Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

To what end.  I think we realistically should call the end, the end of our natural lives, unless you have special knowledge of our post natural lives outside of what's alluded to in the Bible.  You know the Bible story better than I, so there is no need in stating that, but the end would be Grace and Love, i.e. godliness after our progression, the "race", to arrive at that point, hopefully.  I believe my point was the beginning is not actually with the Mosaic law, but starts in the Garden, God giving commands for our holiness/cleanliness.

     I'm trying to make sense of all this.  The end of our natural lives?  So death?

 

     The point would be to give rules for living some sort of holy life?  What is the purpose of a holy/clean life?

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why would an omniscient god need to "test" anything?  Shouldn't he have already known the answers?

Edgarcito,   You are trying and failing to defend the indefensible and to excuse the inexcusable.   Scripture is what it is and says what it says.   No amount of wishful

It’s not what Mark said, it’s Walter intentionally mining old conversations for ill intentions... Now, back to the broadcast previously in progress...

Posted Images

  • Super Moderator

I think using the analogy of parents following a progression when raising kids fails as a parallel to god-garden-getting-to-gethsamane.  The main failure involved is that parents have no choice but to start with infantile little people with no greater awareness than to shit themselves and then cry in their discomfort.  Humans start as infants and cannot start as anything else. 

 

But, as has been stated beyond the point of belaboring, god had a choice in his creation.  He could have created humans as fully cognizant, fully functional adults.  He could have created an entire tribe of completely sentient beings instead of just the two in the garden.  He could have created Adam and Eve as infants themselves and watched them take their first steps.  He had a choice to start with something other than an infantile mind.

 

Edgarcito would have us simply accept that god chose to create adults with infantile minds who then fucked everything up by failing to make adult decisions about fruit.  But it still boils down to god's choice; and him blaming us for the consequences his choice led to, irrespective of whatever paltry and half-assed steps he might have taken to correct the situation afterwards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want Edgar and Tom Cruise to have a Word Salad Tournament:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this timeline, not just for Edgarcito's benefit, but for everyone to see what happened in the garden of Eden.  To make my point I'll change the colour of the text at the critical moment, to show exactly where and when everything changed.  Like... this.

 

Genesis chapter 1.  

In this chapter neither Adam nor Eve have the ability to understand good or evil or to differentiate between the two.

 

Genesis chapter 2.  

In verses 16 and 17 god warns Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on that day he will die.  In this chapter neither Adam nor Eve have yet acquired the ability to understand good or evil or to differentiate between the two.  Adam didn't have the ability when he was first formed by god.  He didn't have it when god gave him the warning and he still didn't have it by verse 25, the end of chapter 2. 

 

Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs in verse 22.  When god did this Adam still hadn't acquired the ability to understand either good or evil.  This means that Eve could not have acquired this ability at this time either.  If Adam didn't have this ability within him when god put him into a deep sleep, then his rib could not have transferred this ability to Eve.  If she did have this ability from the moment she was created then she would have become something greater than Adam.  Which is not supported by the text and which also contradicts other passages in the bible.

 

Genesis chapter 3.  (Quoted in full.)

 

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 

3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

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.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 

9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labour you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 

23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 

24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

We can all see the exact moment that the text changes from this to this.

 

Genesis 3 : 7 is the moment that Adam and Eve first understood what good and evil were.

 

There is nothing in the text of chapters 1, 2 or 3 before then that says otherwise. 

 

There is nothing in the text of chapters 1, 2 or 3 before then that suggests otherwise.

 

There is nothing in the text of chapters 1, 2 or 3 before then that can be taken in any way to mean otherwise.

 

Therefore, going by the text, there can have been no knowingly evil intent on their part in Genesis 3 : 6, when Eve took the fruit and gave some to Adam.

 

In verse 3 : 6 they were innocent of knowingly evil intent.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to personally thank Edgarcito for using the word 'Law' in the title of this, his thread.

 

By doing this he sent me in a new direction of inquiry into the storyline of Eden.

 

My new understanding is the result of looking at the events in Eden from a legal viewpoint.

 

As a result of doing this I now see and understand more about the following.

