Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[Guest end3]

Subjective grace.  Yeah...that explains it all.

Well there could be an attempt at an extensive education to pretend we know it all. But for me, an acknowledgement of I don't know and giving people the benefit of my acknowledgment seems reasonable.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Show me where on the timeline evil takes place....otherwise, you have no argument.

 

Evil had been taking place in god's mind from the very beginning.  It didn't enter into the human experiment until after they had eaten the fruit.

[Guest end3]

 

Show me where on the timeline evil takes place....otherwise, you have no argument.

Evil had been taking place in god's mind from the very beginning.  It didn't enter into the human experiment until after they had eaten the fruit.

 

There are distinctions in other parts of the Bible that mention both good and evil. I don't see in Genesis that this effort was made. Don't you think it would have read good and evil? God saw on the seventh day that it was very good and evil?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let me rephrase. god's plan to unleash evil was in play all along. But Adam and Eve couldn't experience it until after they ate. Therefore god's creation could be described (by him) as being "good", even if god himself actually wasn't good.

[bornagainathiest]

End3 wrote...

 

"Truthfully BAA, I don't want to carry on a discussion with you.  You have 47 questions that you always need answering without explaining why they are relevant and then you hold the other party in contempt for not completing your survey."

.

.

.

I'm sorry End, but I must have missed the occasions where you asked the Prof, the Dude, the Rider, miamia, the Outsider, sdelsolray and anticrash to... explain why their questions are relevant before you'd answer them.  This seems to be a special condition that you're applying only to me. 

 

Since we are all equal here I'd imagine that your next post will be a general announcement to everyone in this thread that you'll only answer their questions if they first explain to your satisfaction why they are relevant.  After all, the condition you're applying to me must be applied to them too.  Right?

 

I'd also imagine they'd be rightly upset that you've set yourself up as an authority over them on question relevance.

Seeing as you are the one who will be judging if their questions meet your standard of relevance before you deign to answer them.  And they will also have no way of knowing if you've declined to answer because...

 

A.

Their question doesn't meet your standard of relevance.

 

Or...

 

B.

Their question is one you simply refuse to answer for reasons you won't divulge.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

Let me rephrase. god's plan to unleash evil was in play all along. But Adam and Eve couldn't experience it until after they ate. Therefore god's creation could be described (by him) as being "good", even if god himself actually wasn't good.

Well it appears God knew that humanity did not have the capacity to handle evil. The evil was in the "good" garden in the form of knowledge tied up in something to eat.

 

It appears God knew they would "die" as a result of that knowledge and warned A&E.

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

 

Humanity seems to want all the same capacities as God and now in the same scenario as it was before....to trust and obey God (Jesus in this case), to gain eternal life.....the Adam 1/Adam 2 scenario.

 

So did God perpetrate evil by allowing the snake access to A&E....I expect most people here will say yes...

 

Not sure I see it like that because we don't know the snakes capacity nor do know why God allowed the snake access.

[Margee]

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

 

 

 

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this? 

[Guest end3]

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

You're essentially saying that God is evil without knowing the whole story....which the Bible says we don't.

 

How many scenarios can we imagine where we think someone evil and the truth is we don't know the whole story.

[Margee]

 

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

Even if Genesis was a true story......HE SET US UP!! Would you do that to your little child? He allowed the snake to tempt knowing FULLY WELL that it would supposedly affect ALL MANKIND! And then later....to sacrifice his own son???? 

 

C'mon end, you're much smarter than this.....

 

(hug)

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

Picking up what the Prof said about the unfinished business between us, there are now two items.

 

Firstly, there's the matter of these three questions.

 

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

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

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

 

Secondly, there's the matter of your explanation as to why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set up the conditions of Adam and Eve's test.

The Prof and I are in agreement that until these four items are answered by you, this thread cannot move forward.

Please note that Duderonomy has also expressed his wish for you to engage with and answer me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

(Bump!)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

Even if Genesis was a true story......HE SET US UP!! Would you do that to your little child? He allowed the snake to tempt knowing FULLY WELL that it would supposedly affect ALL MANKIND! And then later....to sacrifice his own son???? 

