Edgarcito Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, DarkBishop said: I'd like to see what he has up his sleeve with the game. You and I can do this....doesn't take the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: You and I can do this....doesn't take the group. Don't really wanna step on anyone's toes. Games are funner when everyone plays lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2022 1 hour ago, DarkBishop said: I'd like to see what he has up his sleeve with the game. 47 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: You and I can do this....doesn't take the group. I will not agree to play unless/until one of two things happen. Either Ed answers Walt's question or Walt declares himself as prepared to move on without an answer. Walt was the one challenged, and it's Walt's question that Ed is stubbornly (and rudely) refusing to answer. Therefore, it should be Walt's decision as to whether the game gets played or not. I don't personally think we should just give Ed what he wants based on our own curiosity, when he has demonstrated his own unwillingness to give in return with his refusal to address Walt's question as well as the conclusion of my experiment. Those are my terms. They are not negotiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 @Edgarcito You gonna answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 37 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: I will not agree to play unless/until one of two things happen. Either Ed answers Walt's question or Walt declares himself as prepared to move on without an answer. Walt was the one challenged, and it's Walt's question that Ed is stubbornly (and rudely) refusing to answer. Therefore, it should be Walt's decision as to whether the game gets played or not. I don't personally think we should just give Ed what he wants based on our own curiosity, when he has demonstrated his own unwillingness to give in return with his refusal to address Walt's question as well as the conclusion of my experiment. Those are my terms. They are not negotiable. Can't you see that it doesn't matter what I say J. I took the time to comment on those four bullet points. Even though they were honest and speculative answers, they weren't the answers he thought I should have. Then it's "do you want to reconsider" and then "nope, wrong answer", and the same questions over and over and over. And if you dare not feed him the expected answer, he just goes ape shit and ad hom himself. I'm not the only bastard on this site that notices that bullshit in Walter. Then you come along and support the bs with we need to pander to this member because he's a member and that's the policy of the site, I'm almost sure. So frankly my dear, I don't give a damn whether you participate or not. I gave him answers already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2022 I could pretend that I am moved by your whining, @Edgarcito; but if you looked deep enough into my eyes you'd find a complete lack of concern. Best I just be honest. You're welcome to plead your case before Walt. But those are my terms. They are not negotiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: I will not agree to play unless/until one of two things happen. Either Ed answers Walt's question or Walt declares himself as prepared to move on without an answer. Walt was the one challenged, and it's Walt's question that Ed is stubbornly (and rudely) refusing to answer. Therefore, it should be Walt's decision as to whether the game gets played or not. I don't personally think we should just give Ed what he wants based on our own curiosity, when he has demonstrated his own unwillingness to give in return with his refusal to address Walt's question as well as the conclusion of my experiment. Those are my terms. They are not negotiable. Professor, People can see that Ed has stubbornly (and rudely) refused to answer my question. They can also see that he lies about what scripture says, preferring to spin his own un-biblical mythology instead of seeing what the text actually says. And they have also seen that he has tried to paint himself as the injured victim here, when all I have done is to persist in pursuing the truth. Therefore, I release him from any requirement in this thread to answer the questions (and any others arising from them) I put to him 5 hours ago. Specifically... A ) Who is responsible for the 'situation' that Adam and Eve found themselves in? and... B ) Who is responsible for the acts of moral evil (#1 and #5) that resulted from morally good acts NOT being carried out. These questions (and any others arising from them) can wait until such time as Edgarcito is ready to answer them, whenever that is. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted October 21, 2022 Author Share Posted October 21, 2022 Good, I’ll just excuse Ole Walt from the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 21, 2022 Share Posted October 21, 2022 Just now, Edgarcito said: Good, I’ll just excuse Ole Walt from the process. No you won't. I said that I released you from any requirement to answer certain questions. I certainly didn't say that I wouldn't participate further in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 21, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2022 Very well. The game, including Walt, is officially afoot, then. Worst that can happen is that we agree to play and then refuse to do so according to Ed's parameters, as he has done with us. Nonetheless... Let the games begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 12 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Can't you see that it doesn't matter what I say J. I took the time to comment on those four bullet points. Even though they were honest and speculative answers, they weren't the answers he thought I should have. Then it's "do you want to reconsider" and then "nope, wrong answer", and the same questions over and over and over. And if you dare not feed him the expected answer, he just goes ape shit and ad hom himself. I'm not the only bastard on this site that notices that bullshit in Walter. Then you come along and support the bs with we need to pander to this member because he's a member and