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

[duderonomy]

 

 

Busy day...but looking at Jesus, we can see Jesus being tempted. Jesus being the human image of God, we may assume that humans were capable of being tempted in the Garden. So it appears that Eve had the innate quality of being tempted.

E3, please quit being so slippery and slimy.  Have you enrolled in the Ironhorse School of Apologetics or something? 

Answer BAA's question in #112.  

 

Then we can get back to Eve. Not that Eve really matters anyway, because your Bible actually says sin entered the world through Adam. If you'd quit subjectively pondering what you think it all means and actually read your Bible as it is-not as you want it to be or how you've been told it is-you might learn something.  

Really, I encourage you to study the Bible for yourself and on your own.  It's a real eye opener.

 

Just trying to answer the questions.

 

Eve and Jesus speak to whether God may be tempted. If God may be tempted and choose good over evil, then Eve had the power to choose as well. We are currently working on Eve's qualities because of Y'ALLS questions. Since you have looked at the Bible more frequently than I have here lately, I invite you to provide the verses that say God may not be tempted.

 

And after this, we may talk about God's subject take on "good" vs. ours.

 

Going to be gone for most of the rest of the day....carry on.

 

 

End3 is "Just trying to answer the questions"...except BAA's simple question in #112, which could be answered with just one word. "Literal" or "Metaphorical". 

 

Look E3, you were asked a question that pertains to everything we have been talking about, and look! It even involves Jesus! But you won't give a simple one word answer? 

[duderonomy]

Also, since you don't seem to have me on ignore yet, End, here it is.

 

Hey sylens!

 

Since End's not talking to me, can you get him to commit one way or the other one that Hebrew word, Chamad.

 

Is he reading Chamad literally, as Jesus would have?

With a literal Genesis narrative going against logic and reason and all the scientific, cultural and historical evidence?

 

Or is he reading Chamad metaphorically, against the intent of Jesus?

With A & E, the Tree, the Snake and sin all being metaphors and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross being a metaphorical too?

 

If he refuses to commit, then that's exactly what you described....Cognitive dissonance. 

He's (dishonestly) separating two conflicting realities and trying to live in both. 

His reasoning mind is at war with his unreasoning faith.

.

.

.

So will you ask him to commit please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

there's an underlying theological paradox in this story that many of us have been addressing and E3 keeps glossing over. Look at Genesis 3:4... 

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.” 

 

 

This implies that Adam and Eve did NOT know the abstract concepts of "good" and "evil" yet. It wasn't until they actually ate the fruit that their eyes were opened. look at verse 22:

 

 

 

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,knowing good and evil."

 

 One thing I would like to point out is that the serpent was the one who actually told the truth in this story. He said that they wouldn't die. They didnt'. He said their "eyes would be opened". They were. He said that they would know good and evil. They did. Now, the serpent was a dick, because he knew he was getting these people in trouble with God. But GOD IS THE ASSHOLE, because he just put this tree here that he knew they were not supposed to eat, and he gave them instructions NOT TO EAT IT, knowing full well that they did not yet know "good" and "evil", and then punished them for it.

 

My question is this:

 

If Adam and Eve did not yet know "good" and "evil" (right and wrong absolutely fall under these two categories), then how were they supposed to know that their disobedience was "wrong" or "evil" to begin with? How can God possibly fault them for that?

[mwc]

     That's the point.

 

     Disobeying god is wrong.  It's "evil" so they're punished.  But it can't be wrong to Adam and Eve since they can't possible know it's wrong without eating the fruit to gain the knowledge to make this discovery.  Since this is a problem then other courses of action have to be taken.

 

     We've seen the "temptation" course.  Eve was tempted.  But if temptation alone is the problem then Jesus is in big trouble.  So that's not it.  So giving into temptation is the solution.  Not that they disobeyed but that she was tempted and gave into that temptation.  But how could she know that was evil?  She couldn't.  Not without eating the fruit.

 

     Nothing is evil without first eating the fruit.  Not a single thing.

 

     Until then you just have things being said.  God says things.  Maybe they are good and maybe they are evil.  Adam and Eve cannot possible know.  They don't have the ability to know.  The serpent says things.  Maybe they are good and maybe they are evil.  Again, Adam and Eve cannot possibly know.  Anything that Adam and Eve are told by anyone (or anything) are neither good nor evil to them since they simply do not have the ability to discern good from evil prior to eating the fruit.