 

C'mon end, you're much smarter than this.....

 

(hug)

 

 

How do you know that God set us up, Margee?

 

Did you reach that conclusion by reading the text of Genesis 1 - 3...?

 

The verses that describe what God said to Adam and Eve?

 

And also those that describe what He didn't tell Adam and Eve?

[duderonomy]

 

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

You're essentially saying that God is evil without knowing the whole story....which the Bible says we don't.

 

How many scenarios can we imagine where we think someone evil and the truth is we don't know the whole story.

 

 

But End, Biblegod admits he created evil in Isaiah 45:7, and Colossians 1:16-17 says "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (KJV).

 

Do you have to know 'the whole' story' before you realize that Biblegod, if he is the only creator, created evil, and that he alone is responsible for it in all of it's forms?  Why can't you just take him at his word? 

It's in the Bible after all, and what else do you have to go by for your Christianity except that? Doesn't even subjective logic, if it's logic at all, have to conclude that if Biblegod created everything, and that includes evil, then at one time evil must have been in him? If he isn't evil now, the capacity to be evil and create evil must still be there, unless there is another creator in existence, and the Bible is wrong about it's god creating everything.

[mwc]

     What is good?  What is evil?

 

     What is the knowledge of good?  What is the knowledge of evil?

 

     Are all these the same thing?

 

     It seems that good and evil can exist without the knowledge of good and evil existing.  So someone could do good or do evil and be unaware that what they are doing is good or evil.  We could just give that a neutral state.  Something like a toddler.  They often do many pleasant and unpleasant things, things that we could call good and evil but tend not to (mainly the evil label), because they're toddlers.

 

     Once someone acquires knowledge of what is good and what is evil, however, then things change.  We hold them accountable for their actions.  Same with the toddler.  Once we are certain that they are informed of the rules, and they comprehend them, they get held to a different standard.  Knowledge imparts their actions with meaning and consequence.

 

     If we fail to provide a person with knowledge of what we believe to be good or evil and they then perform an action that we consider to be good or evil did they do good or evil?  From our perspective, yes as we know what is considered good or evil, but from their perspective, no since they have no knowledge of these things and all their actions are equal or neutral (unless they form an internal moral code or compass but we're assuming everything is external here).

 

     Now, if good and evil can exist separately without the knowledge of same then it is curious as to why someone with the knowledge of good and evil would wish for others to operate in such an environment but forbid them from acquiring this knowledge for themselves.  Normally, we consider evil to be dangerous and, as such, in someone's best interest to learn to identify it to avoid having it done to them and to control themselves so as to not do it to others even by accident.  Perhaps such an accident occurred when the serpent spoke with Eve?  Neither of them having knowledge of evil could avoid the evil situation that took place in that moment.

 

     There was only one person that had any sort of knowledge of evil and that would be the same person that created a universe with both good and evil, called it very good, placed that knowledge into the tree but forbade contact with that knowledge.

 

          mwc

[Guest end3]

What is good?  What is evil?

 

     What is the knowledge of good?  What is the knowledge of evil?

 

     Are all these the same thing?

 

     It seems that good and evil can exist without the knowledge of good and evil existing.  So someone could do good or do evil and be unaware that what they are doing is good or evil.  We could just give that a neutral state.  Something like a toddler.  They often do many pleasant and unpleasant things, things that we could call good and evil but tend not to (mainly the evil label), because they're toddlers.

 

     Once someone acquires knowledge of what is good and what is evil, however, then things change.  We hold them accountable for their actions.  Same with the toddler.  Once we are certain that they are informed of the rules, and they comprehend them, they get held to a different standard.  Knowledge imparts their actions with meaning and consequence.

 

     If we fail to provide a person with knowledge of what we believe to be good or evil and they then perform an action that we consider to be good or evil did they do good or evil?  From our perspective, yes as we know what is considered good or evil, but from their perspective, no since they have no knowledge of these things and all their actions are equal or neutral (unless they form an internal moral code or compass but we're assuming everything is external here).