 

1.  Why the serpent elected to speak to Eve and not Adam.

2.  What the serpent knew about Adam and Eve before speaking to her.

3.  That the serpent was able to trick them into disobeying god without causing them to act in a knowingly evil way.

 

I'm happy to share this understanding with everyone, here in this thread.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this Wiki page.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

 

This page deals with the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.

 

Please look closely at the Latin phrase...  actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

 

This is translated as, 'the act is not culpable if the mind is not guilty'.

 

Since I have already established that...

 

(A) Adam and Eve were under god's law not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

and

 

(B) They could not have knowingly acted with evil intent until they after they ate the fruit and came to understand what evil was.

 

...we can see that the principle of mens rea excuses Adam and Eve from purposefully or knowingly choosing to act in an evil way by disobeying god's command not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

They were not culpable of acting with premeditated evil intent because their minds were unable to understand either good or evil before they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Genesis 3 : 7 is the moment that they came to understand good and evil.

 

Therefore, the text of the storyline in Eden is telling us two important things.

 

1.  Adam and Eve were not guilty of thinking evil thoughts, being evil or acting with evil intent before they ate the fruit.

 

2.  Yet, they did disobey god's lawful command.

 

So, the next question we must ask is this.

 

How were they able to disobey god without knowingly acting in an evil way?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

So, the next question we must ask is this.

 

How were they able to disobey god without knowingly acting in an evil way?

 

 

they fell?  they were innocent...

 

then they fell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
47 minutes ago, v__a__s__t said:

 

they fell?  they were innocent...

 

then they fell.

What a childishly naive thing to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the Genesis story about Adam and Eve is simply poorly written literature, even when considering it as fiction.  Believing it is actually true makes it comical.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What a childishly naive thing to say.

 

“ ‘When people fall down, do they not get up?

When someone turns away, do they not return?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Again, the Genesis story about Adam and Eve is simply poorly written literature, even when considering it as fiction.  Believing it is actually true makes it comical.

could be.  if a person takes all the Bible into consideration, then there are verses like this:

 

8‘How can you say, “We are wise,

for we have the law of the Lord,”

when actually the lying pen of the scribes

has handled it falsely?

9The wise will be put to shame;

they will be dismayed and trapped.

Since they have rejected the word of the Lord,

what kind of wisdom do they have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this Wiki page.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

 

This page deals with the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.

 

Please look closely at the Latin phrase...  actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

 

This is translated as, 'the act is not culpable if the mind is not guilty'.

 

Since I have already established that...

 

(A) Adam and Eve were under god's law not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

and

 

(B) They could not have knowingly acted with evil intent until they after they ate the fruit and came to understand what evil was.

 

...we can see that the principle of mens rea excuses Adam and Eve from purposefully or knowingly choosing to act in an evil way by disobeying god's command not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

They were not culpable of acting with premeditated evil intent because their minds were unable to understand either good or evil before they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Genesis 3 : 7 is the moment that they came to understand good and evil.

 

Therefore, the text of the storyline in Eden is telling us two important things.

 

1.  Adam and Eve were not guilty of thinking evil thoughts, being evil or acting with evil intent before they ate the fruit.

 

2.  Yet, they did disobey god's lawful command.

 

So, the next question we must ask is this.

 

How were they able to disobey god without knowingly acting in an evil way?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Very good analysis of the whole thing. Elements of a crime provide fairness in a determination of guilt. BibleGod seems to be lacking in fairness. I was considering "entrapment" as a defense for Adam and Eve, this article talks about it: 

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/04/30/did-adam-and-eve-receive-a-fair-trial/

 

It was mentioned in the article that the serpent , aka Satan (as Christians tend to identify the serpent as) had been previously in God's employ and God, being omnipresent would certainly have seen the serpent tempt A&E. Of course being omniscient, God knew Satan, his ex-employee (well and soon-to-be? employ in Hell) would indeed  tempt A&E, so there may be ground for an entrapment case. God knew these things and did nothing to prevent the crime. 

 

Of course God is also witness, judge, jury and prosecutor which is a conflict of interest in 'real' court cases. God should have immediately recused himself and left the case to the angels to decide. Maybe allow an angel to be counsel for A&E as well. 

