Ah...let's assume you are correct even though there is no evidence either way. Let's have conjecture on your part to give you the advantage. I'll play your game. You say plants or even animals could have died. Ok, let's say. Adam witnessed these death, let's say (without any evidence of it, of course). Now, let's put this into perspective, shall we? This "Fall". Even if your boy Adam UNDERSTOOD the consequences (which there is no evidence that he did, other than your conjecture), we still have some difficulties. Let us look at a small parallel example of God’s actions in the beginning with man: Suppose a father left his child (who didn’t know what ‘wrong’ was) in a room with three boxes on a table and told the lad that he could open any box, but the middle one (shiny and glimmering). Then Dad left the room and hid outside watching in the window while he allowed a convicted criminal in the house. The criminal convinced the child to open the box in the middle which had heroine in it. The child took it, got euphoria and later crashed, the child then recovered and the father of the boy punished him for the rest of his life with misery and hard labor. What would be the reasonable assessment of the father? What if his excuse during trial was that he was merely testing the boy’s ‘free will’ ? Any father like this would be considered ‘sick and disturbed’ and it would be an injustice to humanity for him to get away with such treatment of his child. First, of all the child was innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, the father allowed a known-criminal in the house. Third, the father watched the whole thing go on. Fourth, the father didn’t stop the child from opening the box and getting bitten. Fifth, the father punished the child and took no responsibility. This is a no-brainer for even the novice thinker. But, essentially this is what we get from the ‘Fall of Man’. But, the difference is that God created and can control, at his whim, anything and anyone...we cannot. As a matter of fact that is one of the essential attributes of God, isn't it? Either God controls all or he doesn’t. If he does then man has no freedom to control thought and action, and thus no ‘free will’, but if he does not then he is not all-powerful, all-knowing...in short, not God. Perhaps, as some apologists put it, that God chooses not to intervene, but to allow things to go on. This is not compatible with Christianity. If God does not intervene in everything, then why pray? If God does intervene in everything, why pray? If God intervenes in some things, but not others, why claim ‘no preference’ or God does not respect one more than the other. Perhaps those in “God’s Will” have there prayers answered more, but if you are in God’s Will, why pray and ask God for intervention, you are already in ‘God’s Will’ ? The concept of man having a ‘free will’ is in a direct conflict with the idea that God controls everything. Either ‘free will’ is out of God's control or it isn't free. If it is in God's control, then it isn't free and we can't be held responsible. If God isn't in control, why does the Bible say “not a hair falls from our head, or a sparrow from the roof, but he wills it.”? The truth is the ‘Omniscience’ of God and ‘Free Will’ of Man are not compatible and already we not that the ‘Free Will’ has now been exposed as ‘Choice’, although not free, but consequential. It is a life or death choice, which proves that man has no freedom and that God is in control playing with us like pawns in a chess game--which is contradictory to his all-goodness, his Bible definition-- “God is love”. With love like that, who needs hate. You can argue free will all day, but then one of your Christian buddies will come behind you and argue determinism. You can't prove either one, can you? So why should I believe you over him? Ha ha... Fact of the matter, is that you are PRESUPPOSING and ASSUMING and INTERPRETATING, etc. etc.. Oh, and I know my Hebrew. There was never an argument over "die dying". I am well aware of it. Just so you know next time, I don't need lessons in Hebrew or Greek.
The bible is the only thing I'm following. Not some kid's song. And please mate, if you believe that "just because it's written in a kids song, it must be true" then I don't know what to say.