 

     Now, if good and evil can exist separately without the knowledge of same then it is curious as to why someone with the knowledge of good and evil would wish for others to operate in such an environment but forbid them from acquiring this knowledge for themselves.  Normally, we consider evil to be dangerous and, as such, in someone's best interest to learn to identify it to avoid having it done to them and to control themselves so as to not do it to others even by accident.  Perhaps such an accident occurred when the serpent spoke with Eve?  Neither of them having knowledge of evil could avoid the evil situation that took place in that moment.

 

     There was only one person that had any sort of knowledge of evil and that would be the same person that created a universe with both good and evil, called it very good, placed that knowledge into the tree but forbade contact with that knowledge.

 

          mwc

If I'm God and I have two children or adults....then I provide only good options for them if I don't want to see them experience evil.

 

Not sure why God allows them to have the knowledge.

 

Later God gets frustrated because he says the humans are wicked all the time now. I don't know if the test would be to see if they could acquire the knowledge and then act accordingly? Seems like the same test he did later, no?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

god did NOT provide only good options for his children, though; and surely that's the point. Instead, he provided a choice between two options to two people who had absolutely no understanding of either one of them.

 

Again I am compelled to ask: Are these the actions of someone who can be trusted?

[Guest end3]

god did NOT provide only good options for his children, though; and surely that's the point. Instead, he provided a choice between two options to two people who had absolutely no understanding of either one of them.

 

Again I am compelled to ask: Are these the actions of someone who can be trusted?

It's relative....and you're seeing finite.

[bornagainathiest]

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT

 

To everyone participating and reading this thread...

 

 

End3 has stated that he doesn't want to continue any further dialog with me in this thread.

 

I respect his decision and his wishes and will therefore discontinue dialog with him.

 

I will however continue participating in this thread and will remain in dialog with all other participating members.

 

The RedNeck Professor has kindly agreed to act as my proxy from now on in this thread.

 

I have given him full authority to present questions to End3 on my behalf.

 

Thank you for your attention,

 

BAA.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

god did NOT provide only good options for his children, though; and surely that's the point. Instead, he provided a choice between two options to two people who had absolutely no understanding of either one of them.

 

Again I am compelled to ask: Are these the actions of someone who can be trusted?

It's relative....and you're seeing finite.

 

You have given me a choice between two options:  calling your response bovine excrement, or calling your response bullshit.  Which choice would be "good" and which "evil"?

[Guest end3]

 

 

god did NOT provide only good options for his children, though; and surely that's the point. Instead, he provided a choice between two options to two people who had absolutely no understanding of either one of them.

 

Again I am compelled to ask: Are these the actions of someone who can be trusted?

It's relative....and you're seeing finite.

 

You have given me a choice between two options:  calling your response bovine excrement, or calling your response bullshit.  Which choice would be "good" and which "evil"?

 

Ha, I'm next to positive you would call it evil.

[midniterider]

 

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

You're essentially saying that God is evil without knowing the whole story....which the Bible says we don't.

 

How many scenarios can we imagine where we think someone evil and the truth is we don't know the whole story.

 

 

Church doctrine:  "We can't know the mind of God!"  "But he is good all the time." 

 

How do  you know God is good? Do you know the whole story?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

What we don't know is what the snake's disposition was. I'm gathering that it was "like us", having some of the same capacity as God.

end, God knew the capacity of the snake. God created all the animals including the snake. God allowed the snake to do it's sneeky job. Does god have all control or not??

 

Why would you even question this?

 

Even if he did, we don't know why God allowed access.

 

You're essentially saying that God is evil without knowing the whole story....which the Bible says we don't.

 

How many scenarios can we imagine where we think someone evil and the truth is we don't know the whole story.

 

 

Church doctrine:  "We can't know the mind of God!"  "But he is good all the time." 

 

How do  you know God is good? Do you know the whole story?

 

Biggest "message" I ever got from God....which I can't explain M, was when you hurt others, you are hurting me.

[midniterider]

 

What is good?  What is evil?

 

     What is the knowledge of good?  What is the knowledge of evil?