 

And what of Attractive Nuisance doctrine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine#:~:text=The attractive nuisance doctrine applies,is likely to attract children.

 

It may have bearing on the case. Leaving dangerous items on one's property like an old refrigerator or a tree of the knowledge of good and evil could mean the owner of that property is liable for injuries if children (or those with minds of children) harm themselves while trespassing. 

 

In light of this new information I move for a recess and possible mistrial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this reminds me of the Derek Chauvin trial , idk if you are watching. The alledged killer of George Floyd. Eric Nelson, the defense lawyer is arguing that Derek Chauvin lacked mens rea to kill, and also he was just following standard procedure. Othr things too. Interesting trial to watch. I am imagining the serpent been called as a witness in Adam's trial and pleading the fifth 😅

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this Wiki page.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

 

This page deals with the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.

 

Please look closely at the Latin phrase...  actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

 

This is translated as, 'the act is not culpable if the mind is not guilty'.

 

Since I have already established that...

 

(A) Adam and Eve were under god's law not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

and

 

(B) They could not have knowingly acted with evil intent until they after they ate the fruit and came to understand what evil was.

 

...we can see that the principle of mens rea excuses Adam and Eve from purposefully or knowingly choosing to act in an evil way by disobeying god's command not to eat from the forbidden tree.

 

They were not culpable of acting with premeditated evil intent because their minds were unable to understand either good or evil before they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

Genesis 3 : 7 is the moment that they came to understand good and evil.

 

Therefore, the text of the storyline in Eden is telling us two important things.

 

1.  Adam and Eve were not guilty of thinking evil thoughts, being evil or acting with evil intent before they ate the fruit.

 

2.  Yet, they did disobey god's lawful command.

 

So, the next question we must ask is this.

 

How were they able to disobey god without knowingly acting in an evil way?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Speaking of eye's opened, that sort of represents crossing the christian / ex christian threshold. End-garcito here as gone on for years interacting with us, facing the contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies. Many times before this. But it hasn't ever "clicked."

 

It's interesting because people with open eye's see these issues easily and clearly. The problems in Genesis for instance. The point Walter has had to finally outline in red ink. Let alone the prior issues of light before light sources existed and grass before photosynthesis and all of that. It hasn't "clicked" with End in all of these years. Still can't seem to see what should be obvious. 

 

But for some reason he's attracted back to it. Across many years, quiting and returning under a different screen name. Something fascinating about re-playing the same discussions over and over again. But nothing ever seems to "click," not yet anyways. 

 

End is playing with the fruit of knowledge of ex christian experience. Tossing it hand to hand. But not biting in and getting to the open eye's aspect where everything is laid bare and you can see the bible for what it actually is and what is actually written there....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the legal analysis is interesting, it unfortunately is not as useful upon a full examination.  Mens Rea is not a required element for all criminal actions.  Statutory rape being the most highlighted example.  If we define crime broadly as an action in violation of statute, then speeding is likely the most common "crime" w/o the intent requirement.

 

Mens rea is certainly an example of fairness in the law, but it is neither required - nor did it matter for much of human history except as maybe a mitigating circumstance opposed to an element.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Krowb said:

While the legal analysis is interesting, it unfortunately is not as useful upon a full examination.  Mens Rea is not a required element for all criminal actions.  Statutory rape being the most highlighted example.  If we define crime broadly as an action in violation of statute, then speeding is likely the most common "crime" w/o the intent requirement.

 

Mens rea is certainly an example of fairness in the law, but it is neither required - nor did it matter for much of human history except as maybe a mitigating circumstance opposed to an element.

 

Mens rea is required (in today's society) for certain crimes like murder. Involuntary manslaughter does not require mens rea. And accordingly, there is a difference in the punishments. 

 

True it didnt matter for much of human history, but much of human history is barbaric and I think we have evolved past that...somewhat. 

 

I think the legal analysis is interesting, but we're applying it to a religious myth, or poorly written literature , as Sdelsolray says. :) I dont think End-garcito will be particularly impressed with it.

 

I wonder if Edgar believes in a flat earth?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Speaking of eye's opened, that sort of represents crossing the christian / ex christian threshold. End-garcito here as gone on for years interacting with us, facing the contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies. Many times before this. But it hasn't ever "clicked."

