Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe your assessment of God is wrong Walter.  Come on, let's play the game.

 

Agreed.

 

Therefore please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following points.

 

16. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
17. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
18. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
19. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

[Edgarcito]

21 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Its alright. If Christianity is to survive then they are going to have to change their mindset eventually to something more like yours. Basically believing the Bible is more of a guide than a rule book. More metaphorical than literal. Less absolute. 

 

The apostles sure didn't think that Jesus coming would have been delayed 2000 years. Christians now for the most part think its almost here. "It could happen anytime". They certainly don't thibk its going to be delayed another 2000 years.

 

So in 4022 A.D. when Jesus us still a no show, how many Christians are still going to be looking for his return at any time? I doubt very many are going to believe in a literal second coming by then. 

 

Just as Christians don't believe it was a literal snake in the Garden. They believe it was Satan in the form of a snake. The ancient canaanite people probably thought it was literally a snake that did it. And thats why they don't have legs anymore. 

 

But I'm not a chemist, mathematician, or epidemiologist. I'm work with industrial control systems and keep machines running. I may be lost on some of this argument on logic. But I'll pop my head in when asked or when I feel I can add something. 

 

Carry on! I'll get my bag of popcorn out for awhile.  

 

DB

I do appreciate your participation and excellent attitude.  I just become an ass periodically.  Please add to the conversation any time.....always welcome despite my answers...lol.  Thank DB.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If the serpent was actually Satan, there are three places in scripture where it tells us that the fallen angels were imprisoned

Don't some traditions believe that it was satans actions in Eden that caused him to be cast down and the other angels to be imprisoned? 

 

If so, it still goes back to God's power of foreknowledge. He knew what Satan was going to do before it happened. Either way you Go. Its God's fault. 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed.

 

Therefore please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following points.

 

16. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
17. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
18. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
19. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

16.  A perfectly good being would promote the experiences necessary to perpetuate perfectly good beings.....including exposing them to the understanding of evil.

17.  Agreed

18. Agreed

19. Disagree

 

Let's focus on #16.  And then let's play our game.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

Don't some traditions believe that it was satans actions in Eden that caused him to be cast down and the other angels to be imprisoned? 

 

If so, it still goes back to God's power of foreknowledge. He knew what Satan was going to do before it happened. Either way you Go. Its God's fault. 

 

 

Amen!

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

16.  A perfectly good being would promote the experiences necessary to perpetuate perfectly good beings.....including exposing them to the understanding of evil.

17.  Agreed

18. Agreed

19. Disagree

 

Let's focus on #16.  And then let's play our game.

 

Ok, but you've just shot yourself in the foot, Ed.

 

God set things up in Eden so that Adam and Eve were unable to learn through experience.

 

He created them unable to understand either good or evil.

 

So your alteration of #16 doesn't help your case.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

You disagree about #19?

 

So why would you shoot the rattler, Ed?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok, but you've just shot yourself in the foot, Ed.

 

God set things up in Eden so that Adam and Eve were unable to learn through experience.

 

He created them unable to understand either good or evil.

 

So your alteration of #16 doesn't help your case.

 

 

 

 

If the intention was to create good people, he created people with subjected them to good and evil. 

 

The snake and trees weren't learning through experience?  Maybe they weren't good people or evil people to begin with, but people with no adjectives attached.

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

You disagree about #19?

 

So why would you shoot the rattler, Ed?

for the same reason as #16.  Do you have children Walter?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The snake and trees weren't learning through experience?

Yes.  In the same way as hearing a paratrooper talk about his experience is the same as experiencing what it's like to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

[Edgarcito]

How about that game now bud.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

If the intention was to create good people, he created people with subjected them to good and evil. 

 

The snake and trees weren't learning through experience?  Maybe they weren't good people or evil people to begin with, but people with no adjectives attached.

 

Your first sentence is pure speculation. 

 

The text of Genesis tells us that god created Adam to keep the garden of Eden and that Eve was then created as a helpmate for him in that task.  The text also tells us that god found these things to be good.  It says nothing about the moral status of Adam and Eve.  In fact it specifically says that they had NO knowledge of good or evil until after they ate the fruit.

 

Therefore the was no potential in them to learn about good or evil until after they ate.

 

And by then it was too late.

 

My case (that god should have shielded them from harm) precedes what you are describing.

 

Harm befell them before they had a chance to learn anything!

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

for the same reason as #16.  Do you have children Walter?

 

Which #16?

 

The original one or your altered version?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your first sentence is pure speculation. 

 

The text of Genesis tells us that god created Adam to keep the garden of Eden and that Eve was then created as a helpmate for him in that task.  The text also tells us that god found these things to be good.  It says nothing about the moral status of Adam and Eve.  In fact it specifically says that they had NO knowledge of good or evil until after they ate the fruit.

 

Therefore the was no potential in them to learn about good or evil until after they ate.

 

And by then it was too late.

 

My case (that god should have shielded them from harm) precedes what you are describing.

 

Harm befell them before they had a chance to learn anything!

No sir, the experience started before the eating.  God was a moral choice, the snake a logical choice, that then she ate.  Eve could have gone back and asked God about the contradiction.  "Hey God, the snake is suggesting this"...but she didn't and then acted.

 

(These are all good sermon points DB)

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, the experience started before the eating.  God was a moral choice, the snake a logical choice, that then she ate.  Eve could have gone back and asked God about the contradiction.  "Hey God, the snake is suggesting this"...but she didn't and then acted.

