How To Make A Christian Absolutely Livid

[LifeCycle]

 

 

 

 

 

So who is responsible for the evil that exists if not it's creator?

 

Let's not forget who put the tree in the garden in the first place to tempt man. If god was as benign and loving of his creatures as christians claim he is, then why put the tree there in the first place? Christians say that god put the tree there to test adam's faith. But that doesn't make any sense. If god is the workman, then testing his work (adam/humans) would actually be testing himself to see if his workmanship would stand the test. It makes god look fallible in his creating. When a watchmaker tests a watch to see if it works correctly, he isn't testing the watch, but the work he put into making the watch. If the watch doesn't work right, it's not the watches fault, but the maker of the watch. So adam having "failed" the test isn't a sin of adam's, but actually a sin of god's. Hence god himself "missed the mark" and fell short of creating a perfect human. 

 

A quick study of jewish belief reveals that they did not believe in satan or some type of devil. They attributed evil to god, and god alone. 

 

God is the author of evil. 

 

And what makes this all worse is that God knew the outcome before he conducted the testing and yet proceeded anyway. 

 

It all unravels so quickly and falls squarely upon the shoulders of the creator. Think of all the scenarios in which we could drum up that don't involve useless suffering. God could have created Pandora, where everything is amazing and then sat our blue asses down on a freaky plant that embraced you and elevated you hundreds of feet up in a canopy of other freaky plants and trees and then projected an image onto a fucking massive waterfall with his 100K Trinitysung projector and said, "If I did it the other way, this is what would have happened. All the wars, all the suffering and all the injustice was avoided because I love you and that shit is just unnecessary."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 Christians say that god put the tree there to test adam's faith. But that doesn't make any sense.

 

Faith is, essentially, believing without seeing.  Adam didn't have faith.  He didn't need to.  According to genesis, god walked with Adam in the cool of the day.  This means that Adam "saw"; thus what he had was more akin to "knowledge than "faith".  For god to test "faith" where none was present or needed, would have been an exercise in futility (much like everything else "god" does in the bible).

Adam had to exercise faith in what god said (not about him existing, i.e. walking in the cool of the day) about eating from the tree and it's repercussions for doing so. That he could not tell if it was true or or not, so he had to exercise faith that what god told him to be true. You're right, faith wasn't needed to see that god existed, but you're wrong that he didn't need faith to believe god's promise of what would happen if he ate from it. You stated that "faith is, essentially, believing without seeing." Adam had to have faith in what god said about eating from the tree without having seeing first hand what would actually happen if he did. He had to take god's warning on faith. 

 

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

[sdelsolray]

DId this god give the warning to Eve?  After all, she's the one who ate the fruit.

[Guest end3]

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

No, I would think we probably develop some hierarchy to what we are told through the history with an individual. If God were providing for Adam and Eve, there might be more of an inclination, IMO, towards belief in something they were warned about......

[bornagainathiest]

 

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

No, I would think we probably develop some hierarchy to what we are told through the history with an individual. If God were providing for Adam and Eve, there might be more of an inclination, IMO, towards belief in something they were warned about......

 

 

Only if the text says so, End.

 

Otherwise you're using your opinion to justify what you want the text to say.

 

Btw, what does the text say about Adam and Eve's beliefs?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

No, I would think we probably develop some hierarchy to what we are told through the history with an individual. If God were providing for Adam and Eve, there might be more of an inclination, IMO, towards belief in something they were warned about......

 

So, in your "interpretation", they believed, but ate the fruit anyway?  Fully understanding the concepts of both evil and death, they willingly chose to eat the fruit anyway?

[Guest end3]

 

 

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

No, I would think we probably develop some hierarchy to what we are told through the history with an individual. If God were providing for Adam and Eve, there might be more of an inclination, IMO, towards belief in something they were warned about......

 

So, in your "interpretation", they believed, but ate the fruit anyway?  Fully understanding the concepts of both evil and death, they willingly chose to eat the fruit anyway?

 

Just saying if we experience trust in a relationship, participating in something factual, then I think the tendency would be to believe the object of the relationship in something they then say but we have not participated in. For example....Hey Joe, come ride this carnival ride. But Bob, I have never experienced that before. Ok Joe, I will, I trust you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Good point.  However, I would argue that there is no way Adam could have believed or disbelieved what god said about eating the fruit because Adam had no concept of death.  Nor did he have any idea about evil.  god's warnings were therefore completely meaningless and irrelevant to Adam.

No, I would think we probably develop some hierarchy to what we are told through the history with an individual. If God were providing for Adam and Eve, there might be more of an inclination, IMO, towards belief in something they were warned about......

 

So, in your "interpretation", they believed, but ate the fruit anyway?  Fully understanding the concepts of both evil and death, they willingly chose to eat the fruit anyway?

 

Just saying if we experience trust in a relationship, participating in something factual, then I think the tendency would be to believe the object of the relationship in something they then say but we have not participated in. For example....Hey Joe, come ride this carnival ride. But Bob, I have never experienced that before. Ok Joe, I will, I trust you.

 

 

Yes End,

 

The Prof is exactly right.  

Unless he lived in a hole in the ground Joe will have some knowledge of what a carnival ride is.  Also, he may not have experienced it himself, but he may well know others who have.  So your argument fails to take into account that death was totally unknown in the world before Adam and Eve brought it into being.  (See Romans 5 : 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 : 21)  Nor did God explain to either of them what death was.  From their p.o.v., God warned them that on the day that they ate the forbidden fruit an unknown and incomprehensible event would befall them.  God locked them into a Catch-22.  Short of actually asking God what death was, the only way they could discover what He meant was to eat the fruit.  But then it would be too late.

 

Nor can there be any argument made for them having faith in God.

