Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

No I don't believe I was. February will make 6 years since I found this site. 

 

Did he pass away or just move on?

 

He's moved on as far as I know.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your children didn't die through your lack of care. 

 

They are still alive - although poisoned and in terrible, continual pain.  Although you are still their parent, guardian, protector and provider, you go ahead and further betray your responsibilities and duties by forcing them out of your garden and off your property.  You are perfectly within your legal rights to do so because you are the owner of the land and your children have lived there by your permission.  Being underage they have no legal right to live on your land without your express permission. And now you withdraw that permission.

 

So, you force them to leave.

 

On the basis of what I've just described Ed, could you please answer two questions.

 

1. 

By failing to protect your children from harm and by then forcing them off your land, how have you lived up to your moral responsibilities as their parent, guardian, protector and provider?

 

2.

Given that you have lost the right to continue as your children's moral guide why would you expect to continue in that role - as something and someone that they should imitate and aspire to be like?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

I haven't betrayed my child by letting them learn about the snake.  He/ she lived and now know about the potential of the snake.  I believe that is morally correct.  With that said you are asking the hypothetical, me evicting the children from home knowing they are my legal responsibility until a certain age.  Well, I have broken the law.

 

1) It's a split decision here Walter.  Allowing them to learn of the snake was morally correct imo.  So I scored 50/100.  And that depends on whether I warned the children prior to them experiencing the snake.  In that case, maybe 60-75/100 depending on their age.

 

2) Please define how I have lost the right or was ever my right. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I haven't betrayed my child by letting them learn about the snake.  He/ she lived and now know about the potential of the snake.  I believe that is morally correct.  With that said you are asking the hypothetical, me evicting the children from home knowing they are my legal responsibility until a certain age.  Well, I have broken the law.

 

1) It's a split decision here Walter.  Allowing them to learn of the snake was morally correct imo.  So I scored 50/100.  And that depends on whether I warned the children prior to them experiencing the snake.  In that case, maybe 60-75/100 depending on their age.

 

2) Please define how I have lost the right or was ever my right. 

 

Wait!

 

You had the means to stop the rattlesnake from causing any harm to your children, but you let it.

 

How is that not a betrayal?

 

Are you now denying that you had no responsibility to protect them from harm? 

 

Or are you saying that it's a good and moral thing to allow your children to be harmed - providing they don't die?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

26 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

He's moved on as far as I know.

Ok. Figured I'd ask. We have had a few people pass away in recent years since I've been here. If I can remember to. Ill try to search for some of his posts. I imagine theyvare buried fairly deep by now. 

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Wait!

 

You had the means to stop the rattlesnake from causing any harm to your children, but you let it.

 

How is that not a betrayal?

 

Are you now denying that you had no responsibility to protect them from harm? 

 

Or are you saying that it's a good and moral thing to allow your children to be harmed - providing they don't die?

I was starting from where you said that they were bitten and survived.   None of the above.  I'm saying depending on their age, and that I warned them, their actions are how they were harmed.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I was starting from where you said that they were bitten and survived.   None of the above.  I'm saying depending on their age, and that I warned them, their actions are how they were harmed.

 

Agreed.

 

So, if they were bitten and died that would have been your fault?

 

But if they were bitten and didn't die, that wouldn't have been your fault?

 

It would have been their fault?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed.

 

So, if they were bitten and died that would have been your fault?

 

But if they were bitten and didn't die, that wouldn't have been your fault?

 

It would have been their fault?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

 

 

 

Yes, depending on their age and my warning.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, depending on their age and my warning.

 

Well, those two extra conditions that you've added today were never part of the original scenario, Ed.

 

I made it quite clear from the outset that these were two very young children who were dependent on you.  If they were old enough to understand a warning from you and then to have heeded it, then they wouldn't be dependent on you, would they?  Your answers today do not actually deal with the original scenario.

 

So, please return to that original scenario, where these children are dependent on you for protection from harm and answer these questions.

 

How is that not a betrayal?

 

Are you now denying that you had no responsibility to protect them from harm? 

 

Or are you saying that it's a good and moral thing to allow your children to be harmed - providing they don't die?

 

 

Fyi Edgarcito you DID NOT answer these questions!

 

Instead you answered different questions, ones that you had modified by making the children not dependent on you.

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, those two extra conditions that you've added today were never part of the original scenario, Ed.

 

I made it quite clear from the outset that these were two very young children who were dependent on you.  If they were old enough to understand a warning from you and then to have heeded it, then they wouldn't be dependent on you, would they?  Your answers today do not actually deal with the original scenario.

 

So, please return to that original scenario, where these children are dependent on you for protection from harm and answer these questions.

 

How is that not a betrayal?

 

Are you now denying that you had no responsibility to protect them from harm? 

 

Or are you saying that it's a good and moral thing to allow your children to be harmed - providing they don't die?

 

 

Fyi Edgarcito you DID NOT answer these questions!

 

Instead you answered different questions, ones that you had modified by making the children not dependent on you.

