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

[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 [/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.

 

 

No.  There's nothing to decide.

 

It doesn't matter if Adam was innately good or innately evil.  In either case he'd have lacked knowledge of the difference between the two.  

 

The words 'pointed him to' imply a decision he was incapable of making until after he ate the fruit.

 

Use any words you like or cut it any way you want End - you still can't get past what the text itself says.

 

Neither Adam nor Eve possessed the knowledge of the difference between good and evil until after they'd been tricked by Satan.

[midniterider]

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.

 

 

So God said don't eat from the tree....but he really sorta wanted them to eat from the tree. 

[Fweethawt]

 

 

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.

This is how most all of the debates/arguments go when End3 is involved. Then when the legitimate arguments and points pile up, he'll disappear for a while until he thinks everybody forgot that he talks in endless, meaningless circles.

 

Then he returns and BAA will remind him of his willful hypocracy -- then End ignores BAA -- and then it starts all over again.

 

Wash, rinse and repeat...

[Guest Furball]

Shit, i couldn't upvote that last post because of the mod status. Here you get this instead for posting the truth. 

 

 

 

                                                 

[Thackerie]

Wow. The replies to this thread are absolutely brilliant! Every time I think of a question or rebuttal for end, someone beats me to the punch, and does so more eloquently than I could ever dream. I'm starting to feel somewhat intellecually intimidated by you guys, yet enjoying every minute of it. This site is awesome! Could we contact webmdave and vote for more votes? After reading all this, even 50 upvotes would be insufficient.

 

I second that. I always regret having used up all my upvotes when I encounter a great comment on here -- and that happens several times every day!

[midniterider]

I like the warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the Invisible Pink Unicorn approves of my actions.

[Guest end3]

I'm here, quit your celebrating.

 

Innate. Let's suppose Adam has innate goodness. If this is the case, then when tested for said goodness, the innate should be apparent imo.

 

Y'all haven't sufficiently proved to me that knowledge was necessary. Please note the last part of the definition: RATHER THAN LEARNED THROUGH EXPERIENCE.

 

Innate:

 

3.

 

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

[sdelsolray]

Define "goodness", as it applies to homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., not as to ants or bees).  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".  

[Guest end3]

Define "goodness".  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".

Not sure it matters. Define away if you wish. Point being, if I'm looking at the eye of the Mona Lisa, I never would know if she's smiling or not. All we have for goodness is our frame of reference or some defined reference point....in this case, the Bible.

[Guest end3]

Define "goodness", as it applies to homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., not as to ants or bees).  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".

We can make a case for humanity screwing up "goodness" by NOT understanding the definition.

[mymistake]

 

Define "goodness", as it applies to homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., not as to ants or bees).  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".

We can make a case for humanity screwing up "goodness" by NOT understanding the definition.

 

 

 

I would love to see you try.

[mymistake]

I'm here, quit your celebrating.

 

Innate. Let's suppose Adam has innate goodness. If this is the case, then when tested for said goodness, the innate should be apparent imo.

 

Y'all haven't sufficiently proved to me that knowledge was necessary. 

 

 

I'm sorry that we could not prove to you that the imaginary man needed something in the made up story.

[bornagainathiest]

Just to reiterate the salient point of this thread...

 

If Adam was innately good (as indicated by Genesis 1 : 31), then this was his created condition and it's simply wrong to suggest that he could choose to be, to know or to recognize anything else. Therefore, when confronted by a choice between good and evil, he would be unable to choose.  Both options would seem equally good to him - because goodness was all that he knew and all that he was.  Evil was totally outside his experience and totally inconceivable to him.  

 

As a complete innocent, Adam simply lacked the ability to see any difference between good and evil.  

That is what innocence means.  Innocence doesn't mean having the ability to recognize evil.  Nor does it mean having the ability to choose good over evil.  A true innocent lacks the ability to recognize and therefore to choose.  Recognition requires knowledge.  Choice also requires knowledge.  Adam didn't acquire the necessary knowledge to do either until Genesis 3 : 7 - by which time it was too late.

 

Goodness cannot choose good over evil unless it can recognize the difference between the two.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

Just to reiterate the salient point of this thread...

 

If Adam was innately good (as indicated by Genesis 1 : 31), then this was his created condition and it's simply wrong to suggest that he could choose to be, to know or to recognize anything else. Therefore, when confronted by a choice between good and evil, he would be unable to choose.  Both options would seem equally good to him - because goodness was all that he knew and all that he was.  Evil was totally outside his experience and totally inconceivable to him.  

 

As a complete innocent, Adam simply lacked the ability to see any difference between good and evil.  

That is what innocence means.  Innocence doesn't mean having the ability to recognize evil.  Nor does it mean having the ability to choose good over evil.  A true innocent lacks the ability to recognize and therefore to choose.  Recognition requires knowledge.  Choice also requires knowledge.  Adam didn't acquire the necessary knowledge to do either until Genesis 3 : 7 - by which time it was too late.

 

Goodness cannot choose good over evil unless it can recognize the difference between the two.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

horse hockey, you are ignoring the definition

[bornagainathiest]

 

Just to reiterate the salient point of this thread...