Wait. I never asserted that he did have the experience. As you say, there is no evidence either way. What we have is the text itself and the context of that text seems to assume that there was understanding. You asserted that there was no understanding. My question was "how do you justify this assertion?" Okay, let's. Not my conjecture. This is an assumption found in the text. For your analogy to be parallel, Adam must have the naivete of a child. The relationship between a father and young child is vastly different than that of a father and adult child. Adam was an adult. He was completely capable of maintaining and forming adult relationships (he already had a wife). So, let's change your analogy a bit and see what happens. Suppose a father left his adult son (who didn’t know what ‘wrong’ was, but was full of love, respect, and admiration for his father, and who also had self-respect, his own personal sense of honor, and a desire to serve those he loved) in a room with three thousand boxes on a large table and told the man that he could open any box, with the exception of one that he pointed out (shiny and glimmering, like all the other boxes). Then Dad left the room and hid outside watching in the window while he allowed a convicted criminal in the house. The adult son knew that his father was watching because of the closed-circuit cameras that were in the house and that his father had built the house for him. The criminal was really in no position of authority over the adult son and both were aware of this. However, the criminal lied to the son about the consequences and appealed to the son's desire to be more like his father. The son then made the choice to disrespect, disobey, and dishonor his father by serving himself over serving those he professed to love by opening the prohibited box which had heroine in it. The adult son took it, got euphoria and later crashed, the adult son then recovered and his father punished him for the rest of his life with misery and hard labor because he could no longer have a direct relationship with someone who didn't want to maintain that relationship. The father did promise the son, though, that one day, their relationship would be restored and they could be together again. In your analogy, yes. But you analogy makes an assumption as to the naivete of Adam that I do not think you can support. And both our analogies are flawed because it wasn't the serpent that tempted Adam, it was Eve. This changes the circumstances entirely because his relationship with her would be one of complete trust. He would have a desire to serve her, please her, and protect her. This would be pitted against his desire to serve, respect, honor, and love God and His standards (including justice). But not of the concepts of obedience and disobedience and had numerous reasons to obey and a specific understood reason to not disobey. So what? It wasn't like Adam was out gunned in terms of intellect or position? The serpent had no authority over Adam or Eve. This would be more akin to a king letting a criminal in to see his prince's knowing full well that the prince had full protection and was in no position to be threatened by any means. The criminal could only talk. Here we get into free will. But you go into that later, so I will not respond now. Given your analogy, I would agree. But your analogy is flawed because of the nature of the relationship between father and son, the nature of the father and the capability of the son in the your analogy do not correspond to what we have in the Genesis account. Not true. Determinism is incorrect. I would argue that God has power to control events and be we decide how to respond to those events. We pray because prayer is communication with our creator, our patron and our Lord. Prayer is not simply used to get things or ask for intervention. It is building a relationship. That is why we pray. I'll admit you lost me on the "no preference" comment. Could you explain that a little more? Everything happens according to His will. There are different uses for the word "will" as it appears in scripture. What you have in the quoted passage is given a sense of design or plan. It is not saying that God commanded each hair to fall from every head of every person that has ever lost a hair. Each of those events is part of God's grand design. There is a great saying that I like: For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. God may control the course of a single cannon ball to decide the results of a battle. This allows the battle to ultimately be in God's control, but he would not control every molecule, muscle movement, or tactic used on the battlefield. Could God do that? Sure. But He doesn't. That He could act does not somehow remove our ability to choose or act. Huh? How does it follow that by God knowing what we will choose, that we no longer have the ability to choose? Hmmm... because determinisim is logically inconsistent? When you make claims like this, please tell me where I have done what you claim so that I may at least defend or clarify (or change, if I am in error) my position. Understood. You did ask where it was, though. And I think that it is pertinent to explain not as an insult to your intelligence or training but because I would guess that not many people are as familiar with the Hebrew and Greek as you are. Sound fair?
