Suffering for the Sins of the World

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 9/11/2022 at 10:17 PM, Weezer said:

Ed is an excelent, and persistant fisherman.  He throws out the bait, and people grab it.  Over, and over, and over.

 

This thread has gone on so long people have forgotten points that have already been addressed.  (bait highlighted above)

[midniterider]

Freshstart had a good point...outside of the Christian mindset our children are precious and everyone including Christians are going to do whatever it takes to keep evil away from our children...even the evil that God condones in the form of child slavery. 

 

 

 

 

[TABA]

On 9/11/2022 at 11:17 PM, Weezer said:

Ed is an excelent, and persistant fisherman.  He throws out the bait, and people grab it.  Over, and over, and over.

Another way to put this is that Ed regularly provides us with opportunities to rebut arguments in favor of christianity.  Over and over and over.  Good!  This is part of the purpose of ex-christian-dot-net.  I know it’s easy to get tired of making the same case again and again, but fortunately we always have members willing to take up the challenge: our name is Legion, for we are many.  Or at least, enough to keep it going.  

[midniterider]

21 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

This thread has gone on so long people have forgotten points that have already been addressed.  (bait highlighted above)

 

It could also be my poor memory. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Freshstart had a good point...outside of the Christian mindset our children are precious and everyone including Christians are going to do whatever it takes to keep evil away from our children...even the evil that God condones in the form of child slavery. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is somewhat of a sidetrack, but while we are on this subject, it seems like Ed (or someone else)?  in the past made an insightful comment regarding child starvation, abuse, etc.  We talk about how terrible God is for letting it happen, but all we people from the most wealthy and powerful country in the word do is talk about it.  So are we that much different than God??  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It could also be my poor memory. 

 

I can really identify with that!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

This thread has gone on so long people have forgotten points that have already been addressed.  (bait highlighted above)

Not me, though.  My memory is so good that I can't even remember the last time I forgot something.

 

(Also, I just wanted to use the term "master baiter.")

[TABA]

20 minutes ago, Weezer said:

We talk about how terrible God is for letting it happen, but all we people from the most wealthy and powerful country in the word do is talk about it.  So are we that much different than God?? 

Well yes, we are that different from Ed’s god.  There is no doubt that due to advances in accepted standards of morality and in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, the well-being of men, women and children around the world has risen steadily in the past few centuries.  Coincidentally, the advance of the Enlightenment has been accompanied by a decline in religiosity!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, Weezer said:

So are we that much different than God??  

Yes.  Because our resources and abilities are limited and finite.  Any one of us in this thread (even Ed, I'd bet) would prevent child sex trafficking or childhood hunger if we had the resources and ability.  But this supposedly omnipotent god is not bound by the same limitations we have.  So, he is without excuse.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Looks like Ed is done Master Baiting on this thread......... 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

This is somewhat of a sidetrack, but while we are on this subject, it seems like Ed (or someone else)?  in the past made an insightful comment regarding child starvation, abuse, etc.  We talk about how terrible God is for letting it happen, but all we people from the most wealthy and powerful country in the word do is talk about it.  So are we that much different than God??  

 

The bottom line is that it is hard to believe a God exists that is loving while we know all this bad stuff is going on. 

 

Am I different from God? Sure. I exist and pay taxes.  Those taxes pay for social programs to help stop human trafficking, stop hunger, etc. Some of us give money to charities to feed the children.

 

I'm not on a crusade ... it's just fun to pose this question to Christians... and while human trafficking is horrid, eternal torture in Hell is the top banana of evil icons. I imagine Ed thinks that's fine too. 

[walterpthefirst]

It's already been mentioned a while back in this forum, but I think it's time to remind ourselves of the insane level of disconnect between the passionate Christian concern for aborted babies and the pathological lack of Christian concern for Adam and Eve.  In both cases vulnerable and innocent babies were put in harms way.  Yes, you read that right - IN BOTH CASES.

 

Even though Adam and Eve were created with the bodies of adults in every other respect they were babies.  Morally, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually they were babes - totally reliant on god for shelter, for protection from harm and for nourishment, just as an unborn child is totally reliant on its mother for shelter, for protection from harm and for nourishment.

 

Christians are more than happy to point accusing fingers at abortion doctors for bringing harm to babies, calling such people 'evil'.  But where are the accusing Christian fingers that should be pointed at god for putting Adam and Eve in harms way by failing to protect them from Satan?

 

But no. 

Instead, we see excusing Christian fingers pointing to god as being a loving father.  So, I have a serious question to ask any Christians who would excuse god like this.

