Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75
Thanks Tree17Thanks

Thread: Was the Garden of Eden a case of "police entrapment"?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    28,332
    Thanks
    21266

    From
    VA

    Was the Garden of Eden a case of "police entrapment"?

    First let's look at the definiton-

    "entrapment"- In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.

    It "is the conception and planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the office.
    ---wikipedia


    Then the facts of the case.

    Two naive young people are placed in an enclosed area.

    God puts a Tree in the area whose fruit is "death" if eaten.

    God puts or "allows" a talking snake in the area, already aware that the creature will attempt to persuade the female to eat the fruit.

    God knows that the male is enamored of the female and will follow her lead.
    Thanks from Blueneck and Paris

  2. #2
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    38,180
    Thanks
    23189

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Reminds me of one of the differences between the 1971 and 2005 versions of Willy Wonka / Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.

    Everyone remembers the scene where Violet Beauregard turns into a giant blueberry after eating a piece of experimental gum. But not everyone noticed the difference in how the scene was executed.

    In the 1971 version, Willy Wonka was holding the piece of gum, describing it to the kids. Violet literally snatched it out of Wonka's hands, and ate it. It was not offered to her; the little brat grabbed it.

    In the 2005 version, one of Willy Wonka's machines extended a delicately-unfolding CGI mechanical arm, that gently OFFERED her the dangerous confectionery, which Violet accepted.

    IMO, this is a big difference. The latter is entrapment, much like the Eden story in the OP.
    Thanks from GordonGecko and Friday13

  3. #3
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    41,397
    Thanks
    19271

    From
    Depends on what year....
    On the other hand, they were give one rule, and could not even keep that one rule.

  4. #4
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    38,180
    Thanks
    23189

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    On the other hand, they were give one rule, and could not even keep that one rule.
    But the rule shouldn't have been necessary. Let's say you put a child in a playroom and say "You can play with whatever you want in this room. But see that sparking wire protruding from the wall? Whatever you do, don't touch it."

    Then you program all the stuffed animals to say things like "The sparking wire is your friend!" and "The sparking wire tastes like candy!"

    You're setting up the kid for a trip to the hospital - or worse. No, you fix the damned wire before letting the kids play. That's assuming you give two shits about your kids, of course.
    Thanks from Isalexi and Friday13

  5. #5
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    28,332
    Thanks
    21266

    From
    VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Reminds me of one of the differences between the 1971 and 2005 versions of Willy Wonka / Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.

    Everyone remembers the scene where Violet Beauregard turns into a giant blueberry after eating a piece of experimental gum. But not everyone noticed the difference in how the scene was executed.

    In the 1971 version, Willy Wonka was holding the piece of gum, describing it to the kids. Violet literally snatched it out of Wonka's hands, and ate it. It was not offered to her; the little brat grabbed it.

    In the 2005 version, one of Willy Wonka's machines extended a delicately-unfolding CGI mechanical arm, that gently OFFERED her the dangerous confectionery, which Violet accepted.

    IMO, this is a big difference. The latter is entrapment, much like the Eden story in the OP.
    In the 1971 version, thought, didn't Wonka "butt-bump" Augustus Gloop into the Chocolate River while he was cup-sipping from it with his hands???

  6. #6
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    28,332
    Thanks
    21266

    From
    VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    On the other hand, they were give one rule, and could not even keep that one rule.
    But look at how it was put to them....two naive beings, who had NO CONCEPT of "death", were told "If ye eat the fruit of the Tree, ye shall know death".

    That's like me threatening you with "galazumik-zoopie" if you eat from that Pop-Tart bush.....if you have no idea what "galazumik-zoopie" or that it means "eternal torture"?....then you have no idea how DANGEROUS it would be to eat the Pop-Tart?

    Plus even under entrapment laws, it's accepted that the "perp" may know that the action is illegal...but if the "cops" purposely set up the "sting" just to bust the person, it's still entrapment.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Isalexi

  7. #7
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    28,332
    Thanks
    21266

    From
    VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    But the rule shouldn't have been necessary. Let's say you put a child in a playroom and say "You can play with whatever you want in this room. But see that sparking wire protruding from the wall? Whatever you do, don't touch it."

    Then you program all the stuffed animals to say things like "The sparking wire is your friend!" and "The sparking wire tastes like candy!"

    You're setting up the kid for a trip to the hospital - or worse. No, you fix the damned wire before letting the kids play. That's assuming you give two shits about your kids, of course.
    But to extend tha analogy further, in that case? The Nanny upon discovering the child touched the wire?

    Kicks the child out of the house to fend for themselves on the street.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #8
    New Member
    Joined
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    194

    From
    Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Then the facts of the case.
    Let's see...
    Two naive young people are placed in an enclosed area.
    Ok
    God puts a Tree in the area whose fruit is "death" if eaten.
    Ok
    God puts or "allows" a talking snake in the area, already aware that the creature will attempt to persuade the female to eat the fruit.
    Not a fact
    God knows that the male is enamored of the female and will follow her lead.
    Not a fact
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  9. #9
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    38,180
    Thanks
    23189

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    In the 1971 version, thought, didn't Wonka "butt-bump" Augustus Gloop into the Chocolate River while he was cup-sipping from it with his hands???
    Inconclusive, but it doesn't appear so.

  10. #10
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,410
    Thanks
    275

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    First let's look at the definiton-

    "entrapment"- In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.

    It "is the conception and planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the office.
    ---wikipedia


    Then the facts of the case.

    Two naive young people are placed in an enclosed area.

    God puts a Tree in the area whose fruit is "death" if eaten.

    God puts or "allows" a talking snake in the area, already aware that the creature will attempt to persuade the female to eat the fruit.

    God knows that the male is enamored of the female and will follow her lead.
    LOL.

    What about allegories don't you understand, hmmmm?

    Did you think that the genesis account refers to an actual man and an actual woman living in an actual garden with an actual tree?????? If that is the extent of your understanding, then yell entrapment to your heart's content.

    duh?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 253
    Last Post: 4th November 2016, 08:46 PM
  2. Trump "Shames" Fed Judge Hearing "Trump U" Case
    By Friday13 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 29th May 2016, 06:54 PM
  3. Was the real Jewish Garden of Eden located in Jerusalem?
    By Gnostic Christian Bishop in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 11th June 2015, 06:22 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30th August 2007, 11:44 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed