Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[duderonomy]

What I am seeing is intervention by the snake. I expect A&E were on there way to "knowledge" of good via their relationship with God....only good. THIS is what I meant when I said learn to appreciate.

 

But the snake intervened.

 

Let me please talk tomorrow.

 

Ok, End,

 

You think humanity is in a world of sh*t because of a talking serpent.

 

You think Adam and Eve, who had no knowledge of good and evil were well on their way to learning about 'good' until that pesky snake bastard intervened, and your all knowing god didn't see that coming.

 

You think that mankind was created in the image of your god yet didn't become like him until they physically ate a forbidden fruit.

 

If you believe all of that, you must also believe that Biblegod paraded all of the animals in front of Adam so he could choose a mate.

 

Really End3, this is what you believe, with nothing to back it up but an ancient book of questionable origins? 

[duderonomy]

75 users are online (in the past 15 minutes)
3 members, 72 guests, 0 anonymous users   (See full list)

[bornagainathiest]

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

 

 

Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was desirable for gaining knowledge.

The first has nothing to do with understanding the moral concepts of good and evil.  The second has nothing to do with actually understanding what good and evil were either - only that her future act of gaining that knowledge was desirable.  She didn't gain that knowledge until she ate.  Check out the sequence of events.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

Whatever perception moved her to action wasn't the knowledge of good and evil.  She didn't know good beforehand.  It wasn't imparted to her thru the conversation.  Sorry End, but you are wrong.  It all hangs on the word, then.

[bornagainathiest]

 

They were fundamentally different on many levels and only became like us after they ate the fruit.

Nope.

 

 

This won't do, End.

 

I've given three reasons why Adam and Eve were significantly different from us and you need to address each one of those.

 

I've also just shown that they acquired the knowledge of good and evil after they ate the fruit. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".  

 

Adam wouldn't have been able to see or understand anything 'good' until after He ate the fruit God told him not to eat, End.   Catch-22.   

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

 

Nope.

 

Even if they had experienced good and evil before the serpent arrived, they wouldn't have been able to understand what those things were.  

 

Understanding had to wait until after eating the fruit.  

 

Catch-22 again.

 

Hard to say what levels "knowledge" means. I can see they were capable of experiencing, but what constitutes some level of understanding we call "knowledge"....I'm not sure.

 

 

The text plainly says when they acquired knowledge, so from that we can infer that prior to eating they didn't have this capacity.

 

Therefore, any argument you try to make to say that they did have it in some form or another has to go against what the text says.

 

You can't have it both ways, End.

 

A while back you were asked if you consider scripture to be infallible and how did you answer?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

 

Was it a fair test, End?

 

With no hidden penalties?

 

No secret terms and conditions that A & E couldn't understand?

 

A test that was possible for them to pass?

 

It depends on whether God controlled the snake......and the ramifications thereof.

 

 

If God controlled Satan, then the snake cannot be held responsible for his actions.

 

The puppet isn't responsible for how it's master pulls the strings.

 

You're making God responsible for tempting Adam and Eve.

 

Are you sure that's what you really want to do, End?

[Guest end3]

 

What I am seeing is intervention by the snake. I expect A&E were on there way to "knowledge" of good via their relationship with God....only good. THIS is what I meant when I said learn to appreciate.

 

But the snake intervened.

 

Let me please talk tomorrow.

 

Ok, End,

 

You think humanity is in a world of sh*t because of a talking serpent.

 

You think Adam and Eve, who had no knowledge of good and evil were well on their way to learning about 'good' until that pesky snake bastard intervened, and your all knowing god didn't see that coming.

 

You think that mankind was created in the image of your god yet didn't become like him until they physically ate a forbidden fruit.

 

If you believe all of that, you must also believe that Biblegod paraded all of the animals in front of Adam so he could choose a mate.

 

Really End3, this is what you believe, with nothing to back it up but an ancient book of questionable origins?

 

We can cut this short....I believe I can support life or death...life and death not being literal. The problem is we don't always know what life is for someone else....the choices we should make in order to ultimately support someone else.....the lessons they need to live or go through in order for them to understand the important things.....

 

So you ask what the hell is that or how do you suppose you know? I don't.

 

That's where I lean towards the generalities of the commandments. It makes sense to me that immaturity would support an attempt a laws, the law, to achieve this end goal. So that leaves us with faith that we are choosing and acting in a way that grows others and ourselves.

