Please join me here, PittsburghJoe.

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

You're not getting the catch 22 ..you did know what evil was you would be sent here automatically.

 

Once again Joe, this isn't about me or you.

 

It's about Adam.

 

I'll tell why what he was given by god was a non-choice.

 

It's a long list.

 

1.  Adam didn't understand what good or evil were. (You agree with this.)

2.  He didn't understand that god was good.  (You agree with this too.)

3.  He didn't understand that Satan was evil.  (You also agree with this.)

4.  He didn't understand that god had been good to him by creating a place of shelter, with food and water.

5.  He didn't understand what punishment was because he had no concept of obedience or disobedience.

6.  He didn't understand what his punishment (death) would be because nothing in Eden had ever died.

7.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect his future wife, Eve.

8.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect not just Eve, but also their children.

9.  He didn't understand that he and Eve were the father and mother of the entire human race and so his actions would affect everyone who's ever lived. 

10.  Finally, god told him that ONLY he would die.  Not Eve, not their children, nor any of their descendants.  Only him.  He was the only human alive at the time god warned him about the tree.  He was alone.  But god withheld the fact that his actions would affect everyone else on Earth.

 

So you see Joe, because god didn't equip Adam with the ability to understand the full consequences of his actions his decision to obey or disobey was a non-choice.

 

Human beings MUST know and understand the consequences of their actions if they are to make a proper choice.

 

If they are denied this knowledge and understanding then they are not making a proper choice.

 

Adam was denied all of the above.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pittsburghjoe]

4 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Once again Joe, this isn't about me or you.

 

It's about Adam.

 

I'll tell why what he was given by god was a non-choice.

 

It's a long list.

 

1.  Adam didn't understand what good or evil were. (You agree with this.)

2.  He didn't understand that god was good.  (You agree with this too.)

3.  He didn't understand that Satan was evil.  (You also agree with this.)

4.  He didn't understand that god had been good to him by creating a place of shelter, with food and water.

5.  He didn't understand what punishment was because he had no concept of obedience or disobedience.

6.  He didn't understand what his punishment (death) would be because nothing Eden had ever died.

7.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect his future wife, Eve.

8.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect not just Eve, but also their children.

9.  He didn't understand that he and Eve were the father and mother of the entire human race and so his actions would affect everyone who's ever lived. 

10.  Finally, god told him that ONLY he would die.  Not Eve, not their children, nor any of their descendants.  Only him.  He was the only human alive at the time god warned him about the tree.  He was alone.  But god withheld the fact that his actions would affect everyone else on Earth.

 

So you see Joe, because god didn't equip Adam with the ability to understand the full consequences of his actions his decision to obey or disobey was a non-choice.

 

Human beings MUST know and understand the consequences of their actions if they are to make a proper choice.

 

If they are denied this knowledge and understanding then they are not making a proper choice.

 

Adam was denied all of the above.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I'm playing a rather small violin to your "proper" choice that would have sent Adam straight to hell.

[pittsburghjoe]

58 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Once again Joe, this isn't about me or you.

 

It's about Adam.

 

I'll tell why what he was given by god was a non-choice.

 

It's a long list.

 

1.  Adam didn't understand what good or evil were. (You agree with this.)

2.  He didn't understand that god was good.  (You agree with this too.)

3.  He didn't understand that Satan was evil.  (You also agree with this.)

4.  He didn't understand that god had been good to him by creating a place of shelter, with food and water.

5.  He didn't understand what punishment was because he had no concept of obedience or disobedience.

6.  He didn't understand what his punishment (death) would be because nothing in Eden had ever died.

7.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect his future wife, Eve.

8.  He didn't understand that his actions would affect not just Eve, but also their children.

9.  He didn't understand that he and Eve were the father and mother of the entire human race and so his actions would affect everyone who's ever lived. 

10.  Finally, god told him that ONLY he would die.  Not Eve, not their children, nor any of their descendants.  Only him.  He was the only human alive at the time god warned him about the tree.  He was alone.  But god withheld the fact that his actions would affect everyone else on Earth.

 

So you see Joe, because god didn't equip Adam with the ability to understand the full consequences of his actions his decision to obey or disobey was a non-choice.

 

Human beings MUST know and understand the consequences of their actions if they are to make a proper choice.

 

If they are denied this knowledge and understanding then they are not making a proper choice.

 

Adam was denied all of the above.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

It's amazing to me that you can't equate humans to Adam and Eve ..as if what I said didn't apply to them? Ridiculous.

[alreadyGone]

Walter,

 

Damnation man.

