought. Christian's in churches say things like 'well you know when Satan's telling you something because he's the father of lies and anything he says will be a lie when compared to the Bible'. Well, yes, Satan is the father of all lies, but he's also good at quoting the Bible. Anyone who says that Satan cannot speak the truth is themselves a liar of Biblical proportions. What Satan masters is deception. He speaks the truth, but leaves out the ramifications of his statements. If you go through the entire Bible you will never once find a lie by Satan recorded therein. Satan reorients the perspective of the person he's talking to by twisting the truth into something that's true, but also leaves out a few red flags. (I.E.: If you throw a lit firecracker in teh gas tank of a car, it looks cool. TRUE. Now that said, you gonna try it?)

Anyhow, I'll have to stop here for now. Some other things are going on, so I hope this comes off as lucid, as I was trying to do this and talk to someone else at the same time and deal with a few other issues... sheesh...

[Nathan StormRider]

It's interesting... there is again the tradition that there was not death until the Fall... However, if that's the case, then death would be a very ineffective threat, would it not? Also, it's not like Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life... does that mean that the Tree of Life was actually something that sustained life eternally, and held off death, rather than something that created immortality? I've gotta go back over the story to see if there truly was no death.

It's also something somewhat scary... if we could make a true, self-improving, sentient AI... we would have combined the two elements that we were forbidden from having... eternal life, and the Knowledge of Good and Evil. O'course, even Adam and Eve were supposed to have lived for some 700+ years. Actually, it wasn't until after the flood that the lifespan sort of dropped, according to the Bible.

Oddly enough, the lifespan God commanded in the Bible isn't actually the average age of an old human, or even something reached almost ever... but in fact pretty much the absolute genetic limit of cellular reproduction.

...

I've always felt that the reason God created humans, the reason he gave us the ability to so dramatically fail, was because he gave us free will. He is supposed to be able to unmake the universe with a thought... he is strong enough to have created it. To make something, an individual intelligence, which was truly real to him and not a puppet, he had to take a hands off approach... making it something he would not just change or remake if it didn't seem to fit right. In that sense... he gave us a bit of divinity of our own.

But that's speculation.

---

Anyway, I think Hohenheim's probably a good allegory for Jesus... but not a good allegory for God. He's very, very human, even if he is also very, very not. It's also his biggest advantage over Father... he understands humanity, both in its strength, and in its weaknesses. Of course, Hohenheim could not be an allegory of any specific thing, but he certainly represents the side of good...

Father only understands human weakness. So, honestly, does Satan. Father's definitely the Satanic figure. I cannot see him as a representation of God, at least the Christian God, because of the fact that he is completely unforgiving, and likes to laugh at the futility of humanity. God, even in the Old Testament, is not amused, but angry... He takes no pleasure in human suffering, but is scorched by disloyalty and angered. Even then, most of the time he simply does not stand in the way.

[TrisakAminawn]

Cool post, Wolven! (Without, I might add, a hint of Fullmetal Alchemist anywhere.) Yeah, quite lucid, although of course the me that's judging that is awake after three AM. You run good defense play without even getting defensive. All your interpretations are more complicated than mine, but that doesn't necessarily mean less valid, in a literary context.

Cut my premise on the 'afraid' pretty logically. I'll admit: I was approaching it automatically as a myth adopted from a polytheistic predecessor, with the fact in mind that throughout world mythology gods have always been afraid of men having too much power. I wasn't analysing all the possibilities of the individual text. However, I was also looking right at the dialogue. Premise me nothing, must not be allowed to achieve likeness to myself is fear. Not necessarily fear of attack or disenfranchisement, more likely fear of lost preeminence. One thing you can be sure of from God's Old Testament lines is that he values being honored, and if Adam and Eve really had free will then: no, he would not have the power to force them to regain all the initial awe they had for their Lord, if they began to lose it.

Why would he create something he couldn't control? Well, that is a wonderful question, even if you meant the tree, because you're right, his personality seems at odds with giving us free will. Why would as jealous and jumpy a god as he appears to be put himself in the position of having to bully and coerce and give orders to and punish his creatures, when he could have included an 'obey and do reverence automatically' switch? I suppose it must be more satisfying to win such things within the rules, but doesn't that make the whole world just an ego-tripping game? If you honestly assume God has the power to do anything, then anything he does, in any way he does it, is merely an exercise of some kind, as with truly unlimited power he could make it instantly be so at his will. And it would be perfect. And it would be as if it had always been that way. Any rules he is keeping, he is doing so because he decided to, or because he is not unlimitedly powerful. That is what omnipotence means. If you turn up like that in a fictional story, it makes you quite useless as a character, because you obviate any meaning in the entire story just by being there.