 

It's interesting because people with open eye's see these issues easily and clearly. The problems in Genesis for instance. The point Walter has had to finally outline in red ink. Let alone the prior issues of light before light sources existed and grass before photosynthesis and all of that. It hasn't "clicked" with End in all of these years. Still can't seem to see what should be obvious. 

 

But for some reason he's attracted back to it. Across many years, quiting and returning under a different screen name. Something fascinating about re-playing the same discussions over and over again. But nothing ever seems to "click," not yet anyways. 

 

End is playing with the fruit of knowledge of ex christian experience. Tossing it hand to hand. But not biting in and getting to the open eye's aspect where everything is laid bare and you can see the bible for what it actually is and what is actually written there....

 

Astute observation, Josh.

 

I wonder if Edgarcito has 'clicked' that he and I agree about Adam and Eve being under a law uttered from god's lips?

 

I hope so and I've tried to let him know about this.

 

Anyway, the last thing he wrote was that, like Arnie, he'd be back.

 

Here's hoping.  :)

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Krowb said:

While the legal analysis is interesting, it unfortunately is not as useful upon a full examination.  Mens Rea is not a required element for all criminal actions.  Statutory rape being the most highlighted example.  If we define crime broadly as an action in violation of statute, then speeding is likely the most common "crime" w/o the intent requirement.

 

Mens rea is certainly an example of fairness in the law, but it is neither required - nor did it matter for much of human history except as maybe a mitigating circumstance opposed to an element.

 

Hi Krowb!

 

Sorry for not making my thinking processes clearer.

 

I'm not suggesting that mens rea actually applies here or that it can be applied retroactively to the events in Eden.

 

No.  It's just that finding that Wiki page about mens rea caused me to think about what was in Adam and Eve's minds before and then after they ate the fruit.

 

Scripture appears to be telling us that they had no understanding of either good or evil up until the actual moment that they ate.

 

But, upon biting into, chewing and then swallowing the fruit, they then acquired a proper understanding of both good and evil.

 

Then, in the light of their new understanding, they realized the full consequences of what they had done.

 

This turning point means that prior to the moment they ate, they did not possess the means to understand the consequences of their actions.

 

Which further means that while they disobeyed god, they appear to have done so without malice aforethought, to use the outdated expression.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

 

Their 'crime' therefore appears to be one carried out without malicious intent.

 

Which makes me think that they were tricked into doing it by another party.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Very good analysis of the whole thing. Elements of a crime provide fairness in a determination of guilt. BibleGod seems to be lacking in fairness. I was considering "entrapment" as a defense for Adam and Eve, this article talks about it: 

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/04/30/did-adam-and-eve-receive-a-fair-trial/

 

Thanks for this midniterider. :)  Plenty to think about here.

 

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

It was mentioned in the article that the serpent , aka Satan (as Christians tend to identify the serpent as) had been previously in God's employ and God, being omnipresent would certainly have seen the serpent tempt A&E. Of course being omniscient, God knew Satan, his ex-employee (well and soon-to-be? employ in Hell) would indeed  tempt A&E, so there may be ground for an entrapment case. God knew these things and did nothing to prevent the crime. 

 

Of course God is also witness, judge, jury and prosecutor which is a conflict of interest in 'real' court cases. God should have immediately recused himself and left the case to the angels to decide. Maybe allow an angel to be counsel for A&E as well. 

 

Hmmm...

 

God recusing himself could be problematical.

 

Being all knowing he would know everything about any judgment made by any angel or counsel of angels, before he chose to recuse himself. 

 

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

And what of Attractive Nuisance doctrine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine#:~:text=The attractive nuisance doctrine applies,is likely to attract children.

 

It may have bearing on the case. Leaving dangerous items on one's property like an old refrigerator or a tree of the knowledge of good and evil could mean the owner of that property is liable for injuries if children (or those with minds of children) harm themselves while trespassing. 

 

In light of this new information I move for a recess and possible mistrial.

 

Attractive nuisance, eh?