 

If Adam was innately good (as indicated by Genesis 1 : 31), then this was his created condition and it's simply wrong to suggest that he could choose to be, to know or to recognize anything else. Therefore, when confronted by a choice between good and evil, he would be unable to choose.  Both options would seem equally good to him - because goodness was all that he knew and all that he was.  Evil was totally outside his experience and totally inconceivable to him.  

 

As a complete innocent, Adam simply lacked the ability to see any difference between good and evil.  

That is what innocence means.  Innocence doesn't mean having the ability to recognize evil.  Nor does it mean having the ability to choose good over evil.  A true innocent lacks the ability to recognize and therefore to choose.  Recognition requires knowledge.  Choice also requires knowledge.  Adam didn't acquire the necessary knowledge to do either until Genesis 3 : 7 - by which time it was too late.

 

Goodness cannot choose good over evil unless it can recognize the difference between the two.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

horse hockey, you are ignoring the definition

 

 

No.  

 

If Adam is described as being innately good, then that's all he is and all he knows.

 

Asking him to choose between what he knows (good) and what he doesn't know (evil) is... pointless!

[bornagainathiest]

I'm here, quit your celebrating.

 

Innate. Let's suppose Adam has innate goodness. If this is the case, then when tested for said goodness, the innate should be apparent imo.

 

Y'all haven't sufficiently proved to me that knowledge was necessary. Please note the last part of the definition: RATHER THAN LEARNED THROUGH EXPERIENCE.

 

Innate:

 

3.

 

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

 

Q.

Does Adam test positive for goodness?

 

A.

Yes.

.

.

.

So what?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Define "goodness".  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".

Not sure it matters. Define away if you wish. Point being, if I'm looking at the eye of the Mona Lisa, I never would know if she's smiling or not. All we have for goodness is our frame of reference or some defined reference point....in this case, the Bible.

 

 

Adam didn't have any other reference point than the innate goodness God gave him.

 

Using only that frame of reference, how could recognize anything outside of it?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Define "goodness", as it applies to homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., not as to ants or bees).  I suspect the definition can dovetail quite nicely into current biological evolutionary theory concerning why a population of social animals, such as homo sapiens sapiens, would tend to have some form/aspects of "goodness" imbedded in their genome, which would make it "innate goodness".

We can make a case for humanity screwing up "goodness" by NOT understanding the definition.

 

 

Adam couldn't have understood that he was good.  Nor could Eve.

 

God (who knows the difference between good and evil) and Satan (who was good, but who turned to evil) could see what was good.

 

But when do Adam and Eve first recognize the difference?  Genesis 3 : 7

 

And how do they first do it?   Knowledge.

[Guest end3]

Rant and rave all you want BAA...it's not going to change. When tested, the innate should have come out. If I take a man to the track and ask him to run a race, his innate ability comes out.

 

I could explain to him fast and slow, but then that would violate the definition.

[mymistake]

 If I take a man to the track and ask him to run a race, his innate ability comes out.

 

 

 

Exactly.  And if an imaginary man, in a made up story, runs as fast as he can in a race and his best speed is

 

slow that tells you something about his innate ability in the story.  Because even fictitious characters have

 

traits.

[Guest end3]

 

If I take a man to the track and ask him to run a race, his innate ability comes out.

 

 

Exactly.  And if an imaginary man, in a made up story, runs as fast as he can in a race and his best speed is

 

slow that tells you something about his innate ability in the story.  Because even fictitious characters have

 

traits.

 

How many times have I told you that when you run out of argument then you revert to, "it's all imaginary anyhow". Like I said before, you are contributing nothing at this point.

[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"

 

The tree in question End is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It's not the tree of good.  Nor is it the tree of evil.  Nor is it the tree of both.  It's the tree of knowledge about these two different things.  Knowledge.  That's all.  There's no innate evil in the tree.

.

.

.

The garden's potential for evil to reside in it wasn't realized until Genesis 3 : 1.

So it's just a mistake to state or even imply that evil was present before then.  Adam had no experience of evil up until then.  And the unrealized potential of evil can't be counted as the actual presence of the thing itself, before it arrived.

 

That's like saying Adam was good before God created him!

[bornagainathiest]

Rant and rave all you want BAA...it's not going to change. When tested, the innate should have come out. If I take a man to the track and ask him to run a race, his innate ability comes out.

 

I could explain to him fast and slow, but then that would violate the definition.

 

I'm not ranting or raving about anything.

 

But I am interested to know how Adam was tested, before Genesis 3 : 7.

 

Care to explain?

[mymistake]

 

 

If I take a man to the track and ask him to run a race, his innate ability comes out.

 

 

Exactly.  And if an imaginary man, in a made up story, runs as fast as he can in a race and his best speed is

 

slow that tells you something about his innate ability in the story.  Because even fictitious characters have

 

traits.

 

How many times have I told you that when you run out of argument then you revert to, "it's all imaginary anyhow". 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter to me how many times you repeat a lie.

 

I could produce arguments all day long.  You choose to ignore all of them.  You may have not noticed

 

but there was an argument right there in the post you quoted.

 

 

illustrative example  => conclusion

 

The example was a character who ran a race in a story

 

The conclusion was that fictitious character have traits.

 

This contributes to the conversation by pointing out what you have been missing about the concept "innate".

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... and if you could explain how an innately good person, with no experience of evil, could tell good from evil, please do so End.