God Is Good. All The Time......all The Time. God Is Good.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

Holy fuckballs End3, how many times do we gotta go through this! GEEZUS H KRYYST ON A STICK Turn with me in your goddamn bible to Genesis 1:31. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very GOOD." This was after he had created Adam and all of creation. It was ALL inately GOOD, because GOD MADE IT THAT WAY. Adam and Eve were GOOD because God made them that way.Now, as all of us had stated SEVERAL TIMES, Genesis 3:5 and 3:22 imply that neither of them had any concept of right and wrong or good and evil before they "disobeyed" God's order to leave the fucking tree alone. If they didn't know it was "wrong" to disobey God, how could a GOOD God justify punishing them OR their descendants?When you leave religion completely out of it and you disect the story, you can see that it is full of plot holes and logical flaws. This story is just that. A myth. A fable. A lesson about how imperfect we are. But your problem, E3 is that you can't separate your mind from your religion. You have rejected reality and substituted your own. Well, its not your own, per say, but that of your religion but still. You can't just sit there and keep doing mental gymnastics and philosophical contortions in order to reconcile the reality of the story with what your religion teaches you about the story. But you can't just sit here and try to tell us that we need to do the same thing. Just because you believe something is true, doesn't mean it really is, and to sit here in this thread with us for a fucking week going, nuh uh, yes huh, nuh uh, is just mind numbing. Fuck me with a jack hammer, E3, I so totally respect your decision to believe whatever crack pot myths you want but goddammit DONT expect us to follow you down the rabbit hole. We've been there and done that and we're not going back.AmenUncle BenShot a roosterKilled a hen

Let's say you know the knowledge End3 shot someone. Is it right to say End3 is a murderer?

Okay. Your question has nothing to do with any of our points, especially not mine, but just to satisfy my morbid curiosity, I'll bite.

 

No, E3, I would not just label you a murderer just for shooting someone. You'd have actually have had to intentionally kill someone for no good reason in order to have that label. That's for a judge to decide. Now what's your point?

[mymistake]

Just saying that if they were innately good, then acting contrary to that natural, inborn nature would fit the definition of tempted.

 

 

When sharks decide to leave the ocean, start flying around the sky and breathing air they would not be a

 

state of "tempted".  It would only be sharks violating their inborn nature.  Humans really have an inborn

 

nature - to not go ten minutes without air, to not go 10 days without water, to not go a month without

 

sleeping or eating.  Violate your inborn nature and you die.  There is no choice.  These facts simply

 

highlight the ignorance of the men who created the Genesis stories.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Now, I think I have an idea of where you are going with this E3. So are you trying to say that if you went on a killing spree, wrote a book about it, and constantly asserted throughout the book that you are a good person and your intentions behind killing all those people were pure, good and righteous, yet you describe in detail the circumstances behind your killings and it was obvious you murdered them in cold blood, I have no right to contradict you, and call you an evil, pretentious, psychopath, based on what I've gleaned from your book?

[ConscientiousObjector]

Sy, too bad all I have is skunky Miller. I think I'd need to single-handedly smoke an eighth to decipher ends point.

 

End, you keep trying, and it's begining to appear as if you are a masochist. What does your bible say about that?

[duderonomy]

 

Holy fuckballs End3, how many times do we gotta go through this! GEEZUS H KRYYST ON A STICK Turn with me in your goddamn bible to Genesis 1:31. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very GOOD." This was after he had created Adam and all of creation. It was ALL inately GOOD, because GOD MADE IT THAT WAY. Adam and Eve were GOOD because God made them that way.

 

Now, as all of us had stated SEVERAL TIMES, Genesis 3:5 and 3:22 imply that neither of them had any concept of right and wrong or good and evil before they "disobeyed" God's order to leave the fucking tree alone. If they didn't know it was "wrong" to disobey God, how could a GOOD God justify punishing them OR their descendants?

 

When you leave religion completely out of it and you disect the story, you can see that it is full of plot holes and logical flaws. This story is just that. A myth. A fable. A lesson about how imperfect we are. But your problem, E3 is that you can't separate your mind from your religion. You have rejected reality and substituted your own. Well, its not your own, per say, but that of your religion but still. You can't just sit there and keep doing mental gymnastics and philosophical contortions in order to reconcile the reality of the story with what your religion teaches you about the story. But you can't just sit here and try to tell us that we need to do the same thing. Just because you believe something is true, doesn't mean it really is, and to sit here in this thread with us for a fucking week going, nuh uh, yes huh, nuh uh, is just mind numbing. Fuck me with a jack hammer, E3, I so totally respect your decision to believe whatever crack pot myths you want but goddammit DONT expect us to follow you down the rabbit hole. We've been there and done that and we're not going back.