 

     This is like laying out several colors before someone who is blind and telling them to choose a particular one.  You know which color is which but they will simply have to point and hope they are pointing correctly.  It's just a guess.  They don't have this ability.  It doesn't exist in them.  If they later gain sight and you then punish them because they chose incorrectly you are in the wrong and their desire to gain sight is in no way right or wrong either.  This is a twisted game that is being described in the garden.

 

          mwc

[Travi]

there's an underlying theological paradox in this story that many of us have been addressing and E3 keeps glossing over. Look at Genesis 3:4... 

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.” 

 

 

This implies that Adam and Eve did NOT know the abstract concepts of "good" and "evil" yet. It wasn't until they actually ate the fruit that their eyes were opened. look at verse 22:

 

 

 

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,knowing good and evil."

 

 One thing I would like to point out is that the serpent was the one who actually told the truth in this story. He said that they wouldn't die. They didnt'. He said their "eyes would be opened". They were. He said that they would know good and evil. They did. Now, the serpent was a dick, because he knew he was getting these people in trouble with God. But GOD IS THE ASSHOLE, because he just put this tree here that he knew they were not supposed to eat, and he gave them instructions NOT TO EAT IT, knowing full well that they did not yet know "good" and "evil", and then punished them for it.

 

My question is this:

 

If Adam and Eve did not yet know "good" and "evil" (right and wrong absolutely fall under these two categories), then how were they supposed to know that their disobedience was "wrong" or "evil" to begin with? How can God possibly fault them for that?

Answer: He can't. If such a fairy tale ever occurred, it's akin to someone finding out they screwed up royally and decides that instead of accepting the blame for his mistake, he'll push it on someone else. Remember, God is omniscient, omnipotent etc etc blah blah blah - so he foresaw all this happening. Just like when he created Satan/Lucifer/Talking Snake, he knew said creature would tempt Adam and Eve. What's a good story when you can't blame the bad guys for what happened? I've read several ex theology professors hypothesize that Lucifer is actually the good guy in the Bible stories, an anti-hero if you would. He knew God's BS, and tried to warn humanity about what happens to people who blindly follow without thinking for themselves.

 

But there needs to be an "original sin" for their concept of control to work, and keep the money following and the BS knee deep with being born into sin, and threatening with eternal damnation because you don't believe in God.

[bornagainathiest]

These threads might be of interest to you, Sylens!

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61193-god-is-a-liar/#.VXDG-89VhHw

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/#.VXDH089VhHx

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64305-gods-secret-law-in-eden/#.VXDGb89VhHw

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Exactly, MWC. That's what makes it a theological paradox. It wasn't evil until the fruit was eaten, and because the fruit was eaten, it was evil. There was not yet any concept of right and wrong in the minds of Adam and Eve, so how could they know that giving in to temptation was wrong? How was it "right" to punish them for it afterward? How can anyone not see that the two innocent humans in the story were victims of two supernatural pricks who were obviously fucking with them for their entertainment?

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Thanks BAA!!!

[mwc]

Exactly, MWC. That's what makes it a theological paradox. It wasn't evil until the fruit was eaten, and because the fruit was eaten, it was evil. There was not yet any concept of right and wrong in the minds of Adam and Eve, so how could they know that giving in to temptation was wrong? How was it "right" to punish them for it afterward? How can anyone not see that the two innocent humans in the story were victims of two supernatural pricks who were obviously fucking with them for their entertainment?

     Well, whether it was evil or wasn't evil depending on your point of view.

 

     We're basically given a forced perspective.  One that favors that of god or at least a person after the fact.  One that knows right from wrong (on some level).  One that would know that if the one true god personally tells you to not eat the fruit that you simply do not eat the fruit or suffer the known consequences of your actions (since not obeying god always has consequences).  It just makes sense.

 

     Once you alter your perspective to that of Adam or Eve in the same situation you begin to realize that you have no idea what good or evil is.  These things hold no meaning to you at least until after you eat the fruit (and never if you don't eat the fruit).  Things that are said aren't obvious.  The people who say them are equals.  They're not better or worse than one another.  They can't be.  Your world isn't in color.  It's not even shades of gray.  It's just one shade of whatever.  Everything is morally identical.

 

     Since the serpent as the devil is a xian thing there was only one supernatural prick in the garden.  The snake was just a snake (although it had legs and could talk...okay it wasn't just a snake But it wasn't the devil).