 

Please answer.

 

 

Lol, I don’t know how we get into this crap Walter.  If they weren’t able to comprehend my warning or had I not given one, then certainly it would have been my fault whether they lived or died.  I don’t believe betrayal is the word I would use…

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, those two extra conditions that you've added today were never part of the original scenario, Ed.

 

I made it quite clear from the outset that these were two very young children who were dependent on you.  If they were old enough to understand a warning from you and then to have heeded it, then they wouldn't be dependent on you, would they?  Your answers today do not actually deal with the original scenario.

 

So, please return to that original scenario, where these children are dependent on you for protection from harm and answer these questions.

 

How is that not a betrayal?

 

Are you now denying that you had no responsibility to protect them from harm? 

 

Or are you saying that it's a good and moral thing to allow your children to be harmed - providing they don't die?

 

 

Fyi Edgarcito you DID NOT answer these questions!

 

Instead you answered different questions, ones that you had modified by making the children not dependent on you.

 

Please answer.

 

 

Lol, I don’t know how we get into this crap Walter.  If they weren’t able to comprehend my warning or had I not given one, then certainly it would have been my fault whether they lived or died.  I don’t believe betrayal is the word I would use…

 

I do, Ed.

 

You keep modifying the questions that are put to you.

 

And you do that even after you told me how accurate my original scenario was, when I first presented it to you in the Suffering for the Sins of the World thread, about a month ago.

 

And you do your level best to modify my questions even after you told me that you'd kill the rattlesnake immediately.

 

So, you did know what the good and moral thing to do was back then, but now you don't.

 

Now you're doing everything you can to get yourself out of a corner.

 

That's now this crap happens, Ed.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I do, Ed.

 

You keep modifying the questions that are put to you.

 

And you do that even after you told me how accurate my original scenario was, when I first presented it to you in the Suffering for the Sins of the World thread, about a month ago.

 

And you do your level best to modify my questions even after you told me that you'd kill the rattlesnake immediately.

 

So, you did know what the good and moral thing to do was back then, but now you don't.

 

Now you're doing everything you can to get yourself out of a corner.

 

That's now this crap happens, Ed.

 

 

I’m answering as honestly as I can today based on the scenario posed about a page back.  We can continue any way you would like.  Thx

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I’m answering as honestly as I can today based on the scenario posed about a page back.  We can continue any way you would like.  Thx

 

And where in the scenario about a page back was anything said about your children having the ability to understand and heed your warnings?

 

Perhaps you could show me that, Ed?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Well you keep proposing hypotheticals on what I would do and I would not do any of the hypotheticals presented….hence the added conditions.  And then you get upset that I didn’t answer.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Well you keep proposing hypotheticals on what I would do and I would not do any of the hypotheticals presented….hence the added conditions.  And then you get upset that I didn’t answer.

 

Who added these conditions?

 

Was it me?

 

Please show me where!

[Edgarcito]

I did.  Again, you assign hypotheticals that I wouldn’t choose.  How can you assign limits to what I would do and then subsequently convict me.  Oh I know, the same way you apply conditions to God.  Makes sense now.

[Edgarcito]

I would request moderation here in case I’m misunderstanding.

[walterpthefirst]

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I would request moderation here in case I’m misunderstanding.

 

Yes, let's see what the Prof makes of this.

 

 

 

3 hours ago you quoted me in full Ed, saying...

I'll answer this Walter.  Just have only time to glance at the site.  Thanks.

 

That's your agreement to answer what I'd written as it was written.  Right there.

 

Then you asked this...

Can you clarify please Walter.  Are we talking about me and my children or Adam and Eve in Genesis.  Thanks.

 

To which I replied...

This is about you.  My two questions concern the morality of your actions towards your children.  Thank you.

 

Then an hour ago you modified what had been agreed between us, adding in these conditions.

I was starting from where you said that they were bitten and survived.   None of the above.  I'm saying depending on their age, and that I warned them, their actions are how they were harmed.

 

Nowhere did we agree that you your children were of an age to heed your warning and nowhere did we agree that you did warn them.  That's you reneging on your agreement by adding your conditions I never agreed to.

 

 

I'll find out what the Prof makes of this in the morning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Let me suggest this, you write one scenario, the ages and level of presumed knowledge, and I’ll do my best.  Or resubmit , or highlight, anything you need to do.  We will call that “the original” and move from there.

[Edgarcito]

Just put one document forth so there won’t be any evolution of the doc.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The Prof is completely lost and only vaguely remembers a rattlesnake in a garden and Ed saying he'd kill it immediately.  Walt, I'm going to recommend importing the original scenario from the other thread along with as many of the original details as possible.  Much like Ed's suggestion above, let's try to recreate the original idea here.  

[walterpthefirst]

Posted September 17

Posted Tuesday at 04:04 PM

Edgarcito,

 

I've been thinking hard about our discussion in this thread and perhaps this might help you understand where the responsibility (and fault) lies in Eden.  You're from Texas so I've no need to explain to you about rattlesnakes and how people have died from being bitten by them.  Now please put yourself into this scenario.