Does it? I think that is a matter of who is doing the reading. I don't automatically assume he understood, because through my eyes the book ASSUMES he had no knowledge of good or evil. Thus, he was innocent of any action that he had taken just as a baby. However, you want to argue by mere assumption as well that he DID indeed have understanding of such things where I can find no evidence of this. I must go with what I have based on what your holy book has given me. So, I'll take my assumption over yours because I find more basis in your book for mine than yours. Not necessarily. For my analogy to be correct Adam must've been ignorance of the knowledge of good and evil, and what do we find here in your holy book? Ah! Yes...Adam WAS ignorant! Yes, I know because your Bible tells me so. Now, the closest parallel I could think was a small child. However, most children have some sort of knowledge of right and wrong. Kids only know not to touch the heater because Mommy or Daddy says not to...until they touch it (human nature). Then, they KNOW why. They have the KNOWLEDGE, so to speak, of why. Now, your boy was told not to do something. I don't see where your book says he understood death or even the concept of it. I don't see where your book says plants died before the "Fall". I don't see where Adam had the understand of good and evil like an adult in the modern world. This is ALL your assumption based on NOTHING FOUND in your book. It's called apologetics. I played that game for years. This analogy is based on your assumptions which I've already stated and has NO basis on what is found or reported in the Bible about the naivete of Adam and the "Fall" of man. Again, why should I just take your assumptions over those of my own, when I see mine have at least what I would consider to be straight from your own holy book. I am basing my assumptions on what your holy book says. How's that for support? What are yours based on? Ok, so the criminal seduced Eve. There. Same analogy applies. Just substitute one ignorant for another. Until you can show me that your assumption of their understanding is more legitimate and Biblically-based than my assumption of their ignorance, I will continue to hold my view. For good reason. Ha ha...please. The Bible makes it a point to make it clear how "subtil" the Serpent was. It states clearly that he is slick and Adam had no prior knowledge of good and evil. You're going to have to give me proof for this one. What were the results? ha ha... Oh come on...that's like saying that a kid at school shouldn't be afraid of a bully because he's got protection from his parents or teachers. He's still afraid. Only this bully didn't threaten Adam, he just offered him some heroin. And told him that he'd be just like his Dad if he took it. Convincing enough for your "prince" apparently. Really? My analogy does not correspond with what we have? Ok, so yours does? Based on??? Where is it? I fail to see how your analogy is more Biblically-based than mine. As a matter of fact, I see my analogy as far superior to yours because you haven't given any basis for all your assumptions that Adam UNDERSTOOD, when the Bible does not say that. Or plants died before the "fall", when the Bible doesn't state it. As a matter of fact, I see the Bible backing up my analogy solidly. Really? Wow. You have solved the mystery of billions of years of philosophy. Congratulations! He designed it so it would happen that way. If he KNOWS it WILL happen, it MUST. Because, he DESIGNED it to happen that way. If he KNOWS it WILL happen, it MUST. He is God, right? He doesn't guess. He knows. You can prove that to the Determinists. Good luck.
Bullshit, Erise. Don't sit there and tell a lie. Everything you've argued does not come straight from your Bible. Most of it comes from your assumptions, presuppostions and "interpretation". So, don't lie.
Sin? There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. No fundamental change will occur in an individual who strives to be More like Jesus, or God. The true change will occur when one understands, realizes what Jesus had. (Unconditional love, God is love) Not trying to see through the eyes of the 'holy', But to have those eyes as well. No amount of burdening oneself with guilt, Filling one's mind of our inherent nature to do wrong, Our inherent flaw, Will amount to true change. No striving to become like something, No rejecting one thing and accepting another. All of this brings conflict within, Struggle. Do not try to become something, just BE. Do you understand what this means? Not to become, but to be. To see the self as it is, as a whole, To accept the self as it is, To be. To realize the mind and perception and the world are shaped by our Own thought and desires. The only way to true change is not to reject yourself, or a part of yourself, but to accept yourself, beyond lables and judgement. When the spirit and the mind are whole, When one is open to the world and all who walk upon it, The universe, the cosmos and all which is manifested, and beyond, When one is whole, One may discover themselves, and express unconditional love. Therein lies the true 'God'. Simply be, Beyond thought, Simply be in this timeless now, This limitless moment, Therein lies the timeless expression of unity, And born then, is the expression of unconditional love. Just be. No book or Bible needs to be written, No diety or dogma or rule, Just love.