 

     God was the only one at the time that knew what was "evil" since it was his tree and I can only imagine that he magically embedded the knowledge into the tree.  Knowledge he possessed.  If god alone was good then he'd only know of good things and the evil aspect would be lacking entirely but he's aware of evil.  He knows what it is.  He placed it in a tree and made it good to eat.  And he got mad once we had this information.  It was evil for us to know what he knew.  Maybe it was evil for us to understand that god wasn't all good?  The crime was destroying the illusion.

 

          mwc

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

 

 

     It was evil for us to know what he knew.  Maybe it was evil for us to understand that god wasn't all good?  The crime was destroying the illusion.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

Holy fuck that gave me chills. GREAT ANSWER. all of it. I just had to quote that last thought because that is really AWESOME! Travi's answer was good too.

 

 

there's an underlying theological paradox in this story that many of us have been addressing and E3 keeps glossing over. Look at Genesis 3:4... [/size]

 

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.[/size] [/size] “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.” [/size]

 

This implies that Adam and Eve did NOT know the abstract concepts of "good" and "evil" yet. It wasn't until they actually ate the fruit that their eyes were opened. look at verse 22:

 

 

 

 

And the [/size]Lord[/size] God said, “The man has now become like one of us,[/size]knowing good and evil."[/size]

 

 One thing I would like to point out is that the serpent was the one who actually told the truth in this story. He said that they wouldn't die. They didnt'. He said their "eyes would be opened". They were. He said that they would know good and evil. They did. Now, the serpent was a dick, because he knew he was getting these people in trouble with God. But GOD IS THE ASSHOLE, because he just put this tree here that he knew they were not supposed to eat, and he gave them instructions NOT TO EAT IT, knowing full well that they did not yet know "good" and "evil", and then punished them for it.

 

My question is this:

 

If Adam and Eve did not yet know "good" and "evil" (right and wrong absolutely fall under these two categories), then how were they supposed to know that their disobedience was "wrong" or "evil" to begin with? How can God possibly fault them for that?

Answer: He can't. If such a fairy tale ever occurred, it's akin to someone finding out they screwed up royally and decides that instead of accepting the blame for his mistake, he'll push it on someone else. Remember, God is omniscient, omnipotent etc etc blah blah blah - so he foresaw all this happening. Just like when he created Satan/Lucifer/Talking Snake, he knew said creature would tempt Adam and Eve. What's a good story when you can't blame the bad guys for what happened? I've read several ex theology professors hypothesize that Lucifer is actually the good guy in the Bible stories, an anti-hero if you would. He knew God's BS, and tried to warn humanity about what happens to people who blindly follow without thinking for themselves.

 

But there needs to be an "original sin" for their concept of control to work, and keep the money following and the BS knee deep with being born into sin, and threatening with eternal damnation because you don't believe in God.

 

I whole heartedly agree with this and its what inspired me to draw the parallel in my op to begin with. These are all very good discussion points. Very good indeed.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

Dammit my phone keeps fucking up the JavaScript for the quotes. Shit. And I can't edit yet. *sigh* oh well. Guess I'll just keep looking like a dumbass till I become a patron on the site and unlock basic features, like editing and deleting posts, and more than ten upvotes a day

[mwc]

Dammit my phone keeps fucking up the JavaScript for the quotes. Shit. And I can't edit yet. *sigh* oh well. Guess I'll just keep looking like a dumbass till I become a patron on the site and unlock basic features, like editing and deleting posts, and more than ten upvotes a day

     You have 70 posts and edits should come at 25.  You sure you don't have a little edit button (down around the little Report/MultiQuote/Quote cluster)?  I have it and don't pay anything (right between report and multiquote).  It doesn't stick around on your posts forever.  Only newer ones (I forget how long...less than a day I think).

 

          mwc

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

Dammit my phone keeps fucking up the JavaScript for the quotes. Shit. And I can't edit yet. *sigh* oh well. Guess I'll just keep looking like a dumbass till I become a patron on the site and unlock basic features, like editing and deleting posts, and more than ten upvotes a day

 

     You have 70 posts and edits should come at 25.  You sure you don't have a little edit button (down around the little Report/MultiQuote/Quote cluster)?  I have it and don't pay anything (right between report and multiquote).  It doesn't stick around on your posts forever.  Only newer ones (I forget how long...less than a day I think).

