Interbane - It is with some regret that I am going to give you al limited answer. Not because we cannot debate the merit of your points. You have great logical thinking, but let's you consider it is from the wrong side of the fence.

So I want and need to focus on your last paragraph.

"So you have this mythical garden of eden where god created adam and eve, and also created a serpent with the requisite sales ability to convince eve to eat the apple. Why not create Eve with a little more willpower, so she rejects the fruit rather than accepting it? Why not create the serpent to be a little less convincing? It's obvious this story doesn't work. Because when you really think about it, god must have created the characters with the exact traits required for mankind to fall. In other words, your story shows a god that set mankind up to suffer. If he could not have made the serpent less convincing, or could not have give eve more willpower, then he is not omnipotent. Another failure of the concept."

You have taken a position that man often does, take his information at his disposal and draw wrong conclusions. You have worked off of faulty information. I do not say this in a condescending or insulting manner. Men as I said are often wrong about much, and yet, think they are so right. Even though, our past individual history proves that we are quite wrong.

You need to consider another position: 1) God did not put in a book a mythical place called the Garden of Eden. 2) the serpent was Satan, just as a sleezy car salesman can be called a snake. 3) the story is not about WILLPOWER, but CHOICE.

The point of contention that would help you better understand God which is another key point in the book. WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN? We see the answer in the Garden of Eden when "God walked and talked with Adam."

Find that answer and you will look at this scene much differently. Good discussion though!

brother bob wrote:You have taken a position that man often does, take his information at his disposal and draw wrong conclusions. You have worked off of faulty information.

I take a position man often does because I'm a man. So are you. And unless you claim divinity, you have to agree we can do no better. The data we have at our disposal is all the data we have. In order to say it's faulty information, you'd have to have data we don't have.

3) the story is not about WILLPOWER, but CHOICE.

It's not about either one exclusively, but both in a causal relationship. The amount of willpower a person has inevitably affects the choice they make.

WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN?

And why do you get to pretend to know what motivates an omniscient entity, especially when you call foul on me for the very same thing? If the latter point holds for me, it holds for you. No amount of hermeneutics can overcome this.

Even though, our past individual history proves that we are quite wrong.

We are terrible at sorting truth from fiction.

I'm afraid I'm having difficulty making myself clear on what I mean. Unfortunately that's part of my own curse.

So Interbane - you failed to address that you look at the Garden of Eden account as mythical. What gives you the right to do so? Were you there? Obviously not. You can turn it around and ask me the very same question. Why do I claim it is not mythical? Was I there? Obviously not. However, the reason it is not mythical is many. Let us consider those options.
1) Because if the account is not factual God is a liar. He clearly stated it in the Bible as 24 hour timed events between days.
2) God clearly have given us the readers digest version but he entrusted us with the real facts.
3) My book takes creationism vs. evolutionism and shows how only one can be right.
4) The passage in Genesis gives wonderful clues as to the validity of a 6 day creation.

You question why man was created by God that it is impossible to know the will of such a being. This is not true when you have their letter. God has placed themes throughout his message for us to clearly find. It is a very complex book and simplex at the same time. We understand the depravity of man and his need for a Savior. EASY! Understanding the nuances and reasoning behind many of the Old Testament "scenes" are very difficult to understand and few can do so. Just as, few fully understand Einsein's theory of relativity, E = MC2. That is the wonder that man has for this book and God - if it was the "Green Eggs and Ham" rendering by Dr. Seuss we would discard it as rubbish and not worthy of our time.

You reference to my statement about man coming to very often wrong conclusions. You have come to faulty conclusions about God because you do not have his understanding (James 1:5). The Bible states you are blind even though you see, deaf even though you hear. You are just looking from an unenlightened perspective. As I state in the book, men very often draw wrong conclusions based on singular incidents. Totally opposite as to how you will overcome your "concrete" disbelief in God. That will take an abundance of evidence to accomplish, if ever.

An example of man drawing a conclusion based on singular incidents is this: As a father you have a child that is danger of imminent death and there are possibly no means for the doctors to save them. Man often thinks he can barter with God - their soul for the childs life. If God acquiesces to their demands than God must exist. If the child dies than God must not exist. This is extremely faulty thinking on many fronts and discussed ineptly in the book as to its logical validity.

Another is how Men think that when they are sick they will recover without seeing a doctor. Often we wait until the situation grows severe before finally capitulating and going to the doctor. We would have been much better served to see him earlier. Men like to feel that they have the power to control much of life's events and in reality we have almost no power to change such events outcome.

I may give you some credence to willpower and choice being very similar. However, you are looking at the situation of Adam and Eve from the wrong PERSPECTIVE again (the caps mean inference, not screaming- I use them in the book all the time, men like important words to be pointed out, it helps us cheat to get the information wanted quickly). You are looking at the Garden of Eden from present knowledge. WE men do this on a regular basis. Our knowledge dictates the way we look at matters. As a child we may look at smoking and drinking as some sort of game. When getting mature we can see it as senseless and stupid to treat our bodies in such a dumb manner. Just an example - not a concrete must to not smoke or drink! Adam had no propensity to sin!! His body was a sinless one. Just as the body of Jesus Christ. So it was not willpower - because willpower would say it knew what it was like to experience wrong or be dedicated to right. It was simply a choice between fellowship with God or the enamor of fame and glory - to have greater knowledge. It boiled down to man cherishing HIMSELF over GOD!! That is the message of this account. Sin is simply breaking God's laws. God gave man the utopic environment of food, shelter and no work - and man blew it. I would have blown it if I was there (Romans 5:12 - I believe, maybe 22). Man loves the allure of having the thing he does not have! I deal with this in the book indepth.

So if you "unwind" your brains knowledge and go back to the Garden of Eden you can see why God made man! Man was sinless and in utopia. Why did God walk and talk with man? That will garner you the right answer.

Good talk!

I so was not aiming for this.

Sorry I just answered his questions

Oh, no man. I just worry that it's going to get heated or something. I didn't want to spark any religious fights

I'm gunna jump into this two months late (and without actually reading all the stuff between Brother Bob and Interbane cause after a few posts I felt it wasn't what I wanted to comment on so if I say anything for or against or similar I apologize)

GalazyZento I find it very interesting that you have the same mind set in a way as I do. I have actually thought this over myself and I wonder if I went a bit further. Often I feel as if I'm a bad person when I look back at it for, in a way, condemning people to these horrible deaths by agreeing they needed to happen. As horrible as it sounds I don't think it would be in our best interest to cure cancer. *cringe* I know I'm horrible for even the thought. I have had my share of pain from losing loved ones to cancer as well as military deaths and I have been the victim of abuse. I know the world is unfair and it hurts but you are right we would destroy the world easily if not for disease, natural disasters, and war. How can I say these things should be changed for the better when we know the outcome will not be for the better?

If I were a god I have no doubt it would be similar to Bruce Almighty. I would start out fixing my own life then realize I don't want that power. "With great power comes great responsibility". As for the rape in particular I do like Interbane's comment

Interbane wrote: If you could not prevent rape without leaving free will intact, then you by definition could not be omnipotent. There can be things impossible for us to do while we still have free will. Such as flying on a unicorn through space to Mars. Put rape in that category. Make it impossible for us, yet leave us with free will.

Making it physically impossible would let them want and try to do these things but just as jumping off a roof with a horse (attached with some flying device and glued on horn) will get you no where trying to physically rape someone one would as well. It sounds silly but really if we are talking ifs and whats about being gods I presume these ideas are valid.