 

     Are all these the same thing?

 

     It seems that good and evil can exist without the knowledge of good and evil existing.  So someone could do good or do evil and be unaware that what they are doing is good or evil.  We could just give that a neutral state.  Something like a toddler.  They often do many pleasant and unpleasant things, things that we could call good and evil but tend not to (mainly the evil label), because they're toddlers.

 

     Once someone acquires knowledge of what is good and what is evil, however, then things change.  We hold them accountable for their actions.  Same with the toddler.  Once we are certain that they are informed of the rules, and they comprehend them, they get held to a different standard.  Knowledge imparts their actions with meaning and consequence.

 

     If we fail to provide a person with knowledge of what we believe to be good or evil and they then perform an action that we consider to be good or evil did they do good or evil?  From our perspective, yes as we know what is considered good or evil, but from their perspective, no since they have no knowledge of these things and all their actions are equal or neutral (unless they form an internal moral code or compass but we're assuming everything is external here).

 

     Now, if good and evil can exist separately without the knowledge of same then it is curious as to why someone with the knowledge of good and evil would wish for others to operate in such an environment but forbid them from acquiring this knowledge for themselves.  Normally, we consider evil to be dangerous and, as such, in someone's best interest to learn to identify it to avoid having it done to them and to control themselves so as to not do it to others even by accident.  Perhaps such an accident occurred when the serpent spoke with Eve?  Neither of them having knowledge of evil could avoid the evil situation that took place in that moment.

 

     There was only one person that had any sort of knowledge of evil and that would be the same person that created a universe with both good and evil, called it very good, placed that knowledge into the tree but forbade contact with that knowledge.

 

          mwc

If I'm God and I have two children or adults....then I provide only good options for them if I don't want to see them experience evil.

 

Not sure why God allows them to have the knowledge.

 

Later God gets frustrated because he says the humans are wicked all the time now. I don't know if the test would be to see if they could acquire the knowledge and then act accordingly? Seems like the same test he did later, no?

 

 

What kind of God performs tests on his own creations? One that isn't all-knowing, for sure. One that has doubts about his own handiwork.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

god did NOT provide only good options for his children, though; and surely that's the point. Instead, he provided a choice between two options to two people who had absolutely no understanding of either one of them.

 

Again I am compelled to ask: Are these the actions of someone who can be trusted?

It's relative....and you're seeing finite.

 

You have given me a choice between two options:  calling your response bovine excrement, or calling your response bullshit.  Which choice would be "good" and which "evil"?

 

Ha, I'm next to positive you would call it evil.

 

It is a bullshit response, End3; and you know it is, son.  Every single person who has commented on this thread, from sdelsolray to sweet li'l Margee has presented the case that your god is evil--a case which has been sufficiently supported by the claims of your very own holy book.  Yet, you've done nothing but divert your eyes, and attempt to divert ours, from the horrible truth of who it is you revere and worship.

 

"Look at the snake! Look at the snake!"

 

"Look at the cross!  Look at the cross!"

 

"Adam and Eve made the choice!"

 

"Look at BAA being a dick and asking questions!"

 

All to keep yourself from honestly asking the question "Why was it necessary for Adam and Eve to experience both good and evil?".  Even though you claim this very question plagues you in the darkest nether-reaches of your mind.

 

And now you want to plop this latest pile of USDA Certified, Grade-A, grain-fed bullshit down in front of us all:  "It's all relative".  What the serious fuck does that even mean?  That god's evil is relative to ours?  Are not his thoughts higher than ours?  Or is all evil relative, irrespective of its origin?  Is the rapist more evil than the judge who only gave him six months of jail time?  And where does dear old dad fit in, with his "20 minutes of action"?  Is he more evil than the judge, but less evil than his boy?  Where does it all fit in your little theory of sinister relativity?