 

Amen

Uncle Ben

Shot a rooster

Killed a hen

Let's say you know the knowledge End3 shot someone. Is it right to say End3 is a murderer?

 

End, what if a person knew the knowledge before they knew the knowledge? Or would that be impossible?

[mwc]

     This is quite a puzzle.

 

     If the Hebrew for good used in all these verses indicates a moral goodness then this means that Adam and Eve had a knowledge of good and evil before they knew good and evil.  It calls into question what the actual tree had to offer.  It becomes a redundant prop with no purpose.

 

     Now in Genesis 2:

          ¹² (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin^[d] and onyx are also there.)

 

     This is the same word used in the same story.  Should I assume the gold has moral goodness?  Or that the gold is of a fine quality? 

 

     Or what about in Genesis 1:

          ³¹ God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

     Simply reading the above verse on its face there's no reason to assume god would make a moral judgment on himself or his own creation.  However, a craftsman giving his project a final look could find himself self-satisfied and judge that work to be a very good work.

 

     Assuming a xian interpretation, can you morally approve of something that contains Satan and his minions?  Hell?  The fall of man?  The death of your "son?"  The redemption of some?  And so on down the line?  He had to see it all when he looked out over his finished product.  This was the foundation of this very plan after all.  If he approved morally what does this say about his morals?  I argue that this statement, the "good" here, could only be about his craftsmanship.  To say this was morally "good" is reprehensible.

 

     So if use the word "good" to mean "of a fine quality" (or the like) then it the tree still has purpose.  The story makes sense.  The god is a creator and as he creates he finds his creation to be well made.

 

     If the word "good" is a moral judgment then the tree serves no purpose.  It's redundant.  And based on what we can gather about the morals of the god in this story we should expect no better from any of the characters in this story.  None of them can be morally "good" since they come from a morally dubious god.

 

          mwc

[Guest end3]

 

....we're limited.

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

 

You asked.. Can't help that you are not willing to admit.

[mymistake]

 

 

....we're limited.

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

 

You asked.. Can't help that you are not willing to admit.

 

 

 

Projection noted!

[Guest end3]

 

 

Holy fuckballs End3, how many times do we gotta go through this! GEEZUS H KRYYST ON A STICK Turn with me in your goddamn bible to Genesis 1:31. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very GOOD." This was after he had created Adam and all of creation. It was ALL inately GOOD, because GOD MADE IT THAT WAY. Adam and Eve were GOOD because God made them that way.

 

Now, as all of us had stated SEVERAL TIMES, Genesis 3:5 and 3:22 imply that neither of them had any concept of right and wrong or good and evil before they "disobeyed" God's order to leave the fucking tree alone. If they didn't know it was "wrong" to disobey God, how could a GOOD God justify punishing them OR their descendants?

 

When you leave religion completely out of it and you disect the story, you can see that it is full of plot holes and logical flaws. This story is just that. A myth. A fable. A lesson about how imperfect we are. But your problem, E3 is that you can't separate your mind from your religion. You have rejected reality and substituted your own. Well, its not your own, per say, but that of your religion but still. You can't just sit there and keep doing mental gymnastics and philosophical contortions in order to reconcile the reality of the story with what your religion teaches you about the story. But you can't just sit here and try to tell us that we need to do the same thing. Just because you believe something is true, doesn't mean it really is, and to sit here in this thread with us for a fucking week going, nuh uh, yes huh, nuh uh, is just mind numbing. Fuck me with a jack hammer, E3, I so totally respect your decision to believe whatever crack pot myths you want but goddammit DONT expect us to follow you down the rabbit hole. We've been there and done that and we're not going back.

 

Amen

Uncle Ben

Shot a rooster

Killed a hen

Let's say you know the knowledge End3 shot someone. Is it right to say End3 is a murderer?

 

End, what if a person knew the knowledge before they knew the knowledge? Or would that be impossible?

 

You know my take already on nature vs. nurture and how that changes us. Take someone like Bruce Jenner or someone who is gay that claim "I have been this since birth". What if that's a result of "sin", yet the person swears that this is how they are. It's both in my opinion. And the reason Jesus doesn't have us persecute the sinners....which is all of us, but asks us to just believe in him instead.

 

So no, each of us my have some fraction of the innate connection to God/good, but we are also holding the balance of sin.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

....we're limited.

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

 

You asked.. Can't help that you are not willing to admit.

 

 

 

Projection noted!

 

The FACT is MM we will never know the beginning nor the end. unless supernaturally. Now you not admitting that is denying that we may form the final opinion about good vs. evil. But I expect this from you.

[bornagainathiest]

He was human #1. There was no reason culture nor a history of sin should have skewed the innate.