 

 

Since when did any father who puts his vulnerable and innocent babies in harm's way ever qualify as loving?

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 9/12/2022 at 4:46 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito,

 

Perhaps it would help you realize the extent of god's evil in Eden if you were to think of Adam and Eve's test in terms of your work in the chemistry lab.

 

If you had sample ready for testing and you saw that it was contaminated you'd dump it, right?  In the same way, god prepared Adam and Eve for his test by creating them pure and innocent.  That way (even though he knew the outcome in advance) he could see how they would react to his command not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree.  This would have been a proper test of their uncontaminated free will.  

 

But god allowed Satan into Eden (even though he knew in advance what Satan would do once he fell from heaven) and in the shape of a serpent he corrupted and contaminated Eve.  She then contaminated and corrupted Adam.  This ruined god's test of their pure and uncontaminated free will.  God knew all of this advance in advance, but did nothing to prevent it.

 

Those two quotes from Jude and 2 Peter tell us that god had the power to confine and restrain the fallen angels in chains of darkness until judgment day, but in Satan's case god didn't confine him and keep him out of Eden.  This is the equivalent of you noticing your contaminated sample, doing nothing about it and running your tests anyway, ruining the whole of your work.

 

Do you see it now?

 

 

Walter.

This is a really god analogy, Walt; and it got me thinking about why god would conduct a test when he already knew in advance what the results would be.  This is also something I would expect a fellow scientist such as @Edgarcito to be very familiar with; because it is something that we do in the lab all the time.  We run tests to confirm what we already know, either because a previous test already yielded the information, or because we have historical data and want to confirm the information it yields.

 

Now, if god already knew that the results of the test were going to be sin, rebellion,  and disobedience, then what information was god looking to confirm?  As I see it, he may have wanted to confirm that he had created Adam and Eve as sinful, rebellious, and disobedient beings.  Or, following your analogy here, perhaps he did create them as pure and innocent, but wanted to confirm that they had indeed been corrupted by the serpent, thereby ensuring that god himself would remain blameless. 

 

It's an interesting speculation, that ultimately does not matter, given that god is certainly guilty of planting the tree.  Food for thought, though...

[walterpthefirst]

38 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a really god analogy, Walt; and...

 

A god analogy, Prof?

 

Pun intended?

 

[Joshpantera]

On 9/12/2022 at 11:59 PM, alreadyGone said:

Josh,

 

I had no idea such insane belief(s) existed in nominally Christian churches.

 

But then, when viewed alongside the snake-handlers' beliefs, the Calvinists' beliefs, the Mormons..

 

 

At least I realized it was bullshit by age 15, but that plenty enough time to have caused a decent 'mind fuck' that I'd wear in various ways all the rest of my life.

 

I got out 31 years ago, but never fully got out. I'm still a way ward member of the same community. I'm married into it by way of my in laws being devout SDA's. My grandfather was disfellowshipped, so I just cite that as reason why we all had our membership terminated. I just start going there if they bring up religion.

 

And they shy off. Long story short, there was a big financial misconduct accusation from grandfather towards the conference president that ended in my grandfather's disfellowship. So, it's a sore issue and they'll steer clear of it because it's uncomfortable for them to try and apologize away. They just leave it be that I don't have their daughter and grandsons in the church. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a really god analogy, Walt; and it got me thinking about why god would conduct a test when he already knew in advance what the results would be.  This is also something I would expect a fellow scientist such as @Edgarcito to be very familiar with; because it is something that we do in the lab all the time.  We run tests to confirm what we already know, either because a previous test already yielded the information, or because we have historical data and want to confirm the information it yields.

 

Now, if god already knew that the results of the test were going to be sin, rebellion,  and disobedience, then what information was god looking to confirm?  As I see it, he may have wanted to confirm that he had created Adam and Eve as sinful, rebellious, and disobedient beings.  Or, following your analogy here, perhaps he did create them as pure and innocent, but wanted to confirm that they had indeed been corrupted by the serpent, thereby ensuring that god himself would remain blameless. 

 

It's an interesting speculation, that ultimately does not matter, given that god is certainly guilty of planting the tree.  Food for thought, though...

 

That is an interesting way of looking at the myth. 

 

What else could the god be confirming aside from what it already knows will happen, all of it. Right down to the lake of burning sulfur, and the remaining lot bowing and groveling around singing praises forever and ever. The god thought, 'yep, let's get the ball rolling and confirm what I already know will happen. Game on!!!' 