 

          mwc

I do, but its greyed out and doesn't let me click it with a mouse or press it like a button on mobile version. Perhaps I'm having a browser issue? Maybe the site isn't communicating with my web browser properly?

[midniterider]

Exactly, MWC. That's what makes it a theological paradox. It wasn't evil until the fruit was eaten, and because the fruit was eaten, it was evil. There was not yet any concept of right and wrong in the minds of Adam and Eve, so how could they know that giving in to temptation was wrong? How was it "right" to punish them for it afterward? How can anyone not see that the two innocent humans in the story were victims of two supernatural pricks who were obviously fucking with them for their entertainment?

 

A Christian can answer these questions in a concise manner by pointing out that Eve may have had straight hair, pig tails or a pony tail. Have you considered these possibilities? We can only speculate what the hair style of the first woman on earth might have worn. Let's also ponder the letter "W." 

[mwc]

I do, but its greyed out and doesn't let me click it with a mouse or press it like a button on mobile version. Perhaps I'm having a browser issue? Maybe the site isn't communicating with my web browser properly?

 

     Yeah, try another browser or maybe clear the cache or something because it sounds like it should work.  For me it behaves like the report button more than the quote button (in that it seems greyed out until you go to use it).  If you can't edit it just doesn't appear.

 

          mwc

[mwc]

A Christian can answer these questions in a concise manner by pointing out that Eve may have had straight hair, pig tails or a pony tail. Have you considered these possibilities? We can only speculate what the hair style of the first woman on earth might have worn. Let's also ponder the letter "W." 

 

     To begin let us look up the Hebrew for "W" and then we should do a letter study.  Only then can we start to work backwards through the other letters which will allow us to discover what [H]air styles may have been [W]orn at the time.

 

     With any luck this will take more time than people have an interest in this topic.  In which case whatever I believe to be the answer will be, in fact, the answer.

 

          mwc

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

I do, but its greyed out and doesn't let me click it with a mouse or press it like a button on mobile version. Perhaps I'm having a browser issue? Maybe the site isn't communicating with my web browser properly?

 

     Yeah, try another browser or maybe clear the cache or something because it sounds like it should work.  For me it behaves like the report button more than the quote button (in that it seems greyed out until you go to use it).  If you can't edit it just doesn't appear.

 

          mwc

Okay cool. It works. At least on my mobile. I reset my phone. Good shit. Thanks MWC

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

A Christian can answer these questions in a concise manner by pointing out that Eve may have had straight hair, pig tails or a pony tail. Have you considered these possibilities? We can only speculate what the hair style of the first woman on earth might have worn. Let's also ponder the letter "W."

 

     To begin let us look up the Hebrew for "W" and then we should do a letter study.  Only then can we start to work backwards through the other letters which will allow us to discover what [H]air styles may have been [W]orn at the time.

 

     With any luck this will take more time than people have an interest in this topic.  In which case whatever I believe to be the answer will be, in fact, the answer.

 

          mwc

But, my dear brothers, we can't truly understand "W" in that context, until we bring out an exhaustive concordinance, AND a Hebrew parallel, plus we must mine for quotes from theologians of the early 19th century. Only then, can we truly make an informed decision about Eve's hair and of you still disagree with me at the end of this study, you are a heretic, and an insufferable sinner and you can just piss off and burn in hell.

[Guest end3]

 

 

A Christian can answer these questions in a concise manner by pointing out that Eve may have had straight hair, pig tails or a pony tail. Have you considered these possibilities? We can only speculate what the hair style of the first woman on earth might have worn. Let's also ponder the letter "W."

     To begin let us look up the Hebrew for "W" and then we should do a letter study.  Only then can we start to work backwards through the other letters which will allow us to discover what [H]air styles may have been [W]orn at the time.

 

     With any luck this will take more time than people have an interest in this topic.  In which case whatever I believe to be the answer will be, in fact, the answer.

 

          mwc

 

But, my dear brothers, we can't truly understand "W" in that context, until we bring out an exhaustive concordinance, AND a Hebrew parallel, plus we must mine for quotes from theologians of the early 19th century. Only then, can we truly make an informed decision about Eve's hair and of you still disagree with me at the end of this study, you are a heretic, and an insufferable sinner and you can just piss off and burn in hell.