 

I think the Bible describes this.

[Guest end3]

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

 

Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was desirable for gaining knowledge.

The first has nothing to do with understanding the moral concepts of good and evil.  The second has nothing to do with actually understanding what good and evil were either - only that her future act of gaining that knowledge was desirable.  She didn't gain that knowledge until she ate.  Check out the sequence of events.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.[/size] [/size]

7 [/size]Then[/size] the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.[/size]

 

Whatever perception moved her to action wasn't the knowledge of good and evil.  She didn't know good beforehand.  It wasn't imparted to her thru the conversation.  Sorry End, but you are wrong.  It all hangs on the word, then.

 

Verse 6 in what you just posted here....."was GOOD for food and pleasing" ?????

[florduh]

Obviously, everyone can support divergent opinions on the meaning of this particular creation myth. I can only conclude that it is unclear and fails at making its point, if any.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

 

Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was desirable for gaining knowledge.

The first has nothing to do with understanding the moral concepts of good and evil.  The second has nothing to do with actually understanding what good and evil were either - only that her future act of gaining that knowledge was desirable.  She didn't gain that knowledge until she ate.  Check out the sequence of events.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.[/size] [/size]

7 [/size]Then[/size] the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.[/size]

 

Whatever perception moved her to action wasn't the knowledge of good and evil.  She didn't know good beforehand.  It wasn't imparted to her thru the conversation.  Sorry End, but you are wrong.  It all hangs on the word, then.

 

Verse 6 in what you just posted here....."was GOOD for food and pleasing" ?????

 

 

So were all the other trees in Eden, End.

 

Genesis 2 : 8 & 9.

 

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

You can't make 'good for food' mean 'morally good'.

 

If you do that, all the other trees have morally good fruit too.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

 

Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was desirable for gaining knowledge.

The first has nothing to do with understanding the moral concepts of good and evil.  The second has nothing to do with actually understanding what good and evil were either - only that her future act of gaining that knowledge was desirable.  She didn't gain that knowledge until she ate.  Check out the sequence of events.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.[/size] [/size]

7 [/size]Then[/size] the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.[/size]

 

Whatever perception moved her to action wasn't the knowledge of good and evil.  She didn't know good beforehand.  It wasn't imparted to her thru the conversation.  Sorry End, but you are wrong.  It all hangs on the word, then.

 

Verse 6 in what you just posted here....."was GOOD for food and pleasing" ?????

 

 

So were all the other trees in Eden, End.

 

Genesis 2 : 8 & 9.

 

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/size] [/size]

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—[/size]trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.[/size] In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[/size]

 

You can't make 'good for food' mean 'morally good'.

 

If you do that, all the other trees have morally good fruit too.

 

Yes you can. There could be trees that poison you....here, eat from these trees that have poison fruit but I will tell you they are good.

[Guest end3]

I could argue that God was providing them a place and experience that was morally good....including the provisions....or providing the knowledge of good within an environment that is strictly good.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You seem to be forgetting that morality is meaningless unless it has a contrast: immorality. It is a Yin/yang relationship. Whatever "morality" you think god was trying to teach Adam and Eve would have been completely irrelevant without they also understood immorality.

 

And how were they to understand immorality without they ate the fruit?

 

These are really just word games, End. You're merely substituting "good" and "evil" with "moral" and "immoral".

 

Try again. You're better than this.

[Guest end3]

You seem to be forgetting that morality is meaningless unless it has a contrast: immorality. It is a Yin/yang relationship. Whatever "morality" you think god was trying to teach Adam and Eve would have been completely irrelevant without they also understood immorality.

 

And how were they to understand immorality without they ate the fruit?

 

These are really just word games, End. You're merely substituting "good" and "evil" with "moral" and "immoral".

 

Try again. You're better than this.

No not really. I picture Heaven to be similar....however people are "changed", I expect them to be changed back to what would have been the environment in the garden before the fall.

 

I believe it entirely possible to attempt to teach a morality of only "good". Isn't that what we do on a daily basis? How we behave, how we teach our children, what we eat? All to promote "life" as good as we are able and know?

 

Not sure what you are suggesting....you are welcome to elaborate to my slow ass so the light will come on.

 

 

Edit: Y'all don't think our objectivity correlates to our attempt at morality?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So now you agree with BAA that Adam and Eve were radically different from us (or, in your words, "changed"). I thought you disagreed with that idea. In fact, if I recall, your response to such a suggestion was, "Nope."

