Suffering for the Good of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then why are you blaming "real world" evidence on something you consider imaginary??   Don't mix the two.  Blame suffering on something "real" or allow yourself to discuss Christianity or any other religion for that matter.  

jesus god damn christ, Ed.  Does your god have a plan?  Is he in control?  Is he omnipotent?  If so, then it is his fault and his responsibility that there is suffering in the world. 

 

Are you seriously this thick?  Do you not realize that I am making an argument against christianity based on the claims it makes about its own god?  Of course your god doesn't exist.  That's the whole fucking conclusion based on the logic, based on the real world evidence. 

 

Stop pretending that you don't understand what is happening here.  It gets real fucking tiresome.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Now, if you please, @Edgarcito, kindly explain why you do not consider real world suffering to be evidence.  If you cannot, you may publicly retract your claim that my logic is not based on evidence.  Thank you.

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

 

I might be able to break the impasse between you and Edgarcito by referring to a passage in scripture.

 

It explains who was responsible for what in Eden.

 

Please let me know if you'd like me to proceed.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Walt, you are welcome to continue your conversation  about Eden with Ed in whatever manner you see fit.  My impasse with Ed has nothing to do with it and never has.  It has to do with logic and evidence, not fairy tales; and neither logic nor evidence is applicable to Ed'smake-believe story.  Ed simply wants to change the subject with me so that he doesn't have to address his claim.

 

There is only one way to break this impasse; and Ed already knows what it is.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Walt, you are welcome to continue your conversation  about Eden with Ed in whatever manner you see fit.  My impasse with Ed has nothing to do with it and never has.  It has to do with logic and evidence, not fairy tales; and neither logic nor evidence is applicable to Ed'smake-believe story.  Ed simply wants to change the subject with me so that he doesn't have to address his claim.

 

There is only one way to break this impasse; and Ed already knows what it is.

 

Thank you, Prof.

 

 

Yesterday Edgarcito raised three points that he claimed we cannot answer.  These are...

 

1.  The experience / innocence of Adam and Eve.

2.  Why did god allow the serpent (Satan) to tempt them?

3.  What was god's original intent (for them) ?

 

But these points can be answered.

 

In my next post I will show from scripture that god created Adam and Eve innocent of any understanding of good and evil.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.  

[walterpthefirst]

God created Adam and Eve innocent of any knowledge of good or evil.

 

This is confirmed by three passages in Genesis 3, where their innocence (lack of knowledge of good and evil) is referred to, first by the serpent, in verses 4 and 5.

 

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

This tells us that up until the moment they ate fruit they did not possess any knowledge of good and evil.  In other words, they were created innocent of that knowledge.

 

Then, in verses 6 and 7, Adam and Eve discover for themselves that they were innocent of the knowledge of good and evil up till the very moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

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.

 

Finally, in verse 22, god himself confirms that he created Adam and Eve innocent of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

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 word ‘now’ refers to the moment that Adam and Eve came to know good from evil, when they ate the forbidden fruit.  Therefore, before that moment they did not have that knowledge.  Then they did.  This means that god created them innocent of any knowledge of good and evil.

 

So, scripture itself confirms that Adam and Eve were created innocent.  We hear it being declared by the serpent, declared by god and we read about Adam and his wife discovering it for themselves.  All of the four main players in the Eden story agree on this.  God and Satan agree on this.  Scripture is telling us that they innocent of any knowledge of good and evil.

 

 

Q.  Did anything they experienced before they ate the fruit cause them to acquire any understanding of good and evil?

 

A.  No.  If that had been been the case then scripture would not so emphatically say that they had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the forbidden fruit.  That is the watershed moment. 

 

Before then there was no way they could interpret their experiences in terms of good or evil.  Before that fateful moment here was nothing within them, no inner frame of reference with which they could comprehend the goodness of what they were experiencing.  That ability was not part of how god created them.  Scripture says this plainly.

 

To say otherwise is to speculate on what scripture does not say or to add to scripture, which is an act of disobedience against god.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito's second and third points need not be considered separately.

 

There is a passage from scripture that tells us everything we need to know and understand about why god allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve and that same passage also explains god's original intentions towards them.

 

However, I won't post anything about these points yet but instead will wait for Edgarcito to respond to what I've written about Adam and Eve's innocence and experience.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

 Gen 3:6

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

 

Eve "saw" before she ate the fruit.  How did she discern desirable and pleasing if she was innocent.