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. 8You go to the Feast. I am not yet[a] going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come. 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away." Everything belongs to God. God cannot steal from God. Duhhh... Stupid fools always misinterpreting things... Nowhere does it say that the people selling in the temple were doing it with the correct intention within their hearts. Since they were doing it for monetary gain, instead of to support God's work, Jesus got pissed. Once again, a fool misinterpretes the truth... "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." If you are satisfied with what you have, you will not be willing to give it up to gain something better. Of course, true understanding leads to love of all, but first, the simple natural understanding must be given up. Simply put, if you already don't know Jesus was sent by God to spread wisdom, you haven't yet experienced the fires of hell, and you won't Know that Jesus was sent by God until you do. You aren't risking going to hell, just like most kids aren't risking going to school- you are going to 'go to' hell when the time is right. Spoken with a fools understanding of God. You need to 'go to' hell to learn the truth. Without the discipline of the 'fires' of hell, you will never understand why the world is as it is. Once again you show your ignorance. You gain in this life by faith in God. It is an addition to this life, not a detraction as unbelievers believe. Faith in God is granted by the experience of the grace of God which works through all things, including ignorant fools. You know that what you do is part of God's divine plan and you know that the work of fools is part of the divine plan as well. A fool is simply a person who does not realise that they are part of God's divine plan.
I don't have the time nor the interest to go back and cherrypick your posts. You "interpret" your holy book just like your buddies and everyone else. And it doesn't matter about "quotes", it matters that you follow your own brand of Bible-ism. Or is your brand the "TRUE WAY"? As for that, I'll leave you to argue with 14,000 other "brands".
Mate every one of us christians here is trying to get as close to it as humanly possible. That may involve looking up the greek/hebrew or reading things in full instead of out of context, but that's what it involves.
Have fun. I'm going to go find my "interpretation" somewhere other than ancient, tribal barbarianism and hocus pocus mysticism.
Remember that we were talking an understanding of the punishment (death). My argument is that Adam presumably at least understood death conceptually. I have not argued that Adam had any knowledge of good or evil. And knowledge of good and evil is only a very small part of the equation. Your fundamental argument seems to be that without knowledge of good and evil or an understanding of punishment, Adam cannot be held responsible for wrong actions. This doesn't account for the depth of relationship between God and Adam and the numerous reasons Adam had to obey. You want a wooden literal read of the story? This is not the genre in which it was written. The story is not a historical account in the sense that a wooden literal reading is a fair treatment of the text. We are given far too few facts to build an perfect picture of what happened. This is okay because the literal genre isn't meant to give us this type of information. What we can know is that there were Two and God and that the Two broke fellowship with God. The Tree of Life has been understood to be allegorical, as has the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are giving reading the text outside of its genre, giving it an understanding that the genre is not meant to convey, and then dismissing the text based on the conclusions you draw from this reading. What justification do you have for reading the text in a manner inconsistent with its style and genre? That's like reading a history text as fiction or a sci-fi novel as historical accounts of events. You can still do this, but you haven't justified your assumptions. On what basis do you found your assumptions. You have only pointed out that you disagree or find no basis for mine. For your analogy to be correct, the nature and depth of the relationship between Adam and God must have been akin to that of an ignorant child and relationship between Adam/Eve and the serpent must have been one of extreme, unprotected naivete against a clearly superior intellect that was in a position of apparent authority. This is not supported by the text. They knew not to touch for more reasons than that. Again you seem to fall back on the idea that the only reason to obey is to avoid the consequences for disobedience. The child has plenty of reasons to obey. I obey the law not simply to avoid punishment, but because I respect the governing body that set down those laws. I respect those who sacrificed to give us the governmental systems we have. I want to be a law abiding citizen. I want to live in peace with my neighbors. All of these provide adequate reason for me to obey regardless of punishment. It doesn't say that he didn't understand death either. There are far too few facts do impugn motives to any of the parties (including God), nor to say what the Two's understanding of death was. And it is outside the scope of the genre to provide these details. What we have in the Genesis account is that obviously historical humans Adam and Eve (they show up in later genealogies) are surrounded by symbolic elements