 

In other words, why would he need knowledge?

 

So that when he was presented with two contradictory versions of what would happen if he ate from the forbidden tree

 

Just saying that if they were innately good, then acting contrary to that natural, inborn nature would fit the definition of tempted.

 

But they couldn't act contrary to their innately good nature, End.

 

This is the point you're not getting... or refusing to get.

 

Their innately good nature doesn't allow them to differentiate between good actions and bad actions.  

To them, all of their actions are good... because that's all they know.  To know otherwise (that is, to know their actions were evil) would mean that they had knowledge of the difference of good and evil before they ate from the tree.

 

But God himself says that they didn't acquire that knowledge UNTIL AFTER they ate.

 

Genesis 3 : 22

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

The man has NOW become like one of us.

 

NOW End...after they ate - not before and not back in Genesis 1 : 31.

 

Got it?

[midniterider]

 

....we're limited.

 

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

Someone breaks into your house? Just let the burglar go about his business. We are limited in our perspective. The burglar might actually be doing good.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

**Rolls joint** **lights up***puff puff** **cough cough!!!*** here ya go guys. Pass it round.

 

 

None of them can be morally "good" since they come from a morally dubious god.

 

mwc

**giggles** Dubious. Dubie...lolz

 

Seriously tho, yalls arguments are fantastic, especially FlorDuh and MWC. Outta upvotes to pass out, but y'all are welcome to chill with me and my funny ciggies! I feel like this convo is less productive than me and Contentious Objector chillin in our hammocks, teaching our kids particle physics, and drinking cheap alcohol and smoking our good and evil weed. Lolz

[bornagainathiest]

Originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience:

an innate knowledge of good and evil.

 

Without getting into whether the knowledge base was learned or innate, it appears as though Adam was born with the knowledge of good via the mode of creation. It also appears that the garden had the potential for good and evil to reside together....i.e., the serpent being present and also the tree being in the garden.

 

From my point of view, it seems as though the "image of God" inherent in Adam's human mind gave him an inborn desire/predisposition to lean towards good.

 

Begs the question, "how do we know if we are doing the right thing"

 

Adam was created with only an innate knowledge of good, that much we can agree on, End?

 

But his inborn desire/predisposition cannot cause him to lean towards good and away from evil.

Because his act of leaning, as you describe it, requires him to choose between two things - good and evil.  But he cannot choose because he has no knowledge of the difference between good and evil.  

 

Adam cannot lean away from that he doesn't know or recognize.  

To him, ALL things are good because that's all he can understand.  You are trying to insert the ability to make a choice into Adam before he was able to do so.  Gen 3 : 22 is when God declares he is able to know the difference and make that choice.  

 

Got it now?

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

....we're limited.

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

 

You asked.. Can't help that you are not willing to admit.

 

 

 

Projection noted!

 

The FACT is MM we will never know the beginning nor the end. unless supernaturally. Now you not admitting that is denying that we may form the final opinion about good vs. evil. But I expect this from you.

 

 

 

You are spouting all kinds of nonsense today.  There is no supernaturally.  If you can't support your claims

 

that doesn't mean we are the bad guys for not "admitting" you are right.  I have no clue what you imagine

 

"beginning", "end" or "final opinion" mean to you in this context but based on experience I'm sure it is all 

 

nonsense as well.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

....we're limited.

Yeah, that covers all the bullshit.

 

You asked.. Can't help that you are not willing to admit.

 

 

 

Projection noted!

 

The FACT is MM we will never know the beginning nor the end. unless supernaturally. Now you not admitting that is denying that we may form the final opinion about good vs. evil. But I expect this from you.

 

 

 

You are spouting all kinds of nonsense today.  There is no supernaturally.  If you can't support your claims

 

that doesn't mean we are the bad guys for not "admitting" you are right.  I have no clue what you imagine

 

"beginning", "end" or "final opinion" mean to you in this context but based on experience I'm sure it is all 

 

nonsense as well.

 

This is your standard response......it's all word salad or make believe. Step out on a limb someday and try to contribute or please hush.....your comments add nothing at this point.

[Guest end3]

 

He was human #1. There was no reason culture nor a history of sin should have skewed the innate.

 

In other words, why would he need knowledge?

 

So that when he was presented with two contradictory versions of what would happen if he ate from the forbidden tree

 

Just saying that if they were innately good, then acting contrary to that natural, inborn nature would fit the definition of tempted.

 

But they couldn't act contrary to their innately good nature, End.

 

This is the point you're not getting... or refusing to get.

 

Their innately good nature doesn't allow them to differentiate between good actions and bad actions.  