 

 

You have two very young, innocent and vulnerable children and you know that if a rattler came into your garden it could do them harm.  As a loving, intelligent and resourceful father with deep pockets you could protect your children by encircling your garden with a 100% effective snake-proof fence.  By doing that your children would 100% safe from all harm.

 

But you don't do that.

 

You don't warn your children about the clear and present danger of these rattlesnakes and besides, they are too young and naïve to understand what these things are, how these snakes could hurt them and they don't understand what death is either.  The responsibility for their safety lies exclusively with you.  Not with your children and not with anyone else.  This is down to you.  Only you.  YOU.

 

One day you see that a rattler is in your garden and is gliding swiftly and silently towards your little girl.  She is in immediate danger.  If you don't do something quickly the snake will harm her.  You only have a short time to act.

 

But you don't do anything.

 

She sees the snake but doesn't understand how dangerous it is and she lets it get right up close to her.  It's getting ready to strike.  You only have seconds to act and save her from harm and death.

 

But you still don't do anything.

 

The snake bites her!  You could still intervene and stop it from injecting too much venom into her.

 

But you do nothing at all.

 

 

Now let's transfer this over to what happened in Eden.  Unlike you god knew in advance that Satan intended to harm Adam and Eve.  But, like you he had the resources, the opportunity and the means of fully protecting his vulnerable children from harm.  Like you he did nothing to protect them.

 

Like you, god saw Satan approaching his daughter Eve in the form of a serpent and like you he had the opportunity to protect her from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Like you god saw that Eve was unaware of the danger she was in, just as you saw that your daughter was unaware of the danger she was in from the rattlesnake.  Like you, god still had the time and the opportunity to protect Eve from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Just as you saw the rattler get within striking distance of your daughter, so god saw Satan about to speak to Eve.  Like you, if god had reacted quickly enough he could have protected his daughter from harm.  And like you, god did nothing.

 

Just as you saw the snake bite and still had time to intervene, so god had time to cut short Satan's lies and save Eve from the harm Satan intended to do her.  And just as you did nothing before it was too late, so god did nothing before it was too late.

 

 

Now we come to the questions, Edgarcito. 

 

In your garden in Texas who was responsible for keeping your daughter safe from harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who was responsible for keeping Eve safe from harm?

 

In your garden in Texas who's fault was it that your daughter came to harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who's fault was it that Eve came to harm?

 

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

That was the original scenario.

 

You'll note what I say about the children's ages and the possibility of warning them about harm.

 

You don't warn your children about the clear and present danger of these rattlesnakes and besides, they are too young and naïve to understand what these things are, how these snakes could hurt them and they don't understand what death is either.  The responsibility for their safety lies exclusively with you.  Not with your children and not with anyone else.  This is down to you.  Only you.  YOU.

 

Here are Edgarcito's answers, where he admits that harm coming to his children would have been his entirely fault.

 

To our questions,

 

1) Was mine.

2) God and Adam, unless you are a modern feminist, then Eve handles her own shit.

3) I allowed the crossing of paths, but it was the rooster's fault.

4) God allowed it, but it was the serpent's deception.

 

I tackled Ed about changing my original scenario from a serpent to a rooster.  When he realized this he answered...

 

 No, I would have killed the snake immediately and not allowed exposure.

[walterpthefirst]

So, honouring Ed's suggestion and the Prof's recommendation to use my original scenario to reset this discussion, here's how things stand.

 

Edgarcito admits that any harm coming to his children would have been entirely his fault.  

 

He further admits that he would have killed the serpent immediately.

 

I've shown that in the original scenario there was no option for Ed to warn his children, because they were too young to understand the threat.  Also, by admitting that any harm coming to them would have been his fault, that option cannot be brought into play at all.  His admission of full responsibility means that he can't transfer any responsibility over to them.

 

 

 

I now ask Edgarcito to agree that this is how things stand.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, honouring Ed's suggestion and the Prof's recommendation to use my original scenario to reset this discussion, here's how things stand.

 

Edgarcito admits that any harm coming to his children would have been entirely his fault.  

 

He further admits that he would have killed the serpent immediately.

 

I've shown that in the original scenario there was no option for Ed to warn his children, because they were too young to understand the threat.  Also, by admitting that any harm coming to them would have been his fault, that option cannot be brought into play at all.  His admission of full responsibility means that he can't transfer any responsibility over to them.

 

 

 

I now ask Edgarcito to agree that this is how things stand.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Looks fine.  Proceed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Looks fine.  Proceed.

 

On 10/14/2022 at 3:02 PM, Edgarcito said:

Yes, two choices, follow the command that makes no sense, the other is eternal torture.  The choice in itself still appears free.

 

On 10/17/2022 at 6:35 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Would you subject your children to such a "choice", Ed?

Is it reasonable, then, to conclude that you would not subject your children to a "choice" between your senseless command or eternal torture?