in this narrative. Any attempts to make the passage "walk on all fours" is misguided and unsound. Are you sure that you are giving the text a fair reading given the literary elements of the genre? This is a creation account written that stands opposed to other creation accounts of the same time period (meaning the time period in which this was written). Allow me to quote another, more well-read gentleman than myself by the name of Glenn Miller: "Genesis 1-3, in historical context, makes no real attempt to explain these things, but rather functions as a counter-thrust to the religious creeds of Israel's neighbors and predecessors in Mesopotamia. This is like trying to answer the Problem of Evil from the Book of Ezra, or Christological controversies from Philemon--they just weren't written with those purposes in mind. We honestly know so very, very little about what really went on in the Garden that we must only take out of the passage what the author put in. The passage speaks about the advent of physical death, of course, but it is much more concerned with how God and man interacted in a couple of dimensions of their relationship. One should be very, very cautious about making sweeping theological systems out of such a limited base of data, especially constructing conspiracy theories about a God who eventually goes to the Cross for us... [Quite honestly, not only has our skeptic probably done this here, but evangelicals are notorious for treating Genesis in such a way. I often imagine that if the original author of Genesis were to hear some of the grand schemes we have made from Genesis 1-6, that he/she/they would burst out laughing in amusement or be flabbergasted at how we got so much "out" of what little they put "in". It would be like me writing a passage including a sentence like "John wrestled with the beast of his envy all night", only to have one of my readers obsessively press me for details about what the beast looked like, its dietary habits, and its origin!] Although I can fault the skeptic for being wrong here, I can certainly understand how he arrived at such a reconstruction of the text. The methods he was likely taught by his previous sub-culture may have lead him to his conclusion quite logically." I think that we have covered the assumption game enough. And what does the Bible say? What method of interpretation and translation did you use to come by this interpretation? Is is consistent with historical exegetical principles? Okay. But both analogies failed to account for the relationship between Eve and Adam. This is an important factor to cosider since the dynamic between Eve and the serpent and between Adam and Eve is considerably different. Fair enough, I appreciate someone who is genuinely skeptical. Of course, if I do show you that my assumptions are more legitimate, then you will abandon your view? We have no reason (from the bible) to believe that this was overpowering to the humans; indeed, we have evidence to believe that it was entirely within their range of ability to "master". 1. Mortals were created a "little" lower than the angels, not a "lot" lower than the angels (Ps 8) 2. God does not allow His spiritual children to be tempted beyond what they can stand today (I Cor 10.13); we have no reason to believe He would do less with His first two created ones; 3. The New Testament portrays the adversary as one who can be resisted by even fallen humans (Eph 4.27; Jas 4.7; 1 Pet 5.8) 4. The passage ranks the serpent barely above the animals (3.1); 5. The other main passage (with considerably more detail than Genesis) in which God allowed Satan to attack/tempt/test a human (Job, a fallen human, non-Israelite), showed the temptation to be successfully resisted; 6. Even the post-Fall experience of Cain showed God expecting him to "master" sin, which was "crouching at the door" (Gen 4.7). But if a prince made the decision, he couldn't go back and say "I was outwitted, the criminal was smarter than me, the criminal had a position of authority, etc." He cannot pass on the blame. And remember in Genesis... our prince tried ("the woman you gave me" - Adam to God when he was busted). It is assumed by the text. If Adam did not understand the concept, then the word "die" would have been meaningless. It would indeed be like what you said when you said it would be gobbledygook. If that were the case, the passage would be internally inconsistent and skeptics of the past two thousand years (and beyond) would have demolished the entire account simply due to the logical inconsistency. Furthermore, you made the categorical assertion that it was impossible for him to understand the concept of death. Through what exegetical method did you draw this conclusion? It doesn't state he had no concept of death either. It doesn't because you have not adequately taken into the account the nature of the relationship between the parties. Thanks! And I haven't even published. Of course, my statement was really a dismissal of the comment. Breaking into determinism seemed a little too off the track for where the conversation seemed to be heading. We might be visiting it again shortly though. That simply doesn't follow. If he knows what I will choose, it doesn't mean that I must, simply that I will. What do you mean by something "must" happen? Whoa there! Just because he set the paramaters for this world, doesn't mean that he controls every single aspect (including the individual orbital path of every electron). Of course, he can, but it doesn't follow that he necessarily does. Thanks! They sure are stubborn...