Destroying the Tree of Life has disturbing overtones, so that was a definite no, silly one. Remember that gods must always and forever obey narrative imperative, at least when humans are setting them down in books. Also, let it be known that my kneejerk response to anyone who would intentionally set up this whole scenario as that kind of single-blind experiment is "what an absolute bastard," so I was being generous about his character when I said he was afraid.

And please don't tell me the mind of the Lord is ineffably wise. In Exodus he talks like a sixteen year old boy who's just hit his growth spurt and wants to shove over everyone else on his block who's suddenly not bigger than him. Glory, glory, glory, over all the gods of Egypt.

The saying goes, "The Devil can quote Scripture to his purpose," I think. ^^ Love that one. You're quite right.

Something you didn't address is the fact that the punishment, of painful labour in both senses of the word (and the removal of legs) and the exile are delivered as two separate things. By the time Adam and Eve are cast out, even remaining in Eden they would have to toil for their livelihood; the doom was already given. The exile was not part of the punishment, and unlike you I am not sure that leaving the garden was itself an unfortunate thing, any more than the choice to be disobedient was. It's not an original interpretation on my part to read the process as, yes, an allegory to leaving childhood. And while the text is chiefly concerned with the pain and toil this inevitably involves, it is also good. Who here could willingly go back to not knowing something once you are aware of it?

To put it another way, we have two housecats, and they are innocent and safe and unknowing and get fatter all the time, and I would not be one of them for the world.

Oh, egad, I'm going to bed.

[WolvenLordSoulReaper]

@Nathan, sorry about that. (As far as not dropping FUMA in, which i should be, as it's a FUMA related post.) But I was trying to address so much, and sequentially backwards, that I forgot to throw that in, as the post before mine was primarily about the Garden.

That said, Hoenheim as Christ is not only an apt example, it's also quite the intriguing one. In addition to what you and TA already mentioned on the subject, here's a couple of others: (I'm not sure if the author deliberately planted them or what, but wow); His side was pierced. (By the Dragon's teeth, that alone could speak barrelfulls of theistic allegory); his death brought the two separate worlds together again; and he was betrayed by someone close to him (though Envy's colors were a bit brighter and more obvious than Judas'.Though Jesus knew quite well he would betray him. And I believe that he actually lamented Judas, IMO.)

You are right, of course. Nothing in the Bible indicates that there was no death prior to the Fall, but neither is there any indication there wasn't. Remember also, that it can be derived from the conversation with the Serpent that the fear of death was a significant factor in Eve's mind to some degree, as it was only after the conversation in which the Serpent told Eve 'you surely shall not die' that she was convinced enough to partake of the Fruit. (Of course, before anyone nails me on it; with that said the actual ending point of the conversation was the Serpent telling Eve they would be 'as God, knowing good from evil'.) I'm aware of that:-) your theories on the Tree of Life are quite compelling indeed.

As far as the lifespan dropping dramatically after the Flood, this is true, but if you look at the lifespans of the ancients, as it were, you see gradual delineation nonetheless. Which actually makes your life sustaining fruit theory all the more appetizing, pardon the pun:-)

The 'age of man' point is also intriguing. But I don't take it so much as 'man will live 120 years', I take it more like 'this is the absolute longest anyone can live. And if you look at life now, that's pretty much been absolutely proven with like a few rare examples.

And God's forgiveness in the Old Testament? I agree 100% I know I posted this on another website, if I have here, forgive for repeating. But basically anyone that God destroyed in the Old Testament were beyond saving and was usually given many chances to redeem themselves, so to speak. Sodom and Gommorah? All that was needed was five. (Please also note the myth of S&G's destruction, it was not exclusively due to homosexuality!!) Just one of a large number of offenses. God also gave Abram a vision promising him the land he set foot on, but told him that his decendants must be four hundred years in slavery first, as 'the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full'. it seems the Lord God of the Old testament was just as forgiving as the one in the New.

TA: You're next:-)

[TrisakAminawn]

Next, am I? *filler post so the thread sends alert*

Well, the God in the New isn't actually there, except as 'part two,' the Son, and he...let's see...he did throw that little tree-withering tantrum just because figs weren't in season, but he was very kind to that demon he took out of that man and gave it a whole herd of pigs to possess, which is pretty forgiving, even if they weren't his pigs, and he went and asked 'part one' to forgive the people who were killing him, and that's a whole lot nicer than any of the stuff in the Old Testament. Yes, he set a low level of righteousness in Sodom and Gomorrah, but what he actually did was kill a whole lot of people. Jonah's the only story I can think of where he sponteneously forgives, but must admit my biblical reading isn't fully comprehensive. I would say he definitely gets perceptibly more civilized in the New Testament.

