Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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.

 

You ain't R-U-N-N-O-F-T again, have you, End3?

[Guest end3]

 

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.

You ain't R-U-N-N-O-F-T again, have you, End3?

 

No, if you would like me to understand your perspective, just go ahead and explain. Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End,

You and I both know that I offered to move this conversation forward and explain why Adam and Eve had to experience both good and evil.  We both know that I stipulated that before I could do so, you needed to answer a few questions.  We also both know that the reason you needed to answer these questions was to help you better understand the answer I would give as to why god made it necessary for Adam and Eve to experience good and evil.

 

You refused to answer the questions when they were asked by BAA.  In fact you called him a dick for asking them.

 

Now, rather than answer the questions when they were asked by me; you have given a response that attempts to put me into a false position.

 

If I proceed to "explain" my "perspective", then you will have achieved what you wanted, without giving up what you were asked to give in return.  Not only is this not proper in a respectful discourse; but it also paves the way for you to later claim that you "don't understand my perspective" and that you "just don't see it that way."  This excuse will be readily available, and reasonably believable, because you refused to lay the foundation for yourself by answering the questions put to you.

 

If, however, I refuse to proceed with a discussion on why god made Adam and Eve experience evil, then you will attempt to turn the situation around to make me look like an obstinate asshole who refuses to participate.  When, in reality, we both know that I can not continue because you will not answer the questions.

 

All of this, just to allow your blind faith to keep you blind.  You should be ashamed of yourself for treating with such contempt a man who calls you "friend."

[Guest end3]

End,

You and I both know that I offered to move this conversation forward and explain why Adam and Eve had to experience both good and evil.  We both know that I stipulated that before I could do so, you needed to answer a few questions.  We also both know that the reason you needed to answer these questions was to help you better understand the answer I would give as to why god made it necessary for Adam and Eve to experience good and evil.

 

You refused to answer the questions when they were asked by BAA.  In fact you called him a dick for asking them.

 

Now, rather than answer the questions when they were asked by me; you have given a response that attempts to put me into a false position.

 

If I proceed to "explain" my "perspective", then you will have achieved what you wanted, without giving up what you were asked to give in return.  Not only is this not proper in a respectful discourse; but it also paves the way for you to later claim that you "don't understand my perspective" and that you "just don't see it that way."  This excuse will be readily available, and reasonably believable, because you refused to lay the foundation for yourself by answering the questions put to you.

 

If, however, I refuse to proceed with a discussion on why god made Adam and Eve experience evil, then you will attempt to turn the situation around to make me look like an obstinate asshole who refuses to participate.  When, in reality, we both know that I can not continue because you will not answer the questions.

 

All of this, just to allow your blind faith to keep you blind.  You should be ashamed of yourself for treating with such contempt a man who calls you "friend."

Those are BAA's questions. I really have no interest in addressing him or his inquiries. If you would like to continue with your own questions, that would be fine. Thanks Prof.

[duderonomy]

They're my questions too End.

 

Is this a one way pissing contest between you and BAA who isn't participating in the thread any longer or is it that you might have to go where you don't want to go if you answer honestly?

 

Just askin'.

[sdelsolray]

We have a coward in our midst.

[quinntar]

I have a question, was Jesus good?

[duderonomy]

I have a question, was Jesus good?

 

Dang. That question should have it's own thread, IMHO.

[quinntar]

 

I have a question, was Jesus good?

Dang. That question should have it's own thread, IMHO.

I'll make it and see what happens.

[duderonomy]

 

 

I have a question, was Jesus good?

Dang. That question should have it's own thread, IMHO.

I'll make it and see what happens.

 

 

I'll be there!  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Those were not just BAA's questions, End3.  As duderonomy points out, they were his, too; and mine.  Just because BAA was the first to ask them, doesn't mean the rest of us (yourself included) don't deserve to see them answered.  I know you've got something personal going on with BAA and that's fine; y'all are big boys and can sort it out in your own time.

 

However, BAA is no longer participating in this thread. He bowed out gracefully so that whatever was between you two wouldn't affect the forward progress of this thread.  That doesn't, however, alter the fact that these questions now belong to all of us (including yourself).  We'd all like answers.

 

I suspect, however, that it doesn't matter who asks the questions.  You're not willing to answer them because they will bring you too close to finally understanding the truth about your god and your religion.  You're willing to go only so far and no further.  I've seen this in just about every thread you've been involved in over the years.  You'll allow yourself to get within shouting distance of the truth; but then you make some excuse and run off, tail between your legs, to hide and lick your wounds for a while.