[Edgarcito]

Let me go ahead and answer this one for you Walter.  Eve was used to the truth via experience.  When she was told a lie, she believed it as the truth.  The snake deceived her, not God.  She then followed the deception and was kicked out with her buddy, Adam 1.

 

It doesn't appear the snake deceived her factually, but tricked her into a state God did not seemingly want them to follow.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 Gen 3:6

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

 

Eve "saw" before she ate the fruit.  How did she discern desirable and pleasing if she was innocent.

 

A good question.

 

But one that's not quite on target.  The text doesn't say that Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil when she "saw" that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom.  That's a mistake and a misreading of the text.  

 

No.  All she "saw" at that exact moment, before she reached her hand out to take the fruit, was that she could gain wisdom about good and evil by eating it and so become like god.  But even then, at the very moment she reached out, she still didn't understand what that wisdom was and she still didn't understand what good and evil were.

 

The true moment, when wisdom was imparted to her, happened WHEN she ate.  Not at any time before then.

 

So, there is no case to answer that her experiences before the moment of eating gave her any knowledge or understanding of good and evil.   All her experiences did for her up to that point was to inform her that she could gain something she didn't then have.  She knew that she could gain wisdom by eating the fruit but quite what that wisdom was was hidden and unknown to her until she ate.

 

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.

 

Then (once they ate) they understood what good and evil were.  Not before.  None of their other experiences in Eden gave them that knowledge and understanding.   Only eating the forbidden fruit could do that.

 

Do we agree?

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me go ahead and answer this one for you Walter.  Eve was used to the truth via experience.  When she was told a lie, she believed it as the truth.  The snake deceived her, not God.  She then followed the deception and was kicked out with her buddy, Adam 1.

 

It doesn't appear the snake deceived her factually, but tricked her into a state God did not seemingly want them to follow.

 

That's not entirely on target either, Edgarcito.

 

The serpent did not lie to Eve about when she would die.  But god did lie to Adam about when he would die.  

 

Earlier god told Adam that on the day that he ate the forbidden fruit he would die.  But god did not explain to Adam that what he really meant by that warning was that Adam would die spiritually on that day.  Nor did god explain to Adam what death was.  Scripture tells us that Adam did not physically die until he was aged 930.

 

Furthermore, Adam could not learn or understand what god meant by death by anything he could experience in Eden.  This was because death did not exist in Eden or in the world at that time.  Learning what death was by experience was impossible for Adam.

 

Essentially god gave Adam a warning he could not properly understand and this warning contained a loophole (the difference between spiritual and physical death) that the serpent (Satan) could exploit.   Both god's improperly understood warning and that loophole were then passed on to Eve by Adam.

 

So, Satan took advantage of these things, exploiting Eve's ignorance and confusion.  But he was only able to do that and to deceive Eve because god was not honest and truthful with Adam about the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

This means that the true and ultimate cause of Adam and Eve's downfall was not theirs.

 

They were deliberately placed in an impossible, no-win situation by god.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A good question.

 

But one that's not quite on target.  The text doesn't say that Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil when she "saw" that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom.  That's a mistake and a misreading of the text.  

 

No.  All she "saw" at that exact moment, before she reached her hand out to take the fruit, was that she could gain wisdom about good and evil by eating it and so become like god.  But even then, at the very moment she reached out, she still didn't understand what that wisdom was and she still didn't understand what good and evil were.

 

The true moment, when wisdom was imparted to her, happened WHEN she ate.  Not at any time before then.

 

So, there is no case to answer that her experiences before the moment of eating gave her any knowledge or understanding of good and evil.   All her experiences did for her up to that point was to inform her that she could gain something she didn't then have.  She knew that she could gain wisdom by eating the fruit but quite what that wisdom was was hidden and unknown to her until she ate.

 

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.

 

Then (once they ate) they understood what good and evil were.  Not before.  None of their other experiences in Eden gave them that knowledge and understanding.   Only eating the forbidden fruit could do that.

 

Do we agree?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, we agree, via the word of the snake.

[walterpthefirst]

Let's not lose sight of the context here, Edgarcito.

 

 

On Saturday you wrote this...

 

Look John, I view Adam and Eve with God in the Garden as essentially Heaven.  I'm not making that up just for the conversation.  They essentially got kicked out of Heaven.  I don't see suffering in the Garden.  With that, there are several things we can't answer.  One, the experience/ innocence of A&E.  Two, why does God subject them to the snake.  Three, the original intent of God.  