 

Completely to blame for every bit of it from this perspective. The only way out of this for the god and it's self-righteous apologists, is to get away from the omni's. But it can't get away from the omni's, because it's attached to them by scripture. The self-contradiction is like toilet paper on the gods shoe that it can't quite shake off. 

 

 

[mwc]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Even though Adam and Eve were created with the bodies of adults in every other respect they were babies. 

     Do we know this?  What were there "age" at creation?  30?  20?  15?  10?  I don't recall the narrative actually giving this information.  The only clue we have is they have sex so it would seem they're at least pubescent?  But this seems to only occur after they eat the fruit so could they have been created pre-pubescent?

 

     The assumption always seems to be they were physically some adult age (30?) but mentally children.  What if they were physically and mentally children?  Then they eat the fruit, this causes them to go through puberty, and they become physically and mentally adults.  The text then describes all the curses that adults have to deal with.  Hard work.  Labor in childbirth.  Death.  Historically, going through puberty was the sign that a person was becoming an adult and they were ready to take on all these things (whether they actually were or not and modern societies have started to recognized this).

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A god analogy, Prof?

 

Pun intended?

 

Following the analogy on out, if god was looking to confirm that he had created Adam and Eve with sin, rebellion, and disobedience, then he used the serpent to draw those target analytes to the surface in much the same way one might use methylene chloride to draw semi-volatile organic compounds out of a water sample.  On the other hand, if he was looking to confirm that the serpent had corrupted Adam and Eve, then the serpent was merely a step in the process of the experiment.  Either way, god's use of the serpent was intentional and deliberate, just as his planting of the tree.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     Do we know this?  What were there "age" at creation?  30?  20?  15?  10?  I don't recall the narrative actually giving this information.  The only clue we have is they have sex so it would seem they're at least pubescent?  But this seems to only occur after they eat the fruit so could they have been created pre-pubescent?

 

     The assumption always seems to be they were physically some adult age (30?) but mentally children.  What if they were physically and mentally children?  Then they eat the fruit, this causes them to go through puberty, and they become physically and mentally adults.  The text then describes all the curses that adults have to deal with.  Hard work.  Labor in childbirth.  Death.  Historically, going through puberty was the sign that a person was becoming an adult and they were ready to take on all these things (whether they actually were or not and modern societies have started to recognized this).

 

          mwc

 

 

We don't 'know' this at all, mwc.

 

As you say, the narrative is very vague about Adam and Eve's physical appearance.  I based my assertion that they had adult bodies on the very long traditions of the church and they have been depicted as adults in frescoes, paintings and similar since the Dark Ages or perhaps even Roman times.

 

But, if they possessed children's minds and bodies, then how much more disgusting and horrific is god's treatment of them?

 

As I mentioned before, Christians get extremely upset about babies coming to harm at the hands of abortionists.  But if Adam and Eve were physically children, why aren't they getting extremely upset about god allowing harm to come to his children?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We don't 'know' this at all, mwc.

 

As you say, the narrative is very vague about Adam and Eve's physical appearance.  I based my assertion that they had adult bodies on the very long traditions of the church and they have been depicted as adults in frescoes, paintings and similar since the Dark Ages or perhaps even Roman times.

 

But, if they possessed children's minds and bodies, then how much more disgusting and horrific is god's treatment of them?

 

As I mentioned before, Christians get extremely upset about babies coming to harm at the hands of abortionists.  But if Adam and Eve were physically children, why aren't they getting extremely upset about god allowing harm to come to his children?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

     Exactly, a couple millennia of tradition has influenced our interpretation of a story that has no actual details on this point.

 

     We're really left with god creating children to work his garden or god creating what amounts to mentally retarded adults (ie. child-like mentally but adult physically) to work in his garden.  Neither of these are a good look.

 

     The only way out is to create a proper adult that is fully adult, having what amounts to a complete set of knowledge, except morally innocent since this is contained within the tree.  This is the option everyone seems to choose.  This still raises the question of why god would instill knowledge except moral knowledge?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, getting back to your analogy, @walterpthefirst, the sample was definitely contaminated.  That is not in question.  The question that comes to my mind, now, is: How did the sample become contaminated?  For this, we will need to perform another process that @Edgarcito should be familiar with, a Root Cause Analysis.  This is a process of examining the evidence and events that led to the contamination to determine the hows and whys.