 

And how do we determine what is "good" behavior, what is "good" to eat, what is "good" to teach our children?

 

One way is by contrasting it with what is "bad".

 

And, no, I wouldn't think that there is any correlation between morality and objectivity given that "everything is subjective."

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

 

Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was desirable for gaining knowledge.

The first has nothing to do with understanding the moral concepts of good and evil.  The second has nothing to do with actually understanding what good and evil were either - only that her future act of gaining that knowledge was desirable.  She didn't gain that knowledge until she ate.  Check out the sequence of events.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.[/size] [/size]

7 [/size]Then[/size] the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.[/size]

 

Whatever perception moved her to action wasn't the knowledge of good and evil.  She didn't know good beforehand.  It wasn't imparted to her thru the conversation.  Sorry End, but you are wrong.  It all hangs on the word, then.

 

Verse 6 in what you just posted here....."was GOOD for food and pleasing" ?????

 

 

So were all the other trees in Eden, End.

 

Genesis 2 : 8 & 9.

 

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/size] [/size]

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—[/size]trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.[/size] In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[/size]

 

You can't make 'good for food' mean 'morally good'.

 

If you do that, all the other trees have morally good fruit too.

 

Yes you can. There could be trees that poison you....here, eat from these trees that have poison fruit but I will tell you they are good.

 

 

No, you can't.

 

The trees that God planted in Eden were good for food and pleasing to the eye.

 

Genesis 2 : 9

 

9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

All of the trees described in the first sentence were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

 

And of the two trees described in the second sentence, in Genesis 3 : 6 Eve discovers that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also pleasing to the eye and good for food.

 

Which only leaves the tree of life.

 

That tree is the only one not described in Genesis.

[bornagainathiest]

I could argue that God was providing them a place and experience that was morally good....including the provisions....or providing the knowledge of good within an environment that is strictly good.

 

Well, you'd be wrong if you did so, End.

Look again at what the text actually says and you'll see the reason why God put them in the garden.

 

Genesis 2 : 15

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

 

That's all God did.

If there were more than this then the text would either explicitly say so or at least provide some kind of hint.  But no such hint or explicit reference to anything morally good is given in the text.  Adam was God's gardener.  He put Adam there to keep His garden.  Which is why Adam was given the ability to know when a fruit was good to eat.  There is no moral component attached to this.  The 'goodness' in question here is the fitness of the fruit to eat.  This is horticulture, not morality.

 

The creation of the animals and the creation of Eve have nothing to do with moral goodness either.

God was not trying to teach Adam anything about morality or goodness or relationships.  All that was required was another suitable helper to assist Adam in his appointed task of keeping God's garden.  Once again, the text says all that needs to be said.

 

Genesis 2 : 18

 

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

 

Not a companion.  Not a wife or someone to be loved.  Not a friend or a soulmate.  A helper.

A helper to assist him in performing his appointed task - looking after God's garden.  God cared more about his garden being well-tended than he did about the man's mental and emotional well-being. 

[bornagainathiest]

Ok End,

 

Playing Devil's Advocate, let's say that the fruit in question was morally good.  What then?

 

You'll notice that nowhere in the text before Genesis 3 : 7 do we see any sign that either Adam or Eve could recognize the moral goodness of the fruit.

 

Before then only God and we, the readers, know what is morally good in creation and Eden.

 

Adam and Eve were blind to the moral goodness of the fruit hanging all around them. 

 

Every last blade of grass, every single leaf and each and every flower in Eden could have been morally good and it still wouldn't have made any difference to them.

.

.

.

So I can concede your point about the moral goodness of the fruit and still stand on what the text says.

 

Which is, that they couldn't know, understand, learn or develop until they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Everything hangs on the word, 'then' in verse 7.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

That's a good point, BAA. god looked at his creation and saw that it was "good". There is no implication of morality there. There is only a suggestion that god thinks of himself as a fine craftsman.

 

Otherwise, what would god be comparing his creation to, in describing it as "good"?

[quinntar]

"Is trust good or is it evil?" ~End3

 

"It is both and neither." ~TheRedneckProfessor

 

.

