Lmao. Well put.

What you need to know is-What's considered Christianity in the world really, isn't. What you are making judgement  on is Europeanism. Christianity became extinct before 100 AD at which time it was taken over by authoritarians, that is, floks that wanted to be followed rather then have Christian followers to follow an ideal. There's been no real Christians since. If you are judging Europeanism you're making a good and proper judgement.

of man and/or animal. Perfect man is one who subscribes to being human (humane) only, and sets aside the animal traits of which all have. To incorporate the two together you have broken man. A broken one is not man. Man must be considered within the context of humane=human=man. The three must go together, remove one and you are animal. Take into account that the entire concept of people is a case of man vs animal. Each is a state of being. If all subscribe to a man and animal concept as one then you have the world that is present. If you invent your mower as you have the difference is---did you invent it to specifically grind up the cat or to mow your lawn. If you did so to mow your lawn then grinding up the cat may be on accounts of your actions but not intentions. The animal is the one that intentionally sets circumstances in motion to deliberately do harm. If you intentionally built the lawn mower to grind up the cat and then changes your "mind" you cognitively opted to be/remain humane/human/man.

   So, who's failure is it in the garden. If man is made one way and then opted to become the other--can the creator be held at fault, as one of the precepts of man is to have free will to decide or choose.

For one to be human is a free choice provided one is aware that one has the knowing to make that choice. And to make the choice one needs to know the differences.

Message deleted by The Theist

Animals very rarely set out to cause harm, and few animals are intelligent enough to even consider that they intentionally set circumstances in motion to cause harm. The vast majority of animals are reactive not proactive. An animal causes harm for a few basic reasons, it is hungry (in which case anything that eats meat causes some harm), it feels threatened, it is protecting its territory or it has been surprised. This is why you can generally walk through bear country and have a very small chance of being attacked if you take basic precautions. Bears don't rove around looking for things to kill for the sake of killing. Interestingly, the animals that show the highest likelihood of killing for entertainment are domesticated dogs and cats, probably because their dietary needs are met without hunting but they still have predatory instincts. Highly aggressive animals that kill randomly have been recorded but those actions are rare enough that they can be considered abnormal, just like serial killing among humans is abnormal. 

There are many a 7 year old that could correct your interpretation.

1. It did happen. Eve died. Had she not taken from the tree, she wouldn't of. There is something lost in the translation; the Hebrew literally says 'in dieing you will die.' In other words, she began the slow process of death at that time. 

2. The fruit had no special qualities. It wasn't the fruit that controlled their life or death, it was Jehovah. Notice that Eve said they would die even by only touching the tree. The tree was only a representation of Jehovah's sovereignty, a sort of reminder as well as a symbol of their respect. Did they know what was going on? They undoubtedly did. The knowledge wasn't knowledge as such, it was an intimate acquaintance. The Jerusalem Bible put it best: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

God had no intimate knowledge of what it was like to do bad, no knowledge of bad. He wasn't withholding any knowledge from them regarding good. The knowledge was the deciding for themselves, the rejection of God's guidance and so his protection. So the curse isn't necessarily a punishment as it is a pronouncement.

Its a common sentiment of atheists, but you have to ask yourself, who chose it? The parental reference was an astute though misapplied analogy. Consider the Hebrew word ra, which can be translated, among other things, as bad, evil, or calamity.

The parent tells the child not to play in the road and warns the child what might happen if they do. What could happen is bad (ra), but the child may see this as oppressive and play in the street anyway. The child could suffer some calamity (ra) and even death, or get caught by the parent and punished.  To the child the punishment is bad (ra) and to the parent it is justice through calamity (ra). That is what is meant when the Bible says God created evil (ra).

Everlasting life in paradise is like a house a father gives his son with the stipulation that he respect his father's wishes and take good care of the house by following some obviously important rules, but the son doesn't do this so the house is in disrepair, and would be destroyed if the father didn't remove the son and give the house to another that would take proper care of it.  

I think that the mythology as you see it is retarded, but it doesn't match with what the original authors wrote. Look at the facts in response to your statement above. God created the earth and man to live forever upon it. There were very little rules. Fill the Earth. Subdue it. Don't touch this tree or you will die.

If you remove your misconceptions, probably poorly developed by the theists themselves, and not accurate when compared to the Bible, it isn't so much my mental gymnastics you object to, its your own interpretation.

What do you mean by almighty, all powerful, all knowing? Are these assumptions you have made on your own? Preconceived notions from a mortal man on the nature of a mythological deity created by other men? Or are they coming from the aforementioned uninformed theists, themselves heavily influenced by pagan mythology? What does the Bible actually say about God's omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscient nature?

Is he omnipresent? No. His position is fixed in heaven. Is he omnipotent? No. He can't lie. Is he omniscient? No. He sent angels to see if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as reported. He asked Adam and Cain what they had done.

God can do whatever he wills, so long as it isn't contrary to his own standards; get to know a thing, see a thing accomplished and be wherever he will to be. 

Ah, but you see, he didn't. Man did and man continues to do so.

" but it doesn't match with what the original authors wrote"-Theist

You've mentioned before these original authors and original text. Who and which text, and what proof do you have of their authenticity?

Are you just referring to pre-translated hebrew text? 

Message deleted by The Theist

That's your interpretation, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's no different from saying in swimming you will swim or any other word you wanna put together twice and then claim that makes it mean something different.

Says you.

Right, kinda like when I was a kid my parents would leave an exposed wire into my room with lethal voltage, and warn me not to touch it "lest I die" because they needed to teach me respect. No wait, they actually didn't, because they're not sociopathic imbeciles.

As for dying from touching the tree, it seems god is completely unaware of the fact they even ate the fruit until they start dressing themselves and all that stuff, which they only did because they gained that knowledge from the fruit. Unless the tree also had magical insight giving bark, there's no support for claiming touching the tree would have had the same outcome.

That's a really cool rationalization, too bad nothing in the story supports it. If Adam and Eve already had "moral discrimination", then why is it they suddenly became uncomfortable with being naked right after eating the fruit? Did they just instantly make up that rule on their own on the spot with their newfound "moral independence"?

Ain't it funny how the book supposedly written by a perfect being (or written by men directed by him or whatever you happen to believe) needs to be reinterpreted on pretty much everything it says to make any sense whatsoever?

What? Are you saying eating the fruit wasn't actually bad, they deserved all that shit just because they disobeyed god?

Well keep this original story a secret so we can't deconstruct it in your face.   Good defense you have there.   I would hide it too around us.

No.   It was the interpretation of protestant christianity.  Not mine.   And until you provide some "purer" word of god the sin is on you for not spreading it to us damned souls.

Again, no.   I didn't sit around and make all this shit up.   Protestant Christianity.   They make the claim that god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, etc.

This is why I quit talking to retarded theists like you.   You can't get two of them to agree on anything other than very basic concepts of religion.    I'd rather be wrestling eels.   I can't learn 3 billion different interpretations of religion just so I can shit all over them.

Whatever compartmentalized little story you have twisted into a mental pretzel so you can still somehow believe in it while convincing yourself you're not a complete dumbass is fine.

I'm not going to humor you though.   Go find someone else to spew psychological rationalized diahrea on.

Clear as mud.   You contribute nothing to my understanding of reality.

Hey CJ ! It's good to see you back. Where have you been ?