To them, all of their actions are good... because that's all they know.  To know otherwise (that is, to know their actions were evil) would mean that they had knowledge of the difference of good and evil before they ate from the tree.

 

But God himself says that they didn't acquire that knowledge UNTIL AFTER they ate.

 

Genesis 3 : 22

22 And the [/size]Lord[/size] God said, “The man has now become like one of us,[/size]knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life[/size] and eat, and live forever.”[/size]

 

The man has NOW become like one of us.

 

NOW End...after they ate - not before and not back in Genesis 1 : 31.

 

Got it?

 

Well we're left with deciding if creation was very good or if Adam's innate character pointed him to good or if God wanted humanity to travel this path for a reason......which I have already given my opinion.

[midniterider]

Two potheads write some stories a few thousand years ago. The stories are susequently published and fall into the hands of influential leaders and wham: the bible.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Two potheads write some stories a few thousand years ago. The stories are susequently published and fall into the hands of influential leaders and wham: the bible.

BOOM! Mystery solved! Good goin Midnight!*high five*

[Guest Furball]

Two potheads write some stories a few thousand years ago. The stories are susequently published and fall into the hands of influential leaders and wham: the bible.

 

Actually, it was goat herders. 

[bornagainathiest]

Also saying that Adam's "gut/innate feeling" should have not been effected by a history of sin in the garden.

 

There was no 'history of sin in the garden' until Eve was deceived by Satan.

 

1 Timothy 2 : 14

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

Unless you know otherwise, End?

 

In other words, God trusted Adam to respond as he had made him and there was no need to warn him of sin.

 

Pointless!  

If Adam was innately good (as you suggest) then how would he understand what sin was?

A knowledge of the difference between good and evil is required for an understanding of what sin is. 

And Adam couldn't acquire that knowledge without sinning.

 

Catch 22!

 

With that, there was still exposure to evil in the garden. The fallen world was the result of the function of Adam.

 

No. The fallen world was the result of god creating Adam and Eve as helpless and naive innocents, unable to know when they were being tricked by Satan.

 

Still goes back to "God could have created X". Still seems to me that God opted to create and gave the choice of good vs evil for a distinct reason....that we may "know" Him.

 

Once again, End!

Neither Adam nor Eve could choose between good and evil.  They didn't acquire the knowledge to choose until after they'd been deceived by Satan.  

 

After, not before.  

 

AFTER!     AFTER!!     AFTER!!!

 

Floats my boat when I am able to choose and act on faithfully doing good vs the alternative.

 

That's because you posses (knowledge of the difference between good and evil) that which Adam and Eve didn't have until Satan tricked them.

 

I would rather know that and know that feeling than the other.

[mymistake]

 

This is your standard response......it's all word salad or make believe. Step out on a limb someday and try to contribute or please hush.....your comments add nothing at this point.

 

 

Not allowing you to get away with bullshit is contributing.  However post 252 was an excellent explanation

 

for why nature is what it is rather than what Christians pretend it to be.  I don't see you refuting any of that.

 

Now how have any of your comments contributed positively to this thread?  Confusing the issue is

 

contributing?  Nope.  Using deceptive meanings that you made up yourself is contributing?  Nope.  Making

 

it up as you go along is contributing?  Nope.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Actually, End, Mymistake made amazing arguments. You just either can't refute them or you are refusing to, and therefore must resort to telling him that his arguments are invalid. Just because you say so. I don't think his statements were anywhere near "word salad" as his comments are far more coherent than yours.

[bornagainathiest]

 

This is your standard response......it's all word salad or make believe. Step out on a limb someday and try to contribute or please hush.....your comments add nothing at this point.

 

 

Ok then End, try my comments instead.

 

Read Gen 3 : 22 and tell me when in the narrative Adam acquired the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.

 

Then explain to me how he could have 'leaned towards' either without that knowledge.

 

Then explain to me why 'leaning' isn't making a choice.

 

Go for it!

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

This is your standard response......it's all word salad or make believe. Step out on a limb someday and try to contribute or please hush.....your comments add nothing at this point.

 

Not allowing you to get away with bullshit is contributing. However post 252 was an excellent explanation

 

for why nature is what it is rather than what Christians pretend it to be. I don't see you refuting any of that.

 

Now how have any of your comments contributed positively to this thread? Confusing the issue is

 

contributing? Nope. Using deceptive meanings that you made up yourself is contributing? Nope. Making

 

it up as you go along is contributing? Nope.

End ain't contributing anything positive, to be honest. So far, all he's done is make weak arguments and as soon as they get shot down, he steers the convo back in circles and we keep going round and round and round and nothing to show for it. So to say that Mymistake is making the same arguments over and over and contributing nothing is pretty fucking hilarious, considering that's exactly what you have been doing, End. For a week now.