I would not want to face you across a negotiating table.

 

You're downright scary. 

 

[pittsburghjoe]

2 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Walter,

 

Damnation man.

I would not want to face you across a negotiating table.

 

You're downright scary. 

 

 

Right, because he won't listen to a single thing you say.

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Christians tend to start the word salad, mental gymnastics, deflection, avoidance when they realize God provided Adam with a uninformed free-will choice, which when the choice was made would have provided Adam with the information he needed to make an informed choice. 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that it was humans who wrote the story, flaws and all.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

I'm playing a rather small violin to your "proper" choice that would have sent Adam straight to hell.

 

But was anything I listed untrue?

 

Did god withhold all these things?

 

Yes, he did.

 

It's all there in the Bible.

 

But let's see you answer this one, Joe.

 

Where in unthinking obedience is the free-will that you say god wants from us?

 

 

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

I'm more about the end. This fallen reality is Babylon ..Babylon has fallen ..and this is the start to the end.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. Mere Assertion.

[WalterP]

22 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

It's amazing to me that you can't equate humans to Adam and Eve ..as if what I said didn't apply to them? Ridiculous.

 

That's right, Joe.

 

Adam wasn't human in the sense that you and I are human.

 

God made him incomplete, without a knowledge of good and evil.

 

You've agreed that god did this.

 

Therefore, you've also agreed that god made Adam incomplete.

 

Would you like me to prove this from scripture?

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

...

If they are denied this knowledge and understanding then they are not making a proper choice.

...

 

Perhaps.  Such a person may make the"correct" choice by chance.  Certainly, punishing such a person for making the "wrong" choice would be infantile.  Punishing such person's offspring would be grossly immoral.

But this mythological story comes from a time and society in which such behavior was practiced and accepted.  That behavior was projected upon the imaginary sky fairies in the mythology.  That behavior is not accepted any longer, at least in most modern human societies.

[pittsburghjoe]

2 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

But was anything I listed untrue?

 

Did god withhold all these things?

 

Yes, he did.

 

It's all there in the Bible.

 

But let's see you answer this one, Joe.

 

Where in unthinking obedience is the free-will that you say god wants from us?

 

 

 

Yes, you made a very convincing list of what not to do to newly created humans.

 

Judging evil allows humans to know something is physical ..it started this place we are in right now.

 

Obedience is the only option God had to allow Free Will.

 

[WalterP]

Just now, sdelsolray said:

Perhaps.  Such a person may make the"correct" choice by chance.  Certainly, punishing such a person for making the "wrong" choice would be infantile and immoral.

 

Especially if you knew beforehand what their choice was going to be.

 

 

[WalterP]

And I'm off to bed.

 

Pick this up again tomorrow.

 

Bye!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@pittsburghjoe, WalterP has retired for the evening.  There's no use in you continuing to post, as it will just be deleted anyway.  

[Hierophant]

34 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

Yes, you made a very convincing list of what not to do to newly created humans.

 

Judging evil allows humans to know something is physical ..it started this place we are in right now.

 

Obedience is the only option God had to allow Free Will.

 

 

You sound a lot like a combination of gnosticism and docetism. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

We obviously had the choice available. God was trying to prevent us form this BS cesspool. But we didn't listen.

 

You really think God was trying to prevent us from this cesspool huh? I dont know your age. So I'll ask this. Have you ever had a child? Anyone who has had a child knows that you must "baby proof" your house. You absolutely DO NOT put your child in a room with deadly items within reach. Such as knives, guns, electrical outlets. 

 

Let's say you have stairs in your house that lead down to a basement. Or split-level. A responsible parent knowing that if their child feel down those stairs it would potentially kill that child will put up a baby gate. Because the child doesn't understand the concept of NO. Or Danger yet. So God! Not just God but the bibles All Knowing God! Just tells his brand new creation not to eat that fruit. He doesn't put a fence, a hedge, a mote, or any other type of barrier around that tree. He just tells Adam. (A person not knowing anything.) Not to eat that fruit and expects him not to? 

 

Come on man. I've raised 3 kids and I know that if you tell a kid not to do something. That is the first thing they will do. Its always best to make it impossible for them to do it in the first place. 

 

In light of this. You can not tell me God didn't expect this if he is the "all knowing" father the Bible portrays. So not only is he a bitch because he can't kick Satan's ass. He is also a horrible father that puts his children in deadly situations when they are infants. I think we really need to call the department of children and family services on this punk ass bitch. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@pittsburghjoe, WalterP has retired for the evening.  There's no use in you continuing to post, as it will just be deleted anyway.  