 

To begin with, we have two possible routes of contamination.  The sample may have been contaminated by the serpent, or the sample may have been contaminated during creation.  What do the evidence and events presented in the text tell us?  We see from the text that Adam and Eve were naked, but not ashamed.  But is there any other indication that they were pure?  Certainly the text gives the impression that they had not sinned, yet; and in that sense, they were innocent.  But the text gives no indication that they did not already have the capacity for sin, or the ability to sin.  So, we cannot assume they were pure (not contaminated by sin, rebellion, and disobedience) upon creation without reading that idea into the text when it isn't explicitly there.

 

What is in the text, though, gives us a very big indication that Adam and Eve could not have been contaminated by the serpent.  As @alreadyGone has already gone and mentioned, the serpent appealed to Eve's sense of mystery and intrigue, hardly something that could be considered sinful or impure.  But the serpent did more than that.

 

"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."  Said the serpent in Genesis 3:5

 

The serpent was able to appeal to Eve's sense of Pride, in addition to her sense of mystery.  Now, we know from the general text of the bible, as well as from the doctrine of Sin, that Pride is a sin.  This makes it a component of the target analyte of Sin which god's test purports to detect. 

 

Pentachlorobenzene is a component part of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), which we can extract from a water sample, using methylene chloride.  Because the methylene chloride is able to interact with the pentachlorobenzene, without interacting with the water, it will pull the entire PCB from the sample; and we can then analyze the PCB using gas chromatography.  But, if there is no pentachlorobenzene present, or any of the other components of a PCB, then our test yields no result; and we report the sample as containing no PCBs.

 

The serpent was able to appeal to a component of the target analyte, namely Pride; and the serpent was able to interact with that component and use it to extract the entire analyte (Sin), which was then analyzed using the tree and fruit.  But for the serpent to be able to do this, the target analyte had to have already been present in the sample.  Had it not been, the test would have yielded no result.

 

I submit, therefore, based on the evidence given in the text, that it was not the serpent who corrupted Eve.  Eve had been already corrupted by her corrupt and evil creator, who then used the serpent, the tree, and the fruit as a means to both confirm and complete her corruption and ensure the suffering of evil would befall every generation of her children thenceforth.  This is all the work of god.  The intentional and deliberate damnation of his own children, for what purposes only a complete psychopath could fathom.

 

[walterpthefirst]

I submit, therefore, based on the evidence given in the text, that it was not the serpent who corrupted Eve.  Eve had been already corrupted by her corrupt and evil creator, who then used the serpent, the tree, and the fruit as a means to both confirm and complete her corruption and ensure the suffering of evil would befall every generation of her children thenceforth.  This is all the work of god.  The intentional and deliberate damnation of his own children, for what purposes only a complete psychopath could fathom.

 

You present an interesting case, Prof.

 

I can't go with it 100% but there are points of agreement between us.  For instance, Genesis 3 : 20 confirms that Eve's corruption and sin were passed down to every human being because...

 

 

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

 

What I can't get past (and I'm still waiting on Edgarcito for answers on this) is that by his inaction, god is revealed as evil by his callous disregard for Adam and Eve's safety.  No good and loving father would expose their vulnerable children (corrupt or not) to harm, yet, as I have shown recently, this is exactly what god by allowing Satan to interact with Eve.

 

Edgarcito seems to think that the 'test' hinges on the free will of Adam and Eve.  But he forgets (or overlooks) that of the four players in the Eden narrative, one had complete freedom of choice, one had a very great freedom of choice and two had very little freedom of choice. 

 

By definition god's free will cannot be compromised or influenced or corrupted in any way.  Being all-powerful there is nothing that can do this.  Even if he is already corrupt, there is still nothing in all creation that could change that.  If god weren't corrupt, then, in a similar way, there is nothing in all creation that could corrupt him.  God is the first player in the Eden narrative who enjoys complete freedom of choice, either to choose good or to choose evil.  Genesis 3 : 22 tells us that god knows good and evil.  So, he is totally free to choose either and nothing can change that.

 

The second player, who has a very great freedom of choice (within the limitation that he can only make evil choices ) is Satan.  We see that he had the freedom to choose to enter Eden unopposed by god or by any of god's angels.  He had the freedom to choose to disguise himself as a serpent, when he could have appeared as an angel of light (see 2 Corinthians 11 : 14).  He also had the freedom to approach and talk to Eve, again unopposed by god or any loyal angel.

 

Jude 6, 2 Peter 2 : 4 and Revelation 20 : 1 - 3 confirm that god could have restrained and confined Satan so that Eve and Adam could have made a fully free choice to obey god.  But, no.  God allowed Satan the freedom to choose to contaminate the entire universe with sin and death.