First of all, formerly being from the field of apologetics, I can appreciate the limbs you all (I used to) crawl out on in your assertions of the Bible...ha ha... It seems we all have (had) our own little neatly packaged interpretative brand in our skulls. I suppose that's the way it is... But, Alsharad, as a scholar of the Bible and at least a practiced grad of Ancient Hebrew & Greek (thanks, to your Christian acadamy)... They equipped me with what I needed to defend the Bible and, in doing so, equipped me with what I needed to expose the exaggerations of apologetics and to show the absurd lengths Christians will go to in order to save the "Gospel" from a proper burial. One way is get skeptics and atheists hornswaggled into going into a bunch of my "assumption" vs. your "assumption, my "interpretation" vs. your "interpretation", the feminine version of this phrase, the idiom behind this verse, etc..etc...ad infinitum...ad nauseum... I used to LOVE to argue what the Bible said and REALLY meant. *LOL* The point, Al, is simple: WITHOUT your "interpretation" put to it, I can and have taken the Fall of Man in Eden in your holy book and applied a very detailed study of the EACH AND EVERY HEBREW Word and Phrase used in these passages and found out that I could pretty much make it say whatever float my boat or I could just take it as is. Most atheists take it as is because of the many thousand "interpretations" one can come up with. See, we figure that if God was serious, the Bible would be exactly so simple that a child could understand it. I mean fucking puzzles to put together and mazes to squirm through and then still take a chance that (even though you tried) you went down the wrong path and the "Church of Christ (for instance) is right and all you are going to hell...blah blah blah.... So, I pull out my little Bible and my little knowledge of the Ancient languages I studied and, if I need help, two concordances with the detailed breakdown, etymology and idioms too! Yay! and I go to work...and find out that I will take it as is. This, of course, disturbs the Christian--to take their book SO literal. But isn't it the "literal word" of Gawd?!? So, until you can prove to me that Ha 'adam knew what your El said and understood it completely with pure conjecture, I'll have to wallow in the mire of my assholish skepticism. Good luck... and I mean that!
The difference IS that your posts are designed to bash, flame, argue, and demean. His, genrally, aren't.
Correcting mate, your come from the bible and then bent around corners to make them say whatever you want them to.
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Last line seems to describe creationists to a tee. Denying the good works of God through nature, dismissing all the past as a lie. Not to mention the highlighted portion- people giving too much regard to Jewish Fables...
It sure seems that way. The more I learn, the more I tend to agree with what you are saying (in a sense). While I do not think they need to "save" the Gospel from a proper burial, many people, both believers and skeptics, will jump through the absurdity loop to protect their model of belief. My favorite example are the premillenial dispensationalists. Those guys throw down heavy when you point out that maybe Revelation has already been fulfilled. I do think that there are those who have the right idea though. And there is one consistent theme running through their propositions. That the method of interpretation and translation (the exegetical methodology) should always be foremost, even at the expense of accepted models of belief (like futurism, baptism/prayer for the dead, etc.). What should be, and typically isn't, argued is the method of interpretation and translation. Yeah, I noticed that we were heading that way ourselves. That is why I was moving my questions more towards genre considerations (which is an aspect of exegetical methods) and their impact, if any, on our conversation. Sounds like you still do. Yeah. Of course, you could do that with just about any piece of literature. I understand wanting to take it "as is." But that is where the argument happens. By what method do you arrive at what "as is" means? So it should be simple for a person living in a modern-day, western, individualisitic, guilt-innocence culture/paradigm? What about those who come from vastly different cultural and socio-economic understandings/paradigms? How could it be simpler for them and you at the same time? The whole of scripture paints a picture of God's character and nature. I would argue that His nature and character are so deep that no child would be able to understand and/or comprehend it. That is why method is so important. If you can find fault in their method or findings, then we can discount their claims. I am glad that you do the research (even if I do not agree with your conclusion). Few skeptics do serious research (meaning in a book, not just the internet). Unfortunately, even fewer Christians do it... Method over model. I get the same reaction from some Christians regarding certain Christian paradigms (the nature of Hell, futurist eschatology, the nature of sin, just to name a few). You haven't been really assholish. Just certain in your beliefs. My actual position on the events of the Garden is that we have two historical people surrounded by symbolic elements. In short, we don't have enough evidence to say what happened with enough certainty to make any claims as to the motives of the parties, their understanding, or make any complex arguments affirming or dismissing any possibly symbolic elements as fact (the two trees, the talking snake, etc.).