 

One of the most profound moments I had after my deconversion was coming to the realization that there is nothing inherently "good" or "evil" in this life. This is not to say that there isn't great evil in the world; nor am I so blissfully optimistic as to consider what good there is to be enough to outweigh the clearly present malignancies of life. Rather, the point is that, in and of themselves, things are neither "good" nor "evil". Nothing is "of the devil"; nor are there any "things of god". Things are just things--feelings, ideas, love, trees, words--none of these possess any inherent qualities in themselves.

 

Rather, we imbue things with meanings. We attribute characteristics to certain items based upon our experiences: puppies are "good"; wasps are "bad". In reality, puppies are neither better nor worse than wasps; both simply occupy the particular niche that developed with the evolution of their species within their environments.

 

We attempt to attach meanings to the circumstances of our lives based upon the consequences that result. We might consider war to be "good" when we discover the concentration camps; but the victims locked inside probably view the whole thing as "evil". In truth, war is both good and bad. It is hatred and love; triumph and tragedy. It is the best of humanity willing to die for the worst of humanity.

 

But, in and of themselves, none of the things in this life have any meaning, outside of that which we attribute. This means, ultimately, that we have a choice. It is what we do with the things in our lives, and our reactions to the consequences thereof, that will, in the final analysis, lead us to determine some thing to be "good" or "evil".

 

Trust is, among many others, including love, hate, anger, and happiness, a prime example.

 

My son trusts me. This is neither good nor evil; it is simply a true statement. If I respect his trust in me, and if I desire to help him find a fruitful and joyous path in life, then I will use his trust in me to teach him key factors necessary for such an undertaking, such as discipline, empathy, self-control, and compassion, among others. Thus, in this instance, trust might be considered "good".

 

Contrariwise, I could abuse the boy's trust. I could lie to him, stab him in the back, set him up for failure. Any number of self-fulfilling prophecies could be applied, by me, to his childhood; and, because of his trust in me, he would believe them all to the point of making them come true. This is why, even at the tender age of seven, I don't care if he says "Fuck this goddamn shit!"; but I won't tolerate him using curse words like "ugly", "fat", "stupid", or "dumbass". Nor will I tolerate myself using these words toward him. Were I to do so, trust might be considered "evil"; and "pure evil" because he has no choice but to trust me. Psychologists have proven, time and again, that children are hardwired to trust adults.*

 

(As an aside, the reason Ironhorse doesn't realize that he was indoctrinated into the Baptist faith, by a Baptist preacher, who was also the father of a Baptist family, was because Ironhorse was instinctively predisposed to trust the man as done the indoctrinating)

 

Therefore, trust is neither god nor evil; while simultaneously being both good and evil. And, as previously mentioned, the same can apply to any thing. Love is neither and both; so is anger.

 

As we have seen, god betrayed Adam and Eve by witholding vital information from them. god knew that they were both trusting, and naive; and he used their trust, and naivete, to manipulate them into bringing about the evil that he, himself, had designed and planned to unleash upon the earth (Isaiah 45:7). Trust, in this instance, was "evil"; and "pure evil" because Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter. Not because they were hardwired to trust, as we are; but because they had no concept of what trust was, nor of who it was they were trusting. They had never been betrayed, or felt the knife in the chest that comes with broken trust; they only knew (by the name of the tree) that god was hiding something from them.

 

The question is, then, do you consider god to be "good" or "evil"?

 

 

 

.

 

*http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/young-children-are-especially-trusting-of-things-theyre-told.html

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2010-10-23-trusting-kids_N.htm

That was an interesting read, and to answer your question. I think God knows what good and evil is not that he is good or evil himself. The mistake Christians make is here

 

Genesis 3

[22] And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

It says to know good and evil, not to be good or evil.

[quinntar]

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

The tree of knowledge was not a test, you're supposed to eat from it.

 

Just not when a snakes on there..

[quinntar]

 

At what cost, though?

I believe Jesus states that narrow is the gate...even today. Seems evident that God knew from the beginning.

What does the narrow gate look like? (Don't say Jesus, k)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

"Is trust good or is it evil?" ~End3

 

"It is both and neither." ~TheRedneckProfessor

 

.

 

One of the most profound moments I had after my deconversion was coming to the realization that there is nothing inherently "good" or "evil" in this life. This is not to say that there isn't great evil in the world; nor am I so blissfully optimistic as to consider what good there is to be enough to outweigh the clearly present malignancies of life. Rather, the point is that, in and of themselves, things are neither "good" nor "evil". Nothing is "of the devil"; nor are there any "things of god". Things are just things--feelings, ideas, love, trees, words--none of these possess any inherent qualities in themselves.