 

At the beginning of this thread, your opening words were "Let's rock".  Is this what you call "rocking"?  This refusal to answer a few simple questions because you are afraid of what those answers will mean?  This lame excuse that BAA's a dick and you don't want anything to do with him is just that--a lame excuse, and one that is no longer relevant because he ain't here in this thread anymore.  Is this what you call "rocking"?  

 

You want me to proceed with questions of my own?  Okay, here's one:

 

Why are you so afraid of finding the truth?

[Guest end3]

Those were not just BAA's questions, End3.  As duderonomy points out, they were his, too; and mine.  Just because BAA was the first to ask them, doesn't mean the rest of us (yourself included) don't deserve to see them answered.  I know you've got something personal going on with BAA and that's fine; y'all are big boys and can sort it out in your own time.

 

However, BAA is no longer participating in this thread. He bowed out gracefully so that whatever was between you two wouldn't affect the forward progress of this thread.  That doesn't, however, alter the fact that these questions now belong to all of us (including yourself).  We'd all like answers.

 

I suspect, however, that it doesn't matter who asks the questions.  You're not willing to answer them because they will bring you too close to finally understanding the truth about your god and your religion.  You're willing to go only so far and no further.  I've seen this in just about every thread you've been involved in over the years.  You'll allow yourself to get within shouting distance of the truth; but then you make some excuse and run off, tail between your legs, to hide and lick your wounds for a while.

 

At the beginning of this thread, your opening words were "Let's rock".  Is this what you call "rocking"?  This refusal to answer a few simple questions because you are afraid of what those answers will mean?  This lame excuse that BAA's a dick and you don't want anything to do with him is just that--a lame excuse, and one that is no longer relevant because he ain't here in this thread anymore.  Is this what you call "rocking"?  

 

You want me to proceed with questions of my own?  Okay, here's one:

 

Why are you so afraid of finding the truth?

You act like I can't or won't accept your evidence because it might lead me to giving up my faith or huge fear that's keeping me from seeing your point. I get your point already. Your point is short-sighted.

 

Let me be really clear. If all the evidence you present presumably convicts God in YOUR minds, your minds can't see an endpoint that might be good. There may be a necessity that humanity know good and evil in order that the final result is good. Not sure why each of you can't understand this. You all just seem stuck, or most of you, that knowing evil is an evil act by God...period.

 

The scenario I am espousing happens all the time in OUR lives. We have juries of men and women to form a consensus regarding the relativity of good and evil.....to look at the circumstances. Heck even the Bible says we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

[qadeshet]

end3, Posted Today, 05:01 PM
 

end3, Posted Today, 05:01 PM

You act like I can't or won't accept your evidence because it might lead me to giving up my faith or huge fear that's keeping me from seeing your point. I get your point already. Your point is short-sighted.

 

No, you can't accept what the Bible actually says because it conflicts with what you've been taught in church. Nobody cares what you believe.

 

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil, until they ate the Fruit.

 

Genesis:

2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

Adam and Eve didn't know that being naked was shameful.

 

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

 

Now they know that they are naked, and that being naked is shameful.

 

3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

 

I thought that god is All Knowing. Had some trouble finding Adam.

 

3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

 

Hey Adam. Who told you that you were naked? Is god stupid or what.

 

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

Kicked out of the Garden because of god's jealosy.

 

 

end3, Posted Today, 05:01 PM

There may be a necessity that humanity know good and evil in order that the final result is good.

 

So, god allows immense unnecessary evil and suffering to exist because of some future final result? In other words, "The end justifies the means"? Pretty lame. Why not just say that: "Zeus is Zeus and can do whatever he wants".

 

I actually have no problem with the Garden of Eden myth. It is an allegory and makes no sense when taken literally. It was one of the many stories borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. It wasn't until the 20th century that Samuel Noah Kramer translated the Sumerian texts.

 

 

end3, Posted Today, 05:01 PM

You all just seem stuck, or most of you, that knowing evil is an evil act by God.

 

We're not stuck, we're just having fun. The Bible is full of myths and legends, written by men, not the word of some god.. Of course it's full of contradictions, your god is imaginary.