 

Please let him atleast explain why "Father God" is a neglective POS. Lol...... ok..... I admit. I'm a couple hours in to some bourbon.  So maybe nows not the best time lol. 

[pittsburghjoe]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@pittsburghjoe, WalterP has retired for the evening.  There's no use in you continuing to post, as it will just be deleted anyway.  

 

What is left to say to WalterP, other than he is wrong for 50 time? You said I could talk to other people when he ran out of steam ..credibility. 

[Hierophant]

10 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

What is left to say to WalterP, other than he is wrong for 50 time? You said I could talk to other people when he ran out of steam ..credibility. 

 

For the sake of the argument, I thought a lot about your position. I am trying to empathize with how you are tossing the idea around in your head. I think I have a good idea of how you are viewing the scenario. Essentially, everything was good, Adam somehow recognized it as good because there was not any bad to deal with. And the only instruction he received was not to eat an apple. Adam was in this state of innocence and goodness.

 

The catch is, and what others are trying to state, is that Adam likely would not have known or understood what it meant to disobey God. At a fundamental level, he did not have the capacity to know he was allowed to disobey. Because if he did, if Adam could somehow conceptualize disobedience, then Adam had knowledge of evil. Is that not how we are defining good and evil? Perhaps there is a crossing of ideas because terms have not been defined. At a high level, the Bible uses terms like good and evil to describe what God approves of and what God does not approve of, respectively. What Walter is trying to say is that according to a literal reading of the Bible, Adam did not have any cognitive ability to recognize good nor evil, he did not have that ability until after eating the fruit.

 

Your position, or what you are trying to describe, is something different than knowledge of what God approves of and what God does not approve of. Humans today and in the past could recognize good and bad after a development of our cognitive abilities and social training from other humans; therefore, and for the sake of the argument, Adam must have existed in some state unrecognizable to modern day humans, but if Adam had no ability to recognize good or bad, then Adam could not have had any consideration to touch/eat the fruit. The more you think about it, it sounds like Adam was supposed to be some kind of man-child.

 

In my opinion, that is why this story does not make sense in a literal way, or the way we have been arguing here. The tree of life must mean something different. Dr. Price argues that the knowledge of good and evil relates to sex. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden because they discovered the knowledge of procreation and the gods were worried they would have offspring and also eat from the tree of life, which would give humans immortality. Then the gods would now have a bunch of immortal beings running around earth, while producing like rabbits.

 

I find Dr. Price's interpretation interesting, but I am not sure I totally agree with it. But it does have way more explanatory power than what you are proffering - and it is more of an attempt to read an idea out of the Bible opposed to reading ideas into the Bible. Where I completely disagree with you Joe is that you are consistently reading theology into the Bible. Theology that is the outworking of various churches and councils over hundreds of years.

 

I also disagree with your appeal to Satan. Unless you are keen on the idea of Open Theism, the notion of Satan is ludicrous in context of an all knowing, all loving God. As I mentioned before, Satan did not become a proper noun until much later in the Bible. Your unwillingness to consider you may be wrong or to look at other facts is a bit frustrating, though I do understand it. Changing one's opinion can be very difficult, especially if they have invested time, energy, and resources into a certain position. I would imagine your theology is how you interpret the world, and to change that, would imply that your whole worldview changes. It is an unstable, if not downright frightening position to be in. I know, I went through it. I ended up questioning everything I thought was true and it was unsettling for a period of time.

 

I am also now willing to change my position based on the evidence provided. I take it you are unwilling to do that. You will not entertain any idea outside of your current conclusions, which means that you are not seeking real understanding, you are just believing in assertions and unproven or unprovable assumptions. That is the same methodology other religions use to justify the veracity of their own pet theories. Using your method, I could easily become a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, or any of the other 10,000 religions out there. You will never discover the truth while you refuse to question your own beliefs. And what I mean by questioning your own beliefs is by asking yourself, "what evidence is there to support this hypothesis?" "Is there a way to demonstrate the veracity of these claims?" If you are ever willing to entertain the notion you could be wrong, here is a good start:

 

When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter

 

That book has nothing to do with religion or putting Christianity in the spot light, but it does talk about the psychology of believing something to be true when there is no evidence of it being true.

 

As @TABA recommended, you should also read:

 

The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots by Gregory Mobley and T.J. Wray.

 

The book literally goes through the Bible and follows Satan through the Old and New Testament.

