Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[Guest end3]

So, End3, now that the serpent has been found not guilty, do you still think god is a trustworthy character?  The evidence demonstrates how he abused and manipulated Adam and Eve--yes, even the serpent-- by using their trust and naivete against them.  Is it "good" or "evil" to trust god?

The better question in my mind is why is necessary that we should experience both good and evil. Given the opportunity, I don't think I would choose exposing evil to my children. Maybe this IS the point.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"If ye then, who are evil..."

 

god calls us "evil" even though we know how to give our children "good" gifts. Despite us being, like yourself, unwilling to expose them to evil.

 

Yet god DID expose his children to evil. We can argue freewill, predestination, omniscience, omnipotence, and any other apologetic, up to and including the role of the serpent; but in the final analysis, GOD exposed his CHILDREN to EVIL. And he did so with deliberation and intent.

 

And WE are evil?

 

Shouldn't god live up to his own standard?

 

Is he really worthy of trust?

[sdelsolray]

 

So, End3, now that the serpent has been found not guilty, do you still think god is a trustworthy character?  The evidence demonstrates how he abused and manipulated Adam and Eve--yes, even the serpent-- by using their trust and naivete against them.  Is it "good" or "evil" to trust god?

The better question in my mind is why is necessary that we should experience both good and evil. 

...

 

 

 

Because this is the reality of the physics, chemistry and biology in which we are immersed.

 

...

Given the opportunity, I don't think I would choose exposing evil to my children.

...

 

Then you should do that.

 

 

...

Maybe this IS the point.

 

It is a point.

[Guest end3]

"If ye then, who are evil..."

 

god calls us "evil" even though we know how to give our children "good" gifts. Despite us being, like yourself, unwilling to expose them to evil.

 

Yet god DID expose his children to evil. We can argue freewill, predestination, omniscience, omnipotence, and any other apologetic, up to and including the role of the serpent; but in the final analysis, GOD exposed his CHILDREN to EVIL. And he did so with deliberation and intent.

 

And WE are evil?

 

Shouldn't god live up to his own standard?

 

Is he really worthy of trust?

In that verse he prompts us to "even though evil, do unto others good". Wasn't it you earlier in this thread saying in order to know good we must know bad? I'm going to have to think about it.... but I'm not denying your point....thx.

[Guest end3]

 

 

So, End3, now that the serpent has been found not guilty, do you still think god is a trustworthy character?  The evidence demonstrates how he abused and manipulated Adam and Eve--yes, even the serpent-- by using their trust and naivete against them.  Is it "good" or "evil" to trust god?

The better question in my mind is why is necessary that we should experience both good and evil. 

...

 

 

 

Because this is the reality of the physics, chemistry and biology in which we are immersed.

 

 

...

Given the opportunity, I don't think I would choose exposing evil to my children.

...

 

Then you should do that.

 

 

...

Maybe this IS the point.

 

It is a point.

 

I don't want to turn off my emotions to the point of, well, it just is as nature dictates. THAT is a point as well. I don't think that's the answer....respectfully of course. (Although to lawyer types, I see how it might be useful).

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Point of clarification. I said that one of the ways we know what is good is by comparing it to what is bad. Not that one was necessary for knowledge of the other.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Also, the point of the verse is that if we can do good, despite being evil, how much more good can god do, given that he is (supposedly) completely good and not evil.

 

Unfortunately, what we have seen in genesis destroys the idea that god is good; because the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that god is capable of committing acts of heinous evil and causing great harm to his children.

 

I ask again: Is god trustworthy?

[Guest end3]

Also, the point of the verse is that if we can do good, despite being evil, how much more good can god do, given that he is (supposedly) completely good and not evil.

 

Unfortunately, what we have seen in genesis destroys the idea that god is good; because the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that god is capable of committing acts of heinous evil and causing great harm to his children.

 

I ask again: Is god trustworthy?

Not sure...crap I forget my set notation. The set of good and evil does not mean good U evil.

[sdelsolray]

 

I don't want to turn off my emotions to the point of, well, it just is as nature dictates. THAT is a point as well. I don't think that's the answer....respectfully of course. (Although to lawyer types, I see how it might be useful).

 

 

 

Your emotions are part of the physics, chemistry and biology.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good U evil, please clarify.

[bornagainathiest]

To TRNP and the rider...

 

Thanks for the responses, you guys.  I appreciate the feedback.  

 

Well, it looks like End's talking to the prof and to sdelsolray, so let's see if he'll communicate with me.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again, End.  

 

If you'd be so kind, please answer these three relevant and on-topic questions.