[midniterider]

 

 

Let me be really clear. If all the evidence you present presumably convicts God in YOUR minds, your minds can't see an endpoint that might be good. There may be a necessity that humanity know good and evil in order that the final result is good. Not sure why each of you can't understand this. You all just seem stuck, or most of you, that knowing evil is an evil act by God...period.

 

 

 

 

Knowledge of good and evil is a good thing. I taught my children good and evil. It's a requirement to survive in this world. BibleGod's the one that got all huffy about gaining that knowledge, not us. 

 

We just think inherited sin is evil and illogical. We have a justice system, but it doesnt condemn people for the criminal acts of their ancestors. Especially criminal acts of fruit eating.

 

We think substitutionary atonement for Adam and Eve's criminal fruit eating is retarded but You-Know-Who feels it's a big deal for some reason. Someone who holds a grudge since the first two people on earth were created isn't exactly the epitome of 'forgiving', imo.  Sorry. Just forgive Adam and Eve for eating from your silly tree and be done with it. Christianity is large scale absurdity.

[miamia]

Not to mention, considering that passage about unabashed nudity, self consciousness when nude is not an inherent state. There are a lot 9f pagan and tribal cultures that don't cover up a damn thing and aren't the least bit ashamed of it,

Not trying to start another offshoot argument, just bringing up the point that modesty is at best, a practical invention, and at worst, a religious one. It's a product of nurture, not the "knowledge of good and evil" supposedly passed down from a and e

[quinntar]

Not to mention, considering that passage about unabashed nudity, self consciousness when nude is not an inherent state. There are a lot 9f pagan and tribal cultures that don't cover up a damn thing and aren't the least bit ashamed of it,

Not trying to start another offshoot argument, just bringing up the point that modesty is at best, a practical invention, and at worst, a religious one. It's a product of nurture, not the "knowledge of good and evil" supposedly passed down from a and e

You have to feel shame before you think it. Our thoughts stem from our emotions, which is in the case of A & E fall.

[miamia]

 

Not to mention, considering that passage about unabashed nudity, self consciousness when nude is not an inherent state. There are a lot 9f pagan and tribal cultures that don't cover up a damn thing and aren't the least bit ashamed of it,

Not trying to start another offshoot argument, just bringing up the point that modesty is at best, a practical invention, and at worst, a religious one. It's a product of nurture, not the "knowledge of good and evil" supposedly passed down from a and e

You have to feel shame before you think it. Our thoughts stem from our emotions, which is in the case of A & E fall.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End3, can god's actions contradict god's words?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It would appear that, once again, the End3 justifies the means.

[duderonomy]

End3, can god's actions contradict god's words?

 

That's a big question Prof.

According to the Bible, I'd say yes, because in the Bible, god's actions do contradict his words and even his own laws.

 

I think End makes up his own religion as he goes along. I notice he doesn't quote the inerrant Word of God much, if ever. Maybe because he has manufactured his own god and abandoned the Biblical one in favor of the wishful thinking one?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

End3, can god's actions contradict god's words?

 

That's a big question Prof.

According to the Bible, I'd say yes, because in the Bible, god's actions do contradict his words and even his own laws.

 

I think End makes up his own religion as he goes along. I notice he doesn't quote the inerrant Word of God much, if ever. Maybe because he has manufactured his own god and abandoned the Biblical one in favor of the wishful thinking one?

 

Good point, dude.  Though I'd say that such behavior is not likely exclusive to End3 alone.  Most christians, even the ones who can and do quote scripture and verse, are really only familiar with whatever pieces of the bible, philosophy, history, etc. which support their presuppositions about the god they've cobbled together for themselves.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, End3, I'm curious.  You say that you get my point already.  This strikes me as a bit odd, considering that I haven't actually had the chance to make my point yet (on account of your general refusal to answer a few simple questions).

 

If you'd be so kind, would you please explain what my point is and/or what it is you understand about my point?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You done, End3?

[Guest end3]

I gather Prof. that you would wish me to understand that God asked A&E for blind obedience/trust without giving them any means to consider any of it for themselves.....and that if I could just face this truth, my eyes would be opened and my fears quelled.

 

What do I win for being correct.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I gather Prof. that you would wish me to understand that God asked A&E for blind obedience/trust without giving them any means to consider any of it for themselves.....and that if I could just face this truth, my eyes would be opened and my fears quelled.

 

What do I win for being correct.

Sadly, you are not correct.  That is not the point I wish to convey.