 

Rather, we imbue things with meanings. We attribute characteristics to certain items based upon our experiences: puppies are "good"; wasps are "bad". In reality, puppies are neither better nor worse than wasps; both simply occupy the particular niche that developed with the evolution of their species within their environments.

 

We attempt to attach meanings to the circumstances of our lives based upon the consequences that result. We might consider war to be "good" when we discover the concentration camps; but the victims locked inside probably view the whole thing as "evil". In truth, war is both good and bad. It is hatred and love; triumph and tragedy. It is the best of humanity willing to die for the worst of humanity.

 

But, in and of themselves, none of the things in this life have any meaning, outside of that which we attribute. This means, ultimately, that we have a choice. It is what we do with the things in our lives, and our reactions to the consequences thereof, that will, in the final analysis, lead us to determine some thing to be "good" or "evil".

 

Trust is, among many others, including love, hate, anger, and happiness, a prime example.

 

My son trusts me. This is neither good nor evil; it is simply a true statement. If I respect his trust in me, and if I desire to help him find a fruitful and joyous path in life, then I will use his trust in me to teach him key factors necessary for such an undertaking, such as discipline, empathy, self-control, and compassion, among others. Thus, in this instance, trust might be considered "good".

 

Contrariwise, I could abuse the boy's trust. I could lie to him, stab him in the back, set him up for failure. Any number of self-fulfilling prophecies could be applied, by me, to his childhood; and, because of his trust in me, he would believe them all to the point of making them come true. This is why, even at the tender age of seven, I don't care if he says "Fuck this goddamn shit!"; but I won't tolerate him using curse words like "ugly", "fat", "stupid", or "dumbass". Nor will I tolerate myself using these words toward him. Were I to do so, trust might be considered "evil"; and "pure evil" because he has no choice but to trust me. Psychologists have proven, time and again, that children are hardwired to trust adults.*

 

(As an aside, the reason Ironhorse doesn't realize that he was indoctrinated into the Baptist faith, by a Baptist preacher, who was also the father of a Baptist family, was because Ironhorse was instinctively predisposed to trust the man as done the indoctrinating)

 

Therefore, trust is neither god nor evil; while simultaneously being both good and evil. And, as previously mentioned, the same can apply to any thing. Love is neither and both; so is anger.

 

As we have seen, god betrayed Adam and Eve by witholding vital information from them. god knew that they were both trusting, and naive; and he used their trust, and naivete, to manipulate them into bringing about the evil that he, himself, had designed and planned to unleash upon the earth (Isaiah 45:7). Trust, in this instance, was "evil"; and "pure evil" because Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter. Not because they were hardwired to trust, as we are; but because they had no concept of what trust was, nor of who it was they were trusting. They had never been betrayed, or felt the knife in the chest that comes with broken trust; they only knew (by the name of the tree) that god was hiding something from them.

 

The question is, then, do you consider god to be "good" or "evil"?

 

 

 

.

 

*http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/young-children-are-especially-trusting-of-things-theyre-told.html

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2010-10-23-trusting-kids_N.htm

That was an interesting read, and to answer your question. I think God knows what good and evil is not that he is good or evil himself. The mistake Christians make is here

 

Genesis 3

[22] And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

It says to know good and evil, not to be good or evil.

 

Good point.  The question of whether god is good or evil is rhetorical, picking up from a different thread.  From the original post in this thread, I agree that god is neither good nor evil in and of himself; however, it is quite evident that god not only created evil but is quite capable in behaving in a horrifically evil way.

 

The verse you have quoted neatly sums up what BAA and myself have been arguing: that Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing good and evil until after eating the fruit.

[Guest end3]

Here's what I see...and y'all may disagree. In our experience, within the "fall", I only know of two ways to perceive experience....it's either promoting life or promoting death.....good or evil, regardless of whether I know which one it is.

 

Outside of the fall, i.e. Eden, I don't expect that dichotomy....I expect a relationship with God to be only promoting life...

 

So this is why I say that any experience that God had with A&E in the garden was towards good and life.

 

This is why I asked whether the snake was under the direction of God.

 

It seems reasonable from the text that A&E had the ability to experience both and the consequences. This is why I say that God was only Himself promoting life to A&E, or else they would of had to face "the fall" despite the snake.