 

This is nothing more than you purposefully blinding yourself to the stark nekkid truth in front of you, boy.  There is great evil afoot and GOD IS THE CAUSE OF IT.  Do you really want to know why Adam and Eve had to experience both good and evil?  Do you want to know why it was necessary, why god made them do it?  I told you I'd give you the answer if you answered BAA's questions first.  The reason you need to answer these questions is because you need to understand exactly what god did and exactly when god did it before you can see the truth of why god did it.  BAA ain't being a dick and neither am I.  We're both trying to help you see the truth that you claim to desperately want; but your blind faith keeps you blind.

 

I am asking the questions now; but if you genuinely want to come to understand the truth, you'll ask them for yourself.

 

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

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

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

 

and this, counting as just one...

 

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote... "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

This is confusing. Could you please help us out here? 

 

The beginning is in the answers, End3; the rest is up to you.  No more hiding; no more diverting.  It's time to man-up.  You and I have had a lot of good arguments over the years; and there's still a lot of good argument to be had in this thread.  But you can't move any closer to the truth we're all trying to help you see, if you won't open your eyes.

[quinntar]

 

 

Show me where on the timeline evil takes place....otherwise, you have no argument.

Evil had been taking place in god's mind from the very beginning. It didn't enter into the human experiment until after they had eaten the fruit.

There are distinctions in other parts of the Bible that mention both good and evil. I don't see in Genesis that this effort was made. Don't you think it would have read good and evil? God saw on the seventh day that it was very good and evil?

It's a very old story (Older than red riding hood) You sure you want to keep using it as a basis of fact?

[mwc]

If I'm God and I have two children or adults....then I provide only good options for them if I don't want to see them experience evil.

 

Not sure why God allows them to have the knowledge.

 

Later God gets frustrated because he says the humans are wicked all the time now. I don't know if the test would be to see if they could acquire the knowledge and then act accordingly? Seems like the same test he did later, no?

     So we should assume all options are good?  Does the prohibition allow for only good options?  If one keeps the prohibition then is that good?  If one does not keep the prohibition then is that option also good?  Remember, you specifically stated you would only provide good options.  All choices should result in good.

 

     This, of course, has nothing at all to do with the Tree of Knowledge nor any knowledge it contains.  The prohibition could simply have been that Adam and Eve were forbidden from picking tulips or spinning around three times in succession.  The prohibition is simply an arbitrary rule that was set forth that could be obeyed or not obeyed.  Simple as that.  In the case of the story it is linked to the tree but has nothing to do with the actual tree itself.  It comes before the tree and, as such, is separate from the tree.  Which is why I mentioned it could be linked to anything or any action.

 

     But, with that in mind, could they have kept the prohibition or not kept the prohibition with equal consequence?  That is to say is keeping the prohibition equally good or not good as not keeping the prohibition?  Can these binary opposite things be equally good or equally bad?  If they cannot then, as god, this is a problem because you have failed to provide only good options to your children (or children like adults).  One path allows for something potentially good.  The other path, however, means you've set in place the very foundation for something not good to occur.  This is your responsibility as the one who created this prohibition and who knows that one result is good and one is not good.  Your action created this dilemma.  You created the not good option.

 

     The knowledge, we're to believe, comes from the enchanted tree.  How this works exactly is unimportant.  For this argument we need to just accept that some for of knowledge was imparted through by ingesting the fruit.  It is unimportant to understanding the time line.  The problems come prior to obtaining the knowledge from the tree.

 

     Now, you tend to mention tests a lot.  What kind of test is this?  Is this a test of morality or obedience?  If it's a test of morality then which option is the correct choice?  Without knowledge their morality is untestable.  Just like giving a toddler (and most people really) a test in advanced calculus.  They'll just stare at you.  You can test them but the results are meaningless.  You have to give people knowledge before you test them plain and simple.  A god would know this.  So it cannot be a moral test.  So is it a test of obedience?  Why would god need such a test?  The story does not indicate that Adam and Eve were not performing in such a way that a test was warranted nor does it indicate that they were educated at any time on how to properly obey.  They were given a prohibition which proved false which is the sign of a bad educator more than anything.  Also, we could frame it to say the serpent was testing them but people would call that absurd (though they would pass its test).  I see no reason to say a test was taking place on any part just because.

 

          mwc