 

Did God withhold the ability the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from Adam and Eve?

 

And did He then set them a test that required what He withheld?

 

And were their eyes opened to the consequences after they ate?

 

Hope everything's good with you.  

 

Thanks, BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I guess End3's done up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.  Come back, End; we were just getting to the good part.

[miamia]

I guess End3's done up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.  Come back, End; we were just getting to the good part.

love that movie

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I guess End3's done up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.  Come back, End; we were just getting to the good part.

love that movie

 

[Guest end3]

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello End!  

 

I'm here too!

 

[florduh]

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both. 

 

Everything must have two sides. We must perceive things not in a vacuum, but in relation to something else; nothing can stand alone. There is no "front" unless there is also a back. There is no seller if there is not also a buyer. Presumed opposites are always aspects of a single thing and can't be separated. It's how our brains work when we experience the world, the only way we can define things.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

 

Ok End,

 

If you're stuck, please take a break to look at what the text says and answer these three relevant and on-topic questions.

 

Does the text say that God withheld the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from Adam and Eve?

 

Does the text say that God then set them a test which required them to use what He'd withheld from them?

 

Does the text say that their eyes were opened to the consequences of their actions, only after they ate the fruit?

 

(Please note that I'm not asking about or making any value judgement re: God's actions.  I'm simply asking what the text says.)

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

End: For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

...

 

Exactly. We try to behave in a good way to nurture our children. We do whatever we can to keep them safe.

[Guest end3]

End: For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

...

 

Exactly. We try to behave in a good way to nurture our children. We do whatever we can to keep them safe.

How would we know to do that except knowing evil?

 

Everyone here says that God is evil for not telling A&E, yet he allowed them to experience it. Isn't this pretty much has to happen anyhow?

 

My parents said don't do that, but ultimately I had to understand why I shouldn't.

 

I guess the question is....should he have explained the pain, the suffering, and the ultimate suffering for choosing evil? Would it make a difference? Has it with humanity today?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok End,

 

Playing Devil's Advocate, let's say that the fruit in question was morally good.  What then?

 

You'll notice that nowhere in the text before Genesis 3 : 7 do we see any sign that either Adam or Eve could recognize the moral goodness of the fruit.

 

Before then only God and we, the readers, know what is morally good in creation and Eden.

 

Adam and Eve were blind to the moral goodness of the fruit hanging all around them. 

 

Every last blade of grass, every single leaf and each and every flower in Eden could have been morally good and it still wouldn't have made any difference to them.

.

.

.

So I can concede your point about the moral goodness of the fruit and still stand on what the text says.

 

Which is, that they couldn't know, understand, learn or develop until they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Everything hangs on the word, 'then' in verse 7.

 

End,

 

It's not agreed that Adam and Eve were allowed to experience either good or evil by God until after they ate the fruit.

 

The very air they breathed and the water they drank could have somehow been morally good and it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Their ability to recognize good and evil didn't come until Genesis 3 : 7.

 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

 

Ok End,

 

If you're stuck, please take a break to look at what the text says and answer these three relevant and on-topic questions.

 

Does the text say that God withheld the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from Adam and Eve?

 

Does the text say that God then set them a test which required them to use what He'd withheld from them?

 

Does the text say that their eyes were opened to the consequences of their actions, only after they ate the fruit?

 

(Please note that I'm not asking about or making any value judgement re: God's actions.  I'm simply asking what the text says.)

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[Guest end3]

 

Ok End,

 

Playing Devil's Advocate, let's say that the fruit in question was morally good.  What then?

 

You'll notice that nowhere in the text before Genesis 3 : 7 do we see any sign that either Adam or Eve could recognize the moral goodness of the fruit.

 

Before then only God and we, the readers, know what is morally good in creation and Eden.

 

Adam and Eve were blind to the moral goodness of the fruit hanging all around them. 

 

Every last blade of grass, every single leaf and each and every flower in Eden could have been morally good and it still wouldn't have made any difference to them.

.

.

.

So I can concede your point about the moral goodness of the fruit and still stand on what the text says.

 

Which is, that they couldn't know, understand, learn or develop until they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Everything hangs on the word, 'then' in verse 7.

 

End,

 

It's not agreed that Adam and Eve were allowed to experience either good or evil by God until after they ate the fruit.

 

The very air they breathed and the water they drank could have somehow been morally good and it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Their ability to recognize good and evil didn't come until Genesis 3 : 7.

 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;[/size] so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.[/size]

 

Have you slept or perhaps you are high...we agreed on this pages ago....you remember the word "succinctly" that you used when you were being an ass?

[Guest Furball]