That's because the proper, Biblical definition of faith can't be applied to their situation.  Hebrews 11 explains what faith is and gives worked examples of it from scripture.  "Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."  The examples apply to past events, to future events or to current events that are taking place elsewhere.  Faith never applies to what is happening here and now.  Verse 3 is an example of a past event that's believed and understood by faith.  Then there's a long list of people who were... "still living in faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised ; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance..."  Hebrews 11 ends with... "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised..." That's because their faith was about future things. 

 

Scripture also gives us a perfect worked example of the third way faith is applied - to current events taking place elsewhere.

 

Matthew 8 : 5 - 13.

 

5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 

9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 

11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west,and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 

12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

 

 

Do you see how Adam and Eve couldn't have had faith in God concerning past things, future things or current things happening elsewhere, End?

 

God told them nothing about their past, gave only an incomprehensible warning about their future and they had no knowledge of any place other than Eden.

 

So that's all three applications of faith closed off to them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

I disagree.....someone provides for you and you will end up trusting them. Get over yourself.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

I disagree.....someone provides for you and you will end up trusting them. Get over yourself.

 

Didn't we just establish a week or so ago that god doesn't actually provide for anybody?  

 

And isn't the point here that god did NOT provide for Adam and Eve, in that the vital information they needed to choose between good and evil, life and death, was completely omitted from god's narrative?

[Guest end3]

 

 

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

I disagree.....someone provides for you and you will end up trusting them. Get over yourself.

 

Didn't we just establish a week or so ago that god doesn't actually provide for anybody?  

 

And isn't the point here that god did NOT provide for Adam and Eve, in that the vital information they needed to choose between good and evil, life and death, was completely omitted from god's narrative?

 

I don't see that it matters. There are many times where a parent has a child experience something they have no information nor experience of based on the faith that the child has in the parent that has developed from other totally separate experiences....provision being one.

[Jeff]

Are you livid yet?

[duderonomy]

This is getting pretty interesting. BAA is arguing his point from the Bible, TRP is arguing from common sense, and End is dishing up word salad opinions of stuff he supposes while IronHorse's god struggles with limitations.

[midniterider]

 

I don't see that it matters. There are many times where a parent has a child experience something they have no information nor experience of based on the faith that the child has in the parent that has developed from other totally separate experiences....provision being one.

 

 

Humans dont usually have their children experience something that will cause the fall of mankind for all generations. And parents teach their children by age 2 what right and wrong are and how to apply these principles to future situations. They don't arbitrarily withhold vital information from their children like bibleGod did so they could test their child's obedience. And parents generally dont kick their kids out of the house because they committed some non-crime like eating a fruit.

 

Granted, the fruit was a fruit containing knowledge.... God wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant. The church wants to keep it's congregation ignorant (dont question God, dont think). Christianity, the religion of enforced ignorance.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is getting pretty interesting. BAA is arguing his point from the Bible, TRP is arguing from common sense, and End is dishing up word salad opinions of stuff he supposes while IronHorse's god struggles with limitations.

We all play to our strengths, I suppose.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

I disagree.....someone provides for you and you will end up trusting them. Get over yourself.

 

Didn't we just establish a week or so ago that god doesn't actually provide for anybody?  

 

And isn't the point here that god did NOT provide for Adam and Eve, in that the vital information they needed to choose between good and evil, life and death, was completely omitted from god's narrative?

 

I don't see that it matters. There are many times where a parent has a child experience something they have no information nor experience of based on the faith that the child has in the parent that has developed from other totally separate experiences....provision being one.

 

It does matter, End3.  You speak of trust, while conveniently ignoring the fact that god was withholding information from Adam and Eve.  There can be NO trust with someone who proves themselves to be untrustworthy--someone who lies, hides the truth, withholds information.  If a friend, family member, or loved one lied to you, would you continue to trust that person?

 

So then, why do you continue to trust god?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

Joe and Bob both have at least a working knowledge of carnival rides, plus the opportunity to observe the particular ride in question. Adam and Eve had nothing concerning evil or death.

 

That's not the same as "faith". That's more like "obedience or else".

I disagree.....someone provides for you and you will end up trusting them. Get over yourself.

 

Didn't we just establish a week or so ago that god doesn't actually provide for anybody?  

 

And isn't the point here that god did NOT provide for Adam and Eve, in that the vital information they needed to choose between good and evil, life and death, was completely omitted from god's narrative?

 

I don't see that it matters. There are many times where a parent has a child experience something they have no information nor experience of based on the faith that the child has in the parent that has developed from other totally separate experiences....provision being one.

 

It does matter, End3.  You speak of trust, while conveniently ignoring the fact that god was withholding information from Adam and Eve.  There can be NO trust with someone who proves themselves to be untrustworthy--someone who lies, hides the truth, withholds information.  If a friend, family member, or loved one lied to you, would you continue to trust that person?

 

So then, why do you continue to trust god?

 

Your view is in retrospect. You say I'm ignoring.....but you are ignoring as well. Like you said, they did not know God was withholding anything. How may we assume their trust was broken? But, BUT, I'm saying trust was developing through other actions.

[Guest end3]

Are you livid yet?

Lol, see, that was a little funny.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"... The name of the tree itself told Adam and Eve that god was withholding knowledge.

 

And, as BAA has indicated, the only way for them to learn the knowledge god withheld was to eat the fruit. Classic catch-22.

[Guest end3]

Yes or no Prof, do you consider trust as good or evil?

[qadeshet]

President Reagan was fond of the adage "Trust but verify". That is exactly what Adam did. Blind trust is never a good idea.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

False.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Trust is both and neither.

[Guest end3]

Trust is both and neither.

I'm going to re-read. It's been a while since you and I had this discussion. Will return