Fun stuff with Dragon Envy and the piercing, but I think I have to call out on that one. The stuff that happens to 'Hikari no Hohenheim,' that twat from the anime and movie, has nothing to do with Arakawa, and he is definitely no kind of Jesus figure. I despise that guy.

[ravstrike]

Regarding the Adam and Eve, I've always viewed the sin as the shame Adam and Eve had in themselves (creations of God) that came as a direct result of breaking the prohibition, rather than it being arbitrary (don't eat it because 'I said so'). God would have known the outcome if he was an "O" God* which supports determinism. I should also mention the concept that the fruit represents agriculture and the movement toward civilization. The serpent also corresponds with the predominate symbol of an opposing and older religion found in the area around Eden at the time it was written. (referenced in Gilgamesh).

An interesting example of this is how the Alchemists are themselves eaten when they break the prohibition. 'No creating humans' as the prohibition means that humans are themselves the fruit. The simple loss of ignorance and innocense, should be a given.

*"O" God- omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient(all-knowing), omnibenevolent(always good)

[Nathan StormRider]

Regarding the age of man, yeah. The age of 120 is pretty much the limit of cellular division. It's an absolute cap, not an average.

Cells that can reproduce indefinitely are generally cancerous.

---

Actually, God the Father is present in the new Testament, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit do take precedence. Of course, the difference isn't exactly cut and dry. I'll let you spot scenes, but the Lord is in the NT, although he generally speaks through angels, which was pretty much his MO through the entirety of the OT as well. If you want an image instantly recognizable in pop culture, imagine the Baptism of Jesus. Or the earthquake at the crucifixion. Jesus did wither a fig tree, although that was as much to make a point as actual annoyance. He did allow the demons known as Legion to enter an unclean herd of pigs, belonging to the people who had kept the Demoniac chained in a graveyard, and then the herd hurled themselves into the sea. I think it was either that, or utter destruction. He also did forgive his enemies, approach the unapproachable, shun the self-important, and generally recognize that those who thought the best of themselves and the worst of others were so wrapped up in their rule-following that they had totally forgot how to follow the spirit of God.

Not that it's an easy thing for Christians to do nowadays. Those who think that their Christianity makes them worth more than someone else are absolutely, completely, and totally wrong. It might make 'em better off, or perhaps, less falsely proud... but those who place themselves on a pedestal are damned foolish. I do think that's true in FMA... though I don't think most of Arakawa's characters are dumb enough not to recognize how terrible some of the things they do are. Short of the Homuncli, and they even vary. Greed, at least, knows what it's like to value others. Wrath, it seems, even knows love, but he's also proud, and also trapped. I wonder if he's even considered that his wife will probably die.

---

I don't know of God as being a deterministic being. Remembering the future, maybe... But true determinism means that God is lining up the balls and shooting. Free will means that we have motive power, even if he can see where we eventually wind up. His affect on that - Biblically, anyway, for most people, is not in changing people's decisions, but in setting up the course.

"Why would as jealous and jumpy a god as he appears to be put himself in the position of having to bully and coerce and give orders to and punish his creatures, when he could have included an 'obey and do reverence automatically' switch? I suppose it must be more satisfying to win such things within the rules, but doesn't that make the whole world just an ego-tripping game"

Really, it doesn't seem that he's particularly jumpy. Generally, things go on for a good long time, and his primary mode of punishing the Israelites is nonintervention. He rewards as well as punishes, but people forget... and even if one generation gets it right, the next tends to think that the last were off their rocker, or, worse, simply cannot understand anything they didn't go through themselves.

Story of humanity, really.

Again... if God made humans to be -real- to him, to be separate beings capable of having a relationship with him, love or hate, he would have had to take a hands off approach to our minds and souls. He would, in essence, have to make us something that did not have to obey, or 'get it right'.

It's not a competition. It's not a game, and I don't think it's ego-tripping. God's not insecure, or someone with a grudge. He's not trying to 'win'. He doesn't have to.

I need to stick to FMA, or I'll wind up starting a row.

[TrisakAminawn]

^^ Heh, no one else has been. Sticking to FMA, I mean. And in that last post I was probably the most offensive I could have pulled off without going out of my way to be so, so I don't think you've done anything row-inducing. As far as I can see, you anounced your cosmology, right? In your system, God isn't in complete control, at least not of sentient beings, and wanted sentient counterparts to share the world with him. You disagree with me. You didn't back up your 'I thinks' very strongly, but you shouldn't have to; it's your cosmology.