 

Then you are guilty of what you accuse Christians of....forming an opinion without data. Y'all ALL decided Adam and Eve were naïve toddlers within a myth. Can you say Christian???????

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

E3, just give up. Just go read your holy book. We know it better than you, and it's obvious we do. You DONT have a leg to stand on in this argument.

 

Now go away, before I taunt you a second time! 3:)

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

I DONT want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! Your mother was a hampster, and your father smelt of elderberries!

[Guest end3]

E3, just give up. Just go read your holy book. We know it better than you, and it's obvious we do. You DONT have a leg to stand on in this argument.

 

Now go away, before I taunt you a second time! 3:)

Doesn't much change what you have accomplished here. We will all know one day. Better hope you assumed right.

[mymistake]

Then you are guilty of what you accuse Christians of....forming an opinion without data. Y'all ALL decided Adam and Eve were naïve toddlers within a myth. Can you say Christian???????

 

 

Uh no.  I could explain it to you again but you didn't understand all the other times I explained it to you so

 

what is the point?

 

 

 

Doesn't much change what you have accomplished here.

 

 

You mean she made you look foolish?  That isn't much of an accomplishment.  You sort of do it to yourself.

 

 

 

Edit:  I should have dealt with the P's wager directly.

 

 

 We will all know one day. Better hope you assumed right.

 

 

But we don't assume.  We follow the evidence.  You are projecting here.  You are the one who assumed.  

 

You are the one who better hope your assumed right because otherwise you wasted your whole life and will 

 

get no reward for all you sacrificed.  That pain and anguish you put yourself though every day, that feeling

 

that none of it makes sense so there must be something wrong with your mind - that is the price you pay

 

so that you might win the lottery in the next life, if a next life even exists.  You are the gambler and you try

 

not to think of the risk.

[ConscientiousObjector]

Lol, a silly argument calls for silly Monty Python quotes! I don't think any of these questions have been answered by end. Circular reasoning and talking in circles finally devolved into a downward spiral. Gotta hand it to him, he tried.

 

Gotta love the bible. Shakespeare himself couldn't write a more tragic comedy!

[Guest end3]

Was Eve acting out of line?

 

     Genesis 2

     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.

 

     Genesis 3

     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.

 

     Hmmm.  The only thing that's added in the latter verse is "desirable for gaining wisdom" but otherwise it seems nothing new is going on with Eve that wasn't going on before the old serpent showed up on the scene.  Actually before anyone showed up on the scene.  Somehow the person who wrote this knew the trees were pleasing to the eye having never witnessed a thing since Adam gets placed in the garden after v2:9 so it makes what is said in v3:6 a tad suspect (in that this would be the author projecting not something we might expect of Eve).  Anyhow we can remove "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye" as unique to Eve.  These are just how things were.

 

     So now it's more like "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was ... 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" or perhaps "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was no different from the other trees of the garden, in that it was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and was 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."

 

     A tad wordy but I wanted to get the point across.  Now Eve doesn't look like someone who was tempted into doing some horrible deed.  She looks like someone, who given new information, decided to make the logical choice.  Here was a fruit that was no different than all the rest, except, it offered wisdom/insight as a bonus.

 

     There are two identical people.  One says if you eat this you will die.  The other says eat this and you will gain wisdom.  That's it.  Because you don't have the ability, yet, to know good from bad and vice-versa.  So you can choose to never eat out of fear of death (something you probably also don't know/understand given the situation).  Or  you eat the fruit to become like your friend god.  Adam and Eve would have no reason to not want to become like their good friend god (or even their new friend serpent for that matter) and if eating the fruit allowed that then why not?  It's god that apparently did not want them to become like him (even though we're told we should be like god all the time).

 

     There is no being tempted to choose good over evil here.  They didn't have that ability yet.  They weren't even choosing good or evil at this point.  They were choosing life/ignorance or death/wisdom.  They were choosing to be like their supposed friend god or remain the same.  That's all.  If you believe that good=life/ignorance/human-like and evil=death/wisdom/god-like then that is the choice that they made but they couldn't make that choice until after they ate the fruit as they gained the ability to know good and evil in that sense at that point in time.

 

          mwc

The question becomes was obedience to God's nature a function of creation. I'm thinking it was by: Gen 1:31

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

....did "image" include obedience.

 

I actually liked your post.....head and shoulders above everyone. Thanks for the effort.