 

Genesis 2 : 9

 

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

Genesis 3 : 6

 

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

If the forbidden tree was in the middle of the garden, how was it possible for Adam and Eve to NOT see that it was pleasing to the eye?

 

Something doesn't quite add up here.

 

Further thought needed.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

I'm still trying to figure out what men's urea has to do with anything...

 

Is it because they pissed out the parts of the apple they couldn't metabolize?

 

F1.large.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Speaking of eye's opened, that sort of represents crossing the christian / ex christian threshold. End-garcito here as gone on for years interacting with us, facing the contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies. Many times before this. But it hasn't ever "clicked."

 

It's interesting because people with open eye's see these issues easily and clearly. The problems in Genesis for instance. The point Walter has had to finally outline in red ink. Let alone the prior issues of light before light sources existed and grass before photosynthesis and all of that. It hasn't "clicked" with End in all of these years. Still can't seem to see what should be obvious. 

 

But for some reason he's attracted back to it. Across many years, quiting and returning under a different screen name. Something fascinating about re-playing the same discussions over and over again. But nothing ever seems to "click," not yet anyways. 

 

End is playing with the fruit of knowledge of ex christian experience. Tossing it hand to hand. But not biting in and getting to the open eye's aspect where everything is laid bare and you can see the bible for what it actually is and what is actually written there....

Don't be stupid Josh thinking I don't understand the two sides.  The intelligent decision is congruent with science, that because we can't measure it, WE STILL DON'T FUCKING KNOW.  But, that "doesn't click" with you bunch of spiritual misfits that believes a superior knowledge base makes you superior.  Idiot.

 

Do you understand that the only real response to this thread has been, "it's a myth and it's stupid"....which makes any person who considers any qualities of the myth "stupid"?  Very similar response to middle school best I remember.  

 

And then we have Walter...lol.  

 

But by all means Josh, go back to knowledge mining, that it may help you feel better....dumbass.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe tomorrow I can return to where I left off and recall what direction I was headed despite Walter's incessant bs.

 

I thought Mark was as bad as it got, but yea, I walk through the valley...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Hi Krowb!

 

Sorry for not making my thinking processes clearer.

 

I'm not suggesting that mens rea actually applies here or that it can be applied retroactively to the events in Eden.

 

No.  It's just that finding that Wiki page about mens rea caused me to think about what was in Adam and Eve's minds before and then after they ate the fruit.

 

Scripture appears to be telling us that they had no understanding of either good or evil up until the actual moment that they ate.

 

But, upon biting into, chewing and then swallowing the fruit, they then acquired a proper understanding of both good and evil.

 

Then, in the light of their new understanding, they realized the full consequences of what they had done.

 

This turning point means that prior to the moment they ate, they did not possess the means to understand the consequences of their actions.

 

Which further means that while they disobeyed god, they appear to have done so without malice aforethought, to use the outdated expression.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

 

Their 'crime' therefore appears to be one carried out without malicious intent.

 

Which makes me think that they were tricked into doing it by another party.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would God's instruction to Adam resulted in harm had he followed instructions regardless of whether he knew what death was? Yes or no please sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The serpent introduces increased wisdom and that "you will not die" to the mix.  In Gen 2, it was apparent that the trees were pleasing to the eye and good for food prior to the conversation with the serpent.  Again, after visiting with the serpent, we have two more aspects to the list of tree qualities.

 

Eve could have been sincere in her innocence that perspective was a plus for she and Adam....and life as well.

 

AFTER she ate, her then testimony to God was that the serpent deceived me.  It makes sense that she would understand deception AFTER she gained the knowledge of good and evil.

 

I hold to my revelation that God's intent was law resulting in holiness.  The serpent's instructions were not...

 

Need we discuss further

 

Oh wait, which tree are you choosing...(and you Josh, you knowledge tree eating bastard).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Would God's instruction to Adam resulted in harm had he followed instructions regardless of whether he knew what death was? Yes or no please sir.

 

I'll play along with your logical fallacy (false dilemma) for now, Edgarcito.

 

My answer is Yes.

 

Yes, it would have harmed Adam if he had obeyed without understanding the penalty for disobedience.

 

Why?

 

Because then he would be even less of human being than the way god made him.

 

He would have become an unthinking robot.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.