that's the policy of the site, I'm almost sure. So frankly my dear, I don't give a damn whether you participate or not. I gave him answers already.... Re-reading this I've only just noticed Ed's sly attempt to control what he may answer and how he may answer questions in this thread. Yes, he took time to comment on my four bullet points. But where is it written or understood that these four would be the full extent of my questions to him? His answers to those four bullet points were likely to generate further questions and to raise further points that needed investigation. Such an outcome is a normal and fully expected one in Ex-C. It happens all the time. We all do it and we all expect other members to do it too. But, no. Not Edgarcito. He looked closely at the wording of the Professor's instructions (to answer Walt's questions) and has made a stand on doing ONLY that. Holding as close as he could to the wording of what the Prof said while trying to evade the spirit of freely-asked and freely-answered questions that is the norm in this forum. So, if you want to ask Edgarcito any questions, first make sure that you get him to agree to answer not only the questions at hand but also any further questions arising from the answers he gives. If you don't do that he'll just take the same rigidly legalistic line he took here yesterday and only answer as few questions as he can. Watch him! Watch him like a hawk. Note to the Prof... In the light of the above you may wish to go back and carefully re-read the wording of what's been agreed between you and him. Otherwise... Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 I've just gone back and edited the terms and conditions of my agreement with Edgarcito to release him from any requirement to answer the questions I had for him. This is what my agreement now says. Please note the new wording in bold. ------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, I release him from any requirement in this thread to answer the questions (and any others arising from them) I put to him 5 hours ago. Specifically... A ) Who is responsible for the 'situation' that Adam and Eve found themselves in? and... B ) Who is responsible for the acts of moral evil (#1 and #5) that resulted from morally good acts NOT being carried out. These questions (and any others arising from them) can wait until such time as Edgarcito is ready to answer them, whenever that is. --------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 14 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Sometimes we don't know good until it's taken away and through experience. I had so many people come up to my family and tell me how fortunate I was to have such a beautiful family and circumstance. I used to just say yes I knew, but I really didn't know until divorce and everyone going their different directions and the absence of "good". I expect God allows that evolution for ourselves so that we truly understand and act accordingly. But everything in the Garden *was* good by design. Well, maybe. In chapter one god does not declare the dome that separates the waters as "good" and there is not specific declaration of goodness after the creation of male and female as there is with the other critters and on the other days. Though the end of chapter one god finds everything very good. However, it is explicitly stated that god finds it "not good" that Adam has no partner in the next chapter. This would mean that Adam would actually know what "not good" means. More importantly this is explicitly what god says "not good" is and not what we want "not good" to mean. He experienced it through the lack of a partner and gained the concept of "good" through the creation of Eve. The knowledge was introduced into the garden prior to the interaction with the serpent. We're told this and so "the fall" cannot be used to introduce the concept a second time. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, mwc said: But everything in the Garden *was* good by design. Well, maybe. In chapter one god does not declare the dome that separates the waters as "good" and there is not specific declaration of goodness after the creation of male and female as there is with the other critters and on the other days. Though the end of chapter one god finds everything very good. However, it is explicitly stated that god finds it "not good" that Adam has no partner in the next chapter. This would mean that Adam would actually know what "not good" means. More importantly this is explicitly what god says "not good" is and not what we want "not good" to mean. He experienced it through the lack of a partner and gained the concept of "good" through the creation of Eve. The knowledge was introduced into the garden prior to the interaction with the serpent. We're told this and so "the fall" cannot be used to introduce the concept a second time. mwc This is wrong, mwc. Who is it who declares that it is 'not good' for Adam to have no helper? Adam himself? No. God. Up until Adam and Eve ate the fruit god was the only person in Eden who knew the difference between good and evil. Scripture confirms this in Genesis 3 : 22. 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.” The key word is 'now'. Before then only god knew good and evil. Not Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 22, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2022 15 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: In the light of the above you may wish to go back and carefully re-read the wording of what's been agreed between you and him. My terms were that I would not agree to participate in the game unless/until either he answered your questions or you declared yourself satisfied with his not answering. In your words, you have released him from his obligation, in essence, declaring yourself satisfied. However, it should be noted that these terms and conditions only apply to my own willingness to participate in the game. They are not binding on anyone else. Neither yourself nor DB is under any obligation to participate; and the pair of you are both well within your rights to demand your own terms and conditions prior to agreeing to participate. Should either of you establish terms that Ed refuses to accept, then the game will not proceed until such time as all four participants are satisfied in their participation. This is why I was careful to include you in my formal acceptance of participation. 