Okay, here's one we haven't done: when they acquired the 'knowledge of good and evil,' apart from becoming shamed by their nakedness, what do we think changed in Adam and Eve?

Love all the acronyms. Jehovah's MO in the OT...I dunno, I think he definitely does a lot more actual 'telling' and 'did'ing in the OT than the NT, but whatever. No, he doesn't have to win, that's my point...his motives have always been missing. What do you think he wants? I can't assimilate an active consciousness without motivation; if he has no motive then his actions are a 'game.' As in, for amusement.

XD And by 'jumpy' I meant prone to reacting dramatically, which you must admit he does even if you consider the reactions justified. There's a reason for the expression 'disaster on a biblical scale.' And he calls himself jealous. I need to stop leaving openings; you guys don't pick up the most interesting topics because there are so many weak points to refute.

FMA stuff down here: it's okay that his wife will die, right? Well, not okay, but the whole shtick with Bradley was that he's a homunculus who ages. Presumably, he'll age to the point of death. Greed #2 is human-based, too, so he's got a much stiffer time limit on his ambition than he did the last time around. Hmm...none of Arakawa's main characters are that idiotic, Nathan, but the idiots are all around the edges, if you look, especially in the Amestrian military. The top brass...well, I'm sure it varies, but they all have to be justifying themselves somehow, right? I expect some of them believe a little in Amestris, but probably mostly just in power, and to a large degree in more nothing. Kimbly was a really impressive incarnation of 'nihilism,' but a lack of moral restraint at the top of a country is really scary.

Anyone want to rate what I said before about Arakawa's expression of religious values; the positions various character fill, the unfortunate placings of the word 'God,' and so on? I was really hoping you would, even though pure theological talk is more riveting. I can add things like Hughes as a case of staking all faith in a few people you love and another person's dream because you've lost the will or ability to believe in anything bigger, and old Doctor Knox as giving up believing in anything, especially oneself--both of them because they have done and seen too much horror. 'Belief is a function of innocence' is another Arakawa theme, wouldn't you say?

[WolvenLordSoulReaper]

Okay, TA, here we go:

First, from your 'filler' post:

Jesus' fig tantrum actually had a purpose which would see fulfillment some 2,000odd years later. Me and a Christian friend of mine were debating the merits of the 'Apple' in the Garden. He agreed with me quite readily, and then presented his own hypothesis of what the 'Forbidden Fruit' was ...

Figs!! He walked through the process quite logically. He pointed out that Adam and Eve covered themselves in fig leaves. Ergo, the fig trees had to be pretty close nearby to where they hid... that happened in the Old Testament. In the New, Jesus cursed the fig tree, saying 'neither shall you any more bear fruit', or something along those lines.

What can I say? It's way more logical than that stupid apple!!

Concerning the 'killed a lot of people' remark; yes... yes he did. That said, do your own personal beliefs prohibit such killing? If you believe in Capital Punishment, you side with the common vision of the O.T. God. But even that's not the biggest issue here. The biggest thing is what would you do to defend your children? Remember, at this particular point in time, Israel was God's only chosen people, and the people he was commanding them to wipe out weren't exactly Hello Kitty cast actors. These were some of the most bloodthirsty, butcherous tribes in existence at the time. Not only did these people actually force God's hand, even some of them after being given an extended 'Grace Period', (four hundred years at least in the case of the Ammorites, but God was also probably looking at the possibility that A: Any one of these bloodthirsty nations could destroy his children in the blink of an eye, or, worse yet, B: That All of these nations could gang up on Israel in one fell shot and, in addition to wiping them off the face of the earth, they could have possible plunged into the tribal warfare they so commonly engaged in, only this time on a more massive scale, and we'd end up with some wicked MK destruction match from Hell or something... it's late... I'm flatlining... Will continue, hopefully tomorrow...

Missed post above me, just now... will be back...:-)

[TrisakAminawn]

So the purpose of the fig tantrum was so you, Wolven-kun, could work out that the fig was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Er...that's great. I'm happy to know that.

My 'killed a lot of people' remark was to point out that doing that is not very forgiving, because a topic up for discussion at that moment was whether the Old Testament god was as forgiving as the New. Right, wrong, calm your ruffled feathers, Wolven. I was not just there evaluating his ethics. I do that elsewhere. I think capital punishment is an efficient apportionment of government resources but morally wrong. Israel was the only tribe he loved then, very well, and for the sake of your tribe I can respect many things, even when you aren't human. Shall we say that he made all the world and placed so many trials upon its denizens so as to have something worthy of his love?