 

So, what's going on here?  God imprisons some fallen angels until judgement day, but not Satan.  Nope.  He let's Satan influence and corrupt Adam and Eve, ruining the initially perfect conditions of the 'test' that took place in Eden.  This raises the question, why did god do such a thing?  He created heaven and earth and everything in them in 6 days, put his innocent children in place that should have been safe and then let Satan have his wicked way with Eve!  Why?

 

But what about Adam and Eve's free will?  They started off fit to participate in god's 'test' but immediately became unfit when Eve and then Adam were deceived by Satan.  So, what were they choosing between?  They were choosing between obedience to a 'loving' father who showed his love for them by throwing them to them the wolves. 

 

Or, putting it scripturally, as in 1 Peter 5 : 8...

 

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

 

But god didn't make Adam and Eve alert and sober of mind.  He made them pure and innocent, with no knowledge of good or evil.  So they were easy meat for Satan.  

 

 

 

Anyway, back to what Adam and Eve were choosing between.  They were choosing between obeying an unfit and uncaring Father or trusting in the Father of Lies (John 8 : 44).  Not much of a choice!   Not a win-win scenario or even a win-lose scenario.  They were trapped in in lose-lose scenario.  God himself had set them up to fail by creating them unfit to resist Satan, unable to tell good from evil and and leaving them unprotected and at the mercy of a powerful, wicked and cunning archangel.  

 

 

I've rambled on a bit here, Prof.  But I think that I've also covered several important points.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Walter.

[mwc]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"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."  Said the serpent in Genesis 3:5

 

The serpent was able to appeal to Eve's sense of Pride, in addition to her sense of mystery.  Now, we know from the general text of the bible, as well as from the doctrine of Sin, that Pride is a sin.  This makes it a component of the target analyte of Sin which god's test purports to detect. 

 

     In the next verse it says she "desired" the fruit and that it was good for "wisdom."  How does that play into pride?  It seems like desire is the actual motivation.

 

     If we're talking about people that are essentially (or actual) children then the prohibition would make it all the more attractive.  Imagine telling a child not to eat a nice piece of cake and leaving them alone with it.  The cake may have gone largely unnoticed until the specific prohibition and then it's all they think about.  It becomes the object of desire. 

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, mwc said:

     In the next verse it says she "desired" the fruit and that it was good for "wisdom."  How does that play into pride?  It seems like desire is the actual motivation.

 

     If we're talking about people that are essentially (or actual) children then the prohibition would make it all the more attractive.  Imagine telling a child not to eat a nice piece of cake and leaving them alone with it.  The cake may have gone largely unnoticed until the specific prohibition and then it's all they think about.  It becomes the object of desire. 

 

          mwc

 

True, desire also played a role.  Eve saw that the fruit was "good for food." 

 

But, to play out your analogy, imagine not only telling your child not to eat the delicious looking cake; but also allowing the child's older brother to tell the child that if they do eat the cake, they will become the smartest kid in school or the best ball player on the team.  Would the child then be more interested in the chocolate frosting with sprinkles; or the added benefit that eating the cake would provide?  That was the appeal for Eve.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

27 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Your thoughts?

My contention here would be that god never had any intention to protect Adam and Eve from the serpent, nor did he have any reason to.  Precisely because god knew they were already contaminated with Sin; and the serpent was merely going to be the reagent or catalyst that extracted the target analyte.  The serpent was as much a part of god's experiment as the tree and the fruit.  The serpent was the methylene chloride that would interact with the component (Pride) and thus extract the entire target analyte (Sin) so that it could be analyzed with the tree and the fruit.  So, for god to have protected Adam and Eve would have botched the experiment from the start.

 

It seems clear to me, from the text, that god intended for Sin (and with it Suffering) to be present in the world.  As such, he created Adam and Eve with the capacity for sin and the ability to sin.  The entire Garden experiment was simply god confirming that the Sin he created them with, was indeed present; and thereby confirming that the Suffering that would result from Sin would be unleashed upon the generations.  Of course, god using the serpent while he was, himself, off somewhere else, not only provided god an alibi for the crime, but also allowed the blame to be shifted off of him and onto Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

 

Either way, though, whether god intentionally corrupted them from the start, or whether god allowed the serpent to corrupt them--neither of them alter the cold hard fact that the ultimate responsibility rests squarely upon god's lofty shoulders.  He was in control.  And he had both the power and all of the relevant information he needed to prevent evil and suffering.  And he did nothing.