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

[mwc]

     I disagree that Genesis 1:31 indicates shows that Adam and Eve had an innate "goodness" at all.  If this were the case then all things in the creation, even inanimate objects such as rocks, would have an innate goodness and that's a poor reading of the text.

 

     It makes far more sense to read the text as a sense of quality.  The quality of creation, everything that had been made, as a whole was "very good."  It was of a fine quality.

 

     However, to be fair to everyone and the text, in Genesis 1:26 there is the following:

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

     Here we have man being made in the image of god and in his likeness.  Now the image of god is just what it says.  The image.  Man looks like god.  The likeness of god is more of a simile.  It is something that is similar to god.  Now there is a similar verse in chapter 5:

 

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

² Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

³ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

 

     Here it only mentions that man was created in the likeness of god but we also see that Seth is in the image and likeness of Adam.  These are the same traits (and the same words).  So we could read this as these people as having the same looks and character as those they were modeled on.  So Seth on Adam and Adam upon god.

 

     The thing is, as I have pointed out before, Adam is lacking two essential things.  Immortality and the knowledge of good and evil.  These are specifically noted in the story.  It's not noted that mankind is lacking just the knowledge of evil but both good and evil.  We cannot assume that they possessed one and not the other due to this wording even though they are in the likeness of god.

 

     In fact there is no indication that god is innately good at all.  The Genesis tale does not say "God is good and good alone."  This is being read into the story.  There is no real indication of what traits god possesses here.  So for Adam to have the same character of god we have to go off the story that we are given which is what I have done.  And according to the story we are told that we are like god except for immortality and the knowledge of good and evil (which we come to possess).  That is it.  I don't have to entertain the concept of an innate goodness since it's not present in the story and it's not a fair reading of the text.

 

          mwc

[sdelsolray]

 

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.

 

Speak for yourself, theist.

[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".

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

 

Speak for yourself, theist.

[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.

 

No, it wouldn't.

 

He would still run to the pace set by his innate ability, regardless of how you defined it.

[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.

 

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?

 

Don't know that it's relevant. Very good is what God said. Don't know that it says that they WERE tested prior to that. The function of innate is independent of knowledge. That there eyes were then opened is consistent with, "hey, wow, look at this knowledge".

[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?

 

Don't know that it's relevant. Very good is what God said. Don't know that it says that they WERE tested prior to that. The function of innate is independent of knowledge. That there eyes were then opened is consistent with, "hey, wow, look at this knowledge".

 

 

YES... EXACTLY..!

 

Adam's innate goodness was independent of his knowledge because he had no knowledge of either good or evil.

 

Do you see it now?

 

To understand either, requires knowledge.

 

Knowledge that Adam didn't have until he ate the fruit.

 

So, before he ate he didn't know that he was good, didn't know that god was good and didn't know that Satan was evil.

 

His innate goodness was independent of knowledge.

 

Got it now, End?

[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.

 

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?

 

Don't know that it's relevant. Very good is what God said. Don't know that it says that they WERE tested prior to that. The function of innate is independent of knowledge. That there eyes were then opened is consistent with, "hey, wow, look at this knowledge".

 

 

YES... EXACTLY..!

 

Adam's innate goodness was independent of his knowledge because he had no knowledge of either good or evil.

 

Do you see it now?

 

 

To understand either, requires knowledge.

 

Knowledge that Adam didn't have until he ate the fruit.

 

So, before he ate he didn't know that he was good, didn't know that god was good and didn't know that Satan was evil.

 

His innate goodness was independent of knowledge.

 

Got it now, End?

 

I don't think you understand the definition. I can have an innate quality and knowledge would play no role in the expression of the quality. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I'm not thinking so.

[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?

 

Don't know that it's relevant. Very good is what God said. Don't know that it says that they WERE tested prior to that. The function of innate is independent of knowledge. That there eyes were then opened is consistent with, "hey, wow, look at this knowledge".

 

 

YES... EXACTLY..!

 

Adam's innate goodness was independent of his knowledge because he had no knowledge of either good or evil.

 

Do you see it now?

 

 

To understand either, requires knowledge.

 

Knowledge that Adam didn't have until he ate the fruit.

 

So, before he ate he didn't know that he was good, didn't know that god was good and didn't know that Satan was evil.

 

His innate goodness was independent of knowledge.

 

Got it now, End?

 

I don't think you understand the definition. I can have an innate quality and knowledge would play no role in the expression of the quality. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I'm not thinking so.

 

 

Exactly my point.  You're almost there, End.

 

Adam was innately good and he had no knowledge of good or evil to interfere with his expression of his innate goodness.   His goodness was a natural condition of his creation, unsullied by any knowledge of good or evil.  That knowledge didn't arrive until he ate the fruit.  Before then he was a knowledge-free zone.  His innate goodness existed independently of knowledge.

 

So, lacking knowledge about himself, lacking knowledge of good and lacking knowledge of evil, how could he recognize good or evil?

 

True innocence!

[bornagainathiest]

Try this, End.

 

Recognition requires knowledge.  Where there is no knowledge, there can be no recognition.

 

Since Adam's goodness was independent of his knowledge, he couldn't have used his innate goodness to recognize either good or evil.

 

Catch?

[bornagainathiest]

Dayum!

 

Gotta run.  

 

Just when things were getting interesting, too.

 

Catch you later, End.

[mymistake]

 

I don't think you understand the definition. I can have an innate quality and knowledge would play no role in the expression of the quality. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I'm not thinking so.

 

 

 

What would it take for you to think that you are wrong?  I think that is a fair question.

[Guest end3]

Try this, End.

 

Recognition requires knowledge.  Where there is no knowledge, there can be no recognition.

 

Since Adam's goodness was independent of his knowledge, he couldn't have used his innate goodness to recognize either good or evil.