 

For the sake of truth, I hope you will consider other evidence and especially consider that you could be wrong in your beliefs. I do that, I do not think I have all the answers. I am still open to the idea of Christianity somehow being true. If I was provided substantial evidence to establish the probability of Christianity, I would believe. Are you willing to change your mind?

[Joshpantera]

The silliest part about all of it comes from what is well known about the Genesis myth. 

 

The Elohim were the "gods" of Genesis. And followed through the old testament. This is from a pre-monotheistic way of thinking. These "gods" making man in "their" imagine were something like Zeus and the greek pantheon, and not what later christians telescope backwards through time imagining that it's referring to trinity concepts that didn't exist yet when the text was written. 

 

These pantheon "gods," say let "us" make man in our "image" and then proceed to put this man in a garden. The fact that the man was more like a robot operating in the garden than anything else, makes more sense to me against the context of this setting. The "gods" had no intention of the man being like one of "them." Freewill is a later theological issue that didn't play in to the old myth it would seem. 

 

 

[pittsburghjoe]

12 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

You sound a lot like a combination of gnosticism and docetism. 

 

The double slit experiment is indicating we are judging if something is part of this fallen reality or not. We became unique instead of as a whole. A physical person has pride, vanity, greed, lust, ego ..sin

 

The knowledge of judging evil allows humans to know something is physical. We didn't know/see what the difference was between a wave and particle before sin.

Scientists say decoherence is lost information to the environment. ..but the environment is this fallen reality. We are swimming in sin.

It goes deeper ..original sin caused disorder ..entropy. Unobserved waves are coherent and infinite. Decohered wave packets are finite. They caused disorder of the perfect order of coherence. SIN

This fallen condition causes Death, Decay, and Age.
 

I think decoherence might be a present state ..the now. Physical objects can only be in the now ..not the future.

[Joshpantera]

9 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

The knowledge of judging evil allows humans to know something is physical. We didn't know/see what the difference was between a wave and particle before sin.

 

But the "gods" had knowledge of good and evil BEFORE Adam did. 

 

11 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

It goes deeper ..original sin caused disorder ..entropy. Unobserved waves are coherent and infinite. Decohered wave packets are finite. They caused disorder of the perfect order of coherence. SIN

This fallen condition causes Death, Decay, and Age.
 

I think decoherence might be a present state ..the now. Physical objects can only be in the now ..not the future.

 

I think we need to focus in more on YOUR interpretation of Genesis. Specifically what you are claiming is the ORIGIN of physical reality. And what in the TEXT is your evidence. 

[pittsburghjoe]

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

 

For the sake of the argument, I thought a lot about your position. I am trying to empathize with how you are tossing the idea around in your head. I think I have a good idea of how you are viewing the scenario. Essentially, everything was good, Adam somehow recognized it as good because there was not any bad to deal with. And the only instruction he received was not to eat an apple. Adam was in this state of innocence and goodness.

 

The catch is, and what others are trying to state, is that Adam likely would not have known or understood what it meant to disobey God. At a fundamental level, he did not have the capacity to know he was allowed to disobey. Because if he did, if Adam could somehow conceptualize disobedience, then Adam had knowledge of evil. Is that not how we are defining good and evil? Perhaps there is a crossing of ideas because terms have not been defined. At a high level, the Bible uses terms like good and evil to describe what God approves of and what God does not approve of, respectively. What Walter is trying to say is that according to a literal reading of the Bible, Adam did not have any cognitive ability to recognize good nor evil, he did not have that ability until after eating the fruit.

 

Your position, or what you are trying to describe, is something different than knowledge of what God approves of and what God does not approve of. Humans today and in the past could recognize good and bad after a development of our cognitive abilities and social training from other humans; therefore, and for the sake of the argument, Adam must have existed in some state unrecognizable to modern day humans, but if Adam had no ability to recognize good or bad, then Adam could not have had any consideration to touch/eat the fruit. The more you think about it, it sounds like Adam was supposed to be some kind of man-child.

 

In my opinion, that is why this story does not make sense in a literal way, or the way we have been arguing here. The tree of life must mean something different. Dr. Price argues that the knowledge of good and evil relates to sex. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden because they discovered the knowledge of procreation and the gods were worried they would have offspring and also eat from the tree of life, which would give humans immortality. Then the gods would now have a bunch of immortal beings running around earth, while producing like rabbits.

 

I find Dr. Price's interpretation interesting, but I am not sure I totally agree with it. But it does have way more explanatory power than what you are proffering - and it is more of an attempt to read an idea out of the Bible opposed to reading ideas into the Bible. Where I completely disagree with you Joe is that you are consistently reading theology into the Bible. Theology that is the outworking of various churches and councils over hundreds of years.