 

(These are all good sermon points DB)

 

 

This is false.

 

 

Genesis 3 : 6 & 7.

 

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.

 

NOTHING happened to them until they ate.

 

EVERYTHING hinges on the word, 'THEN'.

 

Up until that moment they were unable to comprehend either good or evil.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

This is false.

 

 

Genesis 3 : 6 & 7.

 

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.

 

NOTHING happened to them until they ate.

 

EVERYTHING hinges on the word, 'THEN'.

 

Up until that moment they were unable to comprehend either good or evil.

 

 

 

Looks like free will to me Walter....and two bad choices in a row getting progressively worse.  Next step, hell.

[walterpthefirst]

Read what the text says, Ed.

 

Eve did not see that the fruit was morally good, she saw that it was good for eating.  Not morally good, but good to eat.

 

She did not see that the act of gaining wisdom was either a morally good or a morally bad act.  That had to wait until she ate.  It was a morally neutral act in her eyes until the fruit imparted a moral sense to her.

 

It was only after eating that the moral consequences of their act became apparent to them.

 

 

But if you can show otherwise from the text, please do so.

 

Stick to the text!

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Looks like free will to me Walter....and two bad choices in a row getting progressively worse.  Next step, hell.

 

This is your spin on the text.

 

Not what the text actually says.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

God was a moral choice, the snake a logical choice

This is a false pretense.  We have no compelling reason to believe god was a moral choice here.  We already know, from the text that god considered evil, deceit, and the introduction of a cunning entity into the garden as "very good."  We also know that god himself lied when he told Adam he'd die the day he ate the fruit.  Moreover, there is nothing logical about eating fruit in order to gain knowledge.  There's certainly something mythical and magical about it; but logic tells us that knowledge is gained through diligent study and experience.  So, god was not the moral choice, nor was the serpent the logical choice.

 

But, even if we were to grasp at this particular straw along with you, as Walt has already indicated, Adam and Eve had no possible way of determining which choice to make.  Because they did not yet know the difference between good (knowledge and logic) and evil (following god's commands).

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

Read what the text says, Ed.

 

Eve did not see that the fruit was morally good, she saw that it was good for eating.  Not morally good, but good to eat.

 

She did not see that the act of gaining wisdom was either a morally good or a morally bad act.  That had to wait until she ate.  It was a morally neutral act in her eyes until the fruit imparted a moral sense to her.

 

It was only after eating that the moral consequences of their act became apparent to them.

 

 

But if you can show otherwise from the text, please do so.

 

Stick to the text!

 

 

It doesn't matter.  She was living the experience.  Just as I speculated on number 16.  If God's intent was to create good people, he created blank slate people and then subjected them to the experience to become good.  God and the snake and the trees were all in their presence. 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

It doesn't matter.  She was living the experience.  Just as I speculated on number 16.  If God's intent was to create good people, he created blank slate people and then subjected them to the experience to become good.  God and the snake and the trees were all in their presence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you now saying that what it says in the text doesn't matter, Ed?

 

Your line of argument today is very weak.

 

It amounts to speculation and ignoring what the text says (cherry-picking).

 

 

Serious question now...

 

ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE DOESN'T MATTER?

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a false pretense.  We have no compelling reason to believe god was a moral choice here.  We already know, from the text that god considered evil, deceit, and the introduction of a cunning entity into the garden as "very good."  We also know that god himself lied when he told Adam he'd die the day he ate the fruit.  Moreover, there is nothing logical about eating fruit in order to gain knowledge.  There's certainly something mythical and magical about it; but logic tells us that knowledge is gained through diligent study and experience.  So, god was not the moral choice, nor was the serpent the logical choice.

 

But, even if we were to grasp at this particular straw along with you, as Walt has already indicated, Adam and Eve had no possible way of determining which choice to make.  Because they did not yet know the difference between good (knowledge and logic) and evil (following god's commands).

I'm gonna give y'all time to think about it.  I answered his questions.  He keeps wanting me to answer with his answers, not mine. 

 

Tell me when y'all are ready to do my experiment.  I did yours.  Thanks. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm gonna give y'all time to think about it.  I answered his questions.  He keeps wanting me to answer with his answers, not mine. 

 

Tell me when y'all are ready to do my experiment.  I did yours.  Thanks. 

Okay.  But this does not address the 2 points that I made.  This simply ignores my entire post while giving you an excuse to duck the argument.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Are you now saying that what it says in the text doesn't matter, Ed?

 

Your line of argument today is very weak.

 

It amounts to speculation and ignoring what the text says (cherry-picking).

 

 

Serious question now...

 

ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE DOESN'T MATTER?

I'm a heretic Walter....DB and everyone here knows this for the last umpteen years.  God knows my intent.  I'm not worried about it.  Quit bolding and jacking with the font size....apparently it causes trouble for Dave...or costs more money.  I get the damn picture without your exaggerated mess.  Thanks.

 

You're more than welcome to speculate on God's intent for humanity.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay.  But this does not address the 2 points that I made.  This simply ignores my entire post while giving you an excuse to duck the argument.

Look Prof, it makes even more sense to me now per my speculative efforts.  God has that capability of evil as a tool.  It makes me even moreso aware of the blessing of life, the hope, the faith, the joy in faith and grace rather than confined by our limited knowledge and the rather dull end that brings to existence.  This is in the Bible as well.  When you get old enough to appreciate the things you don't now, you will understand what I'm saying.  I truly hope you have those experiences.