11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: The game, including Walt, is officially afoot, then. Ed had that same right in my experiment; but he squandered it through his own hubris when he stated that I could define the parameters and intervals and then agreed to participate before I had done so. It was only after Ed realized that he could not "win" the experiment that he suddenly started whiny-bitching about the terms and conditions. Too late... Moreover, it should also be noted that whatever terms and conditions apply to our participation in the game, only apply to our participation in the game. There is, currently, nothing that states that you cannot pick right back up with the same line of questioning once the game is finished. I fully intend to continue asking Ed whether he would subject his own children to the kind of "choice" found in the story of Eden. And I also fully intend to pick back up on the idea that faith is an appropriate alternative to logic. Thise two lines of inquiry are only temporarily suspended pending the outcome of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 22, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2022 @mwc does raise a good point, though, in that god had declared his creation "very good" only to then discover a significant detail which was, in fact, "not good." Did an omniscient god overlook this detail originally? Did a perfect god make a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: @mwc does raise a good point, though, in that god had declared his creation "very good" only to then discover a significant detail which was, in fact, "not good." Did an omniscient god overlook this detail originally? Did a perfect god make a mistake? Well, what else would you expect from bronze-age goat herders who were unused to thinking through the full consequences of the stories they created to explain their world? I touched upon this kind of problem in my response to DarkBishop yesterday. The all-powerful, all-knowing god of the NT can't be retroactively force-fitted into the Eden narrative because of just this kind of problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 56 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: This is wrong, mwc. Who is it who declares that it is 'not good' for Adam to have no helper? Adam himself? No. God. Up until Adam and Eve ate the fruit god was the only person in Eden who knew the difference between good and evil. Scripture confirms this in Genesis 3 : 22. 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.” The key word is 'now'. Before then only god knew good and evil. Not Adam. I guess we need to figure out what we think Adam might be able to understand as "good?" If Adam were to fall off a cliff and break his leg would he find that to be good, evil, indifferent or something else? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 2 hours ago, mwc said: But everything in the Garden *was* good by design. Well, maybe. In chapter one god does not declare the dome that separates the waters as "good" and there is not specific declaration of goodness after the creation of male and female as there is with the other critters and on the other days. Though the end of chapter one god finds everything very good. However, it is explicitly stated that god finds it "not good" that Adam has no partner in the next chapter. This would mean that Adam would actually know what "not good" means. More importantly this is explicitly what god says "not good" is and not what we want "not good" to mean. He experienced it through the lack of a partner and gained the concept of "good" through the creation of Eve. The knowledge was introduced into the garden prior to the interaction with the serpent. We're told this and so "the fall" cannot be used to introduce the concept a second time. mwc Ya know...... you would think they would of thought that one out when they were writing it. We know that God saw that he needed a help made and it wasn't good for him to be alone. But did Adam recognize that it wasn't good. Adam names her woman because she came from man and was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. But that doesn't mean he thought it was good. Maybe just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 10 minutes ago, DarkBishop said: Ya know...... you would think they would of thought that one out when they were writing it. We know that God saw that he needed a help made and it wasn't good for him to be alone. But did Adam recognize that it wasn't good. Adam names her woman because she came from man and was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. But that doesn't mean he thought it was good. Maybe just an observation. It seems we need to work that out? As I posted above what might Adam have thought? It seems a lot of what we're doing kind of hinges on that. The idea being that after he ate from the tree of knowledge they knew, outright, both good and evil but does that mean that they couldn't have known anything of either of those prior to that event? I have a hard time working it out because those people are alien to us. We're told we come from them but not really in that we know good and evil. A creature that doesn't know either is an alien to me. I can only speculate. Likewise with one that only knows either good or evil. And that leads me to an Adam that might only know good. If he does then are there shades of good? Or just one sort of good and that's all? Like tending a tree (I don't know what sort of gardening he did) and eating a pear are exactly just as good (in all ways we use the word good) as the other. Or are they different? Which could mean that the lessor of the goods would essentially become evil and while the greater goods become, well, good. Once these are established would it be possible to then start dealing with moral aspects of good? In that the greater and lessor goods start having morals attributed to them? To do something that is undesirable, but necessary (tending a tree), is morally greater than doing something that is desirable even if it is also necessary (eating the pear)? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 22, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2022 1 hour ago, mwc said: And that leads me to an Adam that might only know good. If he does then are there shades of good? Or just one sort of good and that's all? Like tending a tree (I don't know what sort of gardening he did) and eating a pear are exactly just as good (in all ways we use the word good) as the other. Or are they different? Which could mean that the lessor of the goods would essentially become evil and while the greater goods become, well, good. Once these are established would it be possible to then start dealing with moral aspects of good? In that the greater and lessor goods start having morals attributed to them? To do something that is undesirable, but necessary (tending a tree), is morally greater than doing something that is desirable even if it is also necessary (eating the pear)? This would seem to open the opportunity for a situation to arise wherein Adam might have to choose the lessor of two "evils", neither of which were good enough to be "good" nor not good enough to be "evil". He would only be able to call the less-not-good choice "good." But how would Adam know that without having even a rudimentary understanding of the difference between the two, or the degrees of each therein? Very good questions, @mwc. This is something I have never considered. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 1 hour ago, mwc said: It seems we need to work that out? As I posted above what might Adam have thought? It seems a lot of what we're doing kind of hinges on that. The idea being that after he ate from the tree of knowledge they knew, outright, both good and evil but does that mean that they couldn't have known anything of either of those prior to that event? I have a hard time working it out because those people are alien to us. We're told we come from them but not really in that we know good and evil. A creature that doesn't know either is an alien to me. I can only speculate. Likewise with one that only knows either good or evil. And that leads me to an Adam that might only know good. If he does then are there shades of good? Or just one sort of good and that's all? Like tending a tree (I don't know what sort of gardening he did) and eating a pear are exactly just as good (in all ways we use the word good) as the other. Or are they different? Which could mean that the lessor of the goods would essentially become evil and while the greater goods become, well, good. Once these are established would it be possible to then start dealing with moral aspects of good? In that the greater and lessor goods start having morals attributed to them? To do something that is undesirable, but necessary (tending a tree), is morally greater than doing something that is desirable even if it is also necessary (eating the pear)? mwc In actuality humans still are not born with an inherent sense of right or wrong. This is developed over time and taught by the parents through tone of voice, how a parent looks at a child, punishment, teaching, and life experience seeing the effects of your actions on others. As a parent I saw this with my children and experienced it as a child. So this part of the story never resonated fully with me. But I did accept it. But If the knowledge of good and evil were embedded in our minds from this event in the garden. Why do we have to teach our children right from wrong? I mean none of my kids had any problem taking off bare ass naked through the house. Me right behind them chasing them down trying to get a diaper on em It almost feels to me like Adam is just basically a robot at this point. Not knowing right from wrong. Doing what he's told. Tending to the garden, naming all the animals, etc. So if Adam and Eve truly knew nothing about good or evil. It stands to reason like Walt said. That they would have seen reason in the snakes argument. I mean it was logical. But at the same time they wouldn't have known it was wrong to transgress God's order. As they didnt know the concept of good or evil. And apparently nothing the snake said was actually a lie. God did fear them becoming like him. To the point he kicked them out so they couldn't become immortal as well. The people that wrote this weren't very smart people I don't think. This just feels like a off the cuff story you would tell a child to satisfy their curiosity about the world around them. Nothing in it reflects reality. Except to someone who believes its the word of God. DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 It feels to me like it was a lesson to blindly follow what you are told. Whether or not you think its right or wrong. Just do it because I said so. Which we know is not a good mindset for anyone to have. Except the one giving the orders. DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 22, 2022 Super Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said: It almost feels to me like Adam is just basically a robot at this point. Not knowing right from wrong. Doing what he's told. Tending to the garden, naming all the animals, etc. So if Adam and Eve truly knew nothing about good or evil. It stands to reason like Walt said. That they would have seen reason in the snakes argument. I mean it was logical. I think this needs further examination as well. If they were basically robots just doing as they were told, would they have been able to see reason and logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: I think this needs further examination as well. If they were basically robots just doing as they were told, would they have been able to see reason and logic? I think so. Reason and logic don't necessarily have to be tied in with right or wrong. They had the ability to think. They worked. They knew when they were hungry they needed to eat. So I think some amount of reason and logic must have been in them. Like we mentioned before. Adam named his wife woman because she came from man. She was his flesh and his bone. This is a logical observation on Adam's part. DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now