 

I also disagree with your appeal to Satan. Unless you are keen on the idea of Open Theism, the notion of Satan is ludicrous in context of an all knowing, all loving God. As I mentioned before, Satan did not become a proper noun until much later in the Bible. Your unwillingness to consider you may be wrong or to look at other facts is a bit frustrating, though I do understand it. Changing one's opinion can be very difficult, especially if they have invested time, energy, and resources into a certain position. I would imagine your theology is how you interpret the world, and to change that, would imply that your whole worldview changes. It is an unstable, if not downright frightening position to be in. I know, I went through it. I ended up questioning everything I thought was true and it was unsettling for a period of time.

 

I am also now willing to change my position based on the evidence provided. I take it you are unwilling to do that. You will not entertain any idea outside of your current conclusions, which means that you are not seeking real understanding, you are just believing in assertions and unproven or unprovable assumptions. That is the same methodology other religions use to justify the veracity of their own pet theories. Using your method, I could easily become a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, or any of the other 10,000 religions out there. You will never discover the truth while you refuse to question your own beliefs. And what I mean by questioning your own beliefs is by asking yourself, "what evidence is there to support this hypothesis?" "Is there a way to demonstrate the veracity of these claims?" If you are ever willing to entertain the notion you could be wrong, here is a good start:

 

When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter

 

That book has nothing to do with religion or putting Christianity in the spot light, but it does talk about the psychology of believing something to be true when there is no evidence of it being true.

 

As @TABA recommended, you should also read:

 

The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots by Gregory Mobley and T.J. Wray.

 

The book literally goes through the Bible and follows Satan through the Old and New Testament.

 

For the sake of truth, I hope you will consider other evidence and especially consider that you could be wrong in your beliefs. I do that, I do not think I have all the answers. I am still open to the idea of Christianity somehow being true. If I was provided substantial evidence to establish the probability of Christianity, I would believe. Are you willing to change your mind?

 

I'm giving you evidence ..stop deleting it:

 

The double slit experiment is indicating we are judging if something is part of this fallen reality or not. We became unique instead of as a whole. A physical person has pride, vanity, greed, lust, ego ..sin

 

The knowledge of judging evil allows humans to know something is physical. We didn't know/see what the difference was between a wave and particle before sin.

Scientists say decoherence is lost information to the environment. ..but the environment is this fallen reality. We are swimming in sin.

 

It goes deeper ..original sin caused disorder ..entropy. Unobserved waves are coherent and infinite. Decohered wave packets are finite. They caused disorder of the perfect order of coherence. SIN

This fallen condition causes Death, Decay, and Age.

 

Sin has something to do with physicality. Satan was allowed in the Garden because God needed something fallen to give us choice for Free Will. If God used a tree ..it means it was a physical tree ..and Satan is able to be around anything fallen apparently. The tree of knowledge would have looked normal to Adam because he couldn't judge between good and evil yet. The tree was physical in a garden that was not. God doesn't create evil so he used something from this fallen view.

 

Our eyes were open to Satan's perception because he was the first to cause disorder.

I think decoherence might be a present state ..the now. Physical objects can only be in the now ..not the future.

 

[Hierophant]

13 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

 

The double slit experiment is indicating we are judging if something is part of this fallen reality or not. We became unique instead of as a whole. A physical person has pride, vanity, greed, lust, ego ..sin

 

The knowledge of judging evil allows humans to know something is physical. We didn't know/see what the difference was between a wave and particle before sin.

Scientists say decoherence is lost information to the environment. ..but the environment is this fallen reality. We are swimming in sin.

It goes deeper ..original sin caused disorder ..entropy. Unobserved waves are coherent and infinite. Decohered wave packets are finite. They caused disorder of the perfect order of coherence. SIN

This fallen condition causes Death, Decay, and Age.
 

I think decoherence might be a present state ..the now. Physical objects can only be in the now ..not the future.

 

No. Adam was not inherently infinite. He had to eat from the tree of life to be immortal.

 

You are trying to apply modern science retroactively to a creation myth. On top of that, you are making an assertion. Unless you can demonstrate the link, not simply state it, you are merely making a claim without evidence.

[Hierophant]

Joe - what does tohu and bohu mean in Hebrew?

 

I am going to walk the dog for you on this one and demonstrate how you are forcing an interpretation into the text. I have to head into the office for a bit, but when I get back, I hope you will answer my question. It is very important you take the time to look up these words and then I am going to explain some ancient theology to you.