[quinntar]

 

 

"Is trust good or is it evil?" ~End3

 

"It is both and neither." ~TheRedneckProfessor

 

.

 

One of the most profound moments I had after my deconversion was coming to the realization that there is nothing inherently "good" or "evil" in this life. This is not to say that there isn't great evil in the world; nor am I so blissfully optimistic as to consider what good there is to be enough to outweigh the clearly present malignancies of life. Rather, the point is that, in and of themselves, things are neither "good" nor "evil". Nothing is "of the devil"; nor are there any "things of god". Things are just things--feelings, ideas, love, trees, words--none of these possess any inherent qualities in themselves.

 

Rather, we imbue things with meanings. We attribute characteristics to certain items based upon our experiences: puppies are "good"; wasps are "bad". In reality, puppies are neither better nor worse than wasps; both simply occupy the particular niche that developed with the evolution of their species within their environments.

 

We attempt to attach meanings to the circumstances of our lives based upon the consequences that result. We might consider war to be "good" when we discover the concentration camps; but the victims locked inside probably view the whole thing as "evil". In truth, war is both good and bad. It is hatred and love; triumph and tragedy. It is the best of humanity willing to die for the worst of humanity.

 

But, in and of themselves, none of the things in this life have any meaning, outside of that which we attribute. This means, ultimately, that we have a choice. It is what we do with the things in our lives, and our reactions to the consequences thereof, that will, in the final analysis, lead us to determine some thing to be "good" or "evil".

 

Trust is, among many others, including love, hate, anger, and happiness, a prime example.

 

My son trusts me. This is neither good nor evil; it is simply a true statement. If I respect his trust in me, and if I desire to help him find a fruitful and joyous path in life, then I will use his trust in me to teach him key factors necessary for such an undertaking, such as discipline, empathy, self-control, and compassion, among others. Thus, in this instance, trust might be considered "good".

 

Contrariwise, I could abuse the boy's trust. I could lie to him, stab him in the back, set him up for failure. Any number of self-fulfilling prophecies could be applied, by me, to his childhood; and, because of his trust in me, he would believe them all to the point of making them come true. This is why, even at the tender age of seven, I don't care if he says "Fuck this goddamn shit!"; but I won't tolerate him using curse words like "ugly", "fat", "stupid", or "dumbass". Nor will I tolerate myself using these words toward him. Were I to do so, trust might be considered "evil"; and "pure evil" because he has no choice but to trust me. Psychologists have proven, time and again, that children are hardwired to trust adults.*

 

(As an aside, the reason Ironhorse doesn't realize that he was indoctrinated into the Baptist faith, by a Baptist preacher, who was also the father of a Baptist family, was because Ironhorse was instinctively predisposed to trust the man as done the indoctrinating)

 

Therefore, trust is neither god nor evil; while simultaneously being both good and evil. And, as previously mentioned, the same can apply to any thing. Love is neither and both; so is anger.

 

As we have seen, god betrayed Adam and Eve by witholding vital information from them. god knew that they were both trusting, and naive; and he used their trust, and naivete, to manipulate them into bringing about the evil that he, himself, had designed and planned to unleash upon the earth (Isaiah 45:7). Trust, in this instance, was "evil"; and "pure evil" because Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter. Not because they were hardwired to trust, as we are; but because they had no concept of what trust was, nor of who it was they were trusting. They had never been betrayed, or felt the knife in the chest that comes with broken trust; they only knew (by the name of the tree) that god was hiding something from them.

 

The question is, then, do you consider god to be "good" or "evil"?

 

 

 

.

 

*http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/young-children-are-especially-trusting-of-things-theyre-told.html

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2010-10-23-trusting-kids_N.htm

That was an interesting read, and to answer your question. I think God knows what good and evil is not that he is good or evil himself. The mistake Christians make is here

 

Genesis 3

[22] And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

It says to know good and evil, not to be good or evil.

Good point. The question of whether god is good or evil is rhetorical, picking up from a different thread. From the original post in this thread, I agree that god is neither good nor evil in and of himself; however, it is quite evident that god not only created evil but is quite capable in behaving in a horrifically evil way.

 

The verse you have quoted neatly sums up what BAA and myself have been arguing: that Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing good and evil until after eating the fruit.

A world that can only think in terms of good and evil God would seem bipolar.