 

Catch?

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

[Fweethawt]

I've seen diamonds less dense...

[bornagainathiest]

 

Try this, End.

 

Recognition requires knowledge.  Where there is no knowledge, there can be no recognition.

 

Since Adam's goodness was independent of his knowledge, he couldn't have used his innate goodness to recognize either good or evil.

 

Catch?

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

 

 

And what kind of test was this?

 

One that didn't require Adam to make a conscious, deliberate and considered choice of recognition between two different things?

 

And if recognition played no role in God's test, why did he specifically warn Adam about just one tree?

 

Why did he give Adam the knowledge of which tree it was by identifying it for him?

 

And what was it about the fruit of that tree that God declared made Adam just like God?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Try this, End.

 

Recognition requires knowledge.  Where there is no knowledge, there can be no recognition.

 

Since Adam's goodness was independent of his knowledge, he couldn't have used his innate goodness to recognize either good or evil.

 

Catch?

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

 

But the piano player (Adam) will have no knowledge of the quality of their talent (good or evil) unless someone who has knowledge of quality (God or Satan) tells them so.

 

Without someone else to judge the quality of their playing, they cannot understand if it is good or bad.

 

They are innocent of any knowledge of the quality of their piano playing.

 

And this is in spite of any innate talent they may have.

 

Not because of it.

[mwc]

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

     Test?  What's the test?

 

     According to you they were innately good.  They could only perform in a good fashion.  The test could only return positive, or good, results.  The innate quality.

 

     God can't suddenly jump in and tell them they failed the so-called test because they *should have known* their choice was the wrong choice.  That was yet to come.  The actual knowing.

 

     What I'm saying is, based on this, the innate choice, the good choice, was to eat the fruit.  The good choice was to also not eat the fruit.  Any choice Adam and Eve made was innately good.  It couldn't be any other way.  They had no innate evil or non-goodness.  They could not act innately evil on any level.  It wasn't their nature.

 

     So when presented with a totally good choice, not eating the fruit (obeying good), and a totally evil choice, eating the fruit (obeying evil) then they should have been unable to eat the fruit even if they had wanted to do so because the had no innate ability to do evil.  But they ate the fruit.  This must have been an innately good choice or they had the innate ability to do evil as well as good.

 

     Being tricked is not an excuse for doing something you cannot innately do.  I cannot innately fly by flapping my arms.  I cannot reads minds.  I cannot be tricked into doing these things.  I cannot gain any sort of knowledge that will override this lack of these innate abilities.  Perhaps a magic tree might help but short of that.

 

          mwc

[duderonomy]

 

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

 

E3, why do you think it is that A&E's innate goodness didn't show itself when they were tempted?  Was there a flaw somewhere?

[Guest end3]

So when presented with a totally good choice, not eating the fruit (obeying good), and a totally evil choice, eating the fruit (obeying evil) then they should have been unable to eat the fruit even if they had wanted to do so because the had no innate ability to do evil.  But they ate the fruit.  This must have been an innately good choice or they had the innate ability to do evil as well as good.

 

          mwc

The way I see it is yes, they acted contrary to their innate ability.

 

I don't know that if I am innately inclined in some aspect that this removes my ability to choose otherwise.....but I can envision that question.

[Guest end3]

 

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

E3, why do you think it is that A&E's innate goodness didn't show itself when they were tempted?  Was there a flaw somewhere?

 

Eve wanted more apparently....not satisfied with what she had. (lol, she was a feminist).

[duderonomy]

 

 

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

E3, why do you think it is that A&E's innate goodness didn't show itself when they were tempted?  Was there a flaw somewhere?

 

Eve wanted more apparently....not satisfied with what she had. (lol, she was a feminist).

 

Can't answer, huh? 

[mymistake]

 

The way I see it is yes, they acted contrary to their innate ability.

 

I don't know that if I am innately inclined in some aspect that this removes my ability to choose otherwise.....but I can envision that question.

 

 

What does that even mean?  What acts contrary to their innate ability?

 

 

 

Eve wanted more apparently....not satisfied with what she had. (lol, she was a feminist).

 

So you are just bullshitting us.  I was starting to worry for your sanity.

[ConscientiousObjector]

Poor E3, he is like the Energizer bunny with a broken wheel: he keeps going and going and going, but always in circles!

 

Fun fact: in the Navy, an E-3 is also known as a seaman (semen). Apropos?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Recognition has nothing to do with this. He didn't need to recognize anything. When he or she was tested, then the innate should have shown itself. It didn't matter that they were innocent. If I asked a person to play a piano, then innate piano talent will show regardless of whether they had previous piano lessons.

 

E3, why do you think it is that A&E's innate goodness didn't show itself when they were tempted?  Was there a flaw somewhere?

 

Eve wanted more apparently....not satisfied with what she had. (lol, she was a feminist).

 

Can't answer, huh?

 

Why don't you suggest what you are wanting me to get....obviously my opinion was not yours. Hard to communicate with someone who has your agenda.

[Guest end3]

What does that even mean?  What acts contrary to their innate ability?

What are humans Alex?

[florduh]

God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternally unchanging and of course, good. Believers have assigned these qualities to their god; they are not derived from his actions, they are not arrived at by logic. In fact logic and the written record must be dismissed with the phrase, "We don't have his perspective, his ways are not our ways."

 

Allow me to explain this for my buddy, end3.

 

If you were driving a car and suddenly the fries were found to be cold, is that an example? When fishing for trout and your shoes wear out, can you simply chalk it up to the oranges? I say NO! Music can fire your hunger and sand is always available, but never unlimited. A computer can fry bacon perfectly, but it takes real freedom to wrestle in mud with butterflies. Is that clear now?