 

 

I countered your claim that we can't answer these three things, saying that we could.  Since then I have proceeded to demonstrate the first of these and on the back of my demonstration I asked if you about it.  Perhaps the wording of my question to you was insufficiently precise - so I'll close that loophole now with some questions that I'd like you to answer please, Edgarcito.

 

1.

Are we agreed that the question of Adam and Eve's innocence of the knowledge of good and evil before they ate the forbidden fruit can be answered from scripture?

 

2.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, god created both Adam and Eve totally innocent of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

3.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, their experiences in Eden could not have given them any knowledge or understanding of good and evil?

 

4.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, their knowledge and understanding of good and evil came to them only once they had eaten the forbidden fruit? 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Let's not lose sight of the context here, Edgarcito.

 

 

On Saturday you wrote this...

 

Look John, I view Adam and Eve with God in the Garden as essentially Heaven.  I'm not making that up just for the conversation.  They essentially got kicked out of Heaven.  I don't see suffering in the Garden.  With that, there are several things we can't answer.  One, the experience/ innocence of A&E.  Two, why does God subject them to the snake.  Three, the original intent of God.  

 

 

I countered your claim that we can't answer these three things, saying that we could.  Since then I have proceeded to demonstrate the first of these and on the back of my demonstration I asked if you about it.  Perhaps the wording of my question to you was insufficiently precise - so I'll close that loophole now with some questions that I'd like you to answer please, Edgarcito.

 

1.

Are we agreed that the question of Adam and Eve's innocence of the knowledge of good and evil before they ate the forbidden fruit can be answered from scripture?

 

2.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, god created both Adam and Eve totally innocent of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

3.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, their experiences in Eden could not have given them any knowledge or understanding of good and evil?

 

4.

Are we agreed that, according to scripture, their knowledge and understanding of good and evil came to them only once they had eaten the forbidden fruit? 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was describing the degree of innocence actually.  One would think that children could be exposed to qualities but not have understanding of those qualities.  I agree that A&E were innocent, but their subjection to good and evil was potentially from day one and ongoing.  Their comprehension of the two qualities was what was changed after they ate the fruit.  

 

So we don't agree with #3.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

I was describing the degree of innocence actually.  One would think that children could be exposed to qualities but not have understanding of those qualities.  I agree that A&E were innocent, but their subjection to good and evil was potentially from day one and ongoing.  Their comprehension of the two qualities was what was changed after they ate the fruit.  

 

The question of their degree of innocence is fully covered by scripture, Edgarcito.

 

The text leaves no room for anything other than a 100% switch from total ignorance of good and evil to a 100% knowledge and understanding, happening the moment that Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  To say otherwise is to contradict god's testimony in Genesis 3 : 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.”

 

This is god's description of the abrupt change of Adam and Eve's status, caused by their eating the fruit.

 

 

 

However, even if we agree to disagree on this, can you now see how your stance on Adam's innocence affects the question god's warning to Adam in Genesis 2 : 16 & 17?

 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

If you say that his comprehension of good and evil changed after he ate the fruit, then how can Adam have properly understood god's warning before that moment?

 

We already know from scripture that death did not exist in Eden or anywhere else before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  So that's two counts where Adam could not have properly understood god's warning.  First, because death didn't exist then and second, because he couldn't comprehend what good and evil were.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

38 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The question of their degree of innocence is fully covered by scripture, Edgarcito.

 

The text leaves no room for anything other than a 100% switch from total ignorance of good and evil to a 100% knowledge and understanding, happening the moment that Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  To say otherwise is to contradict god's testimony in Genesis 3 : 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.”

 

This is god's description of the abrupt change of Adam and Eve's status, caused by their eating the fruit.

 

 

 

However, even if we agree to disagree on this, can you now see how your stance on Adam's innocence affects the question god's warning to Adam in Genesis 2 : 16 & 17?

 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

If you say that his comprehension of good and evil changed after he ate the fruit, then how can Adam have properly understood god's warning before that moment?

 

We already know from scripture that death did not exist in Eden or anywhere else before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  So that's two counts where Adam could not have properly understood god's warning.  First, because death didn't exist then and second, because he couldn't comprehend what good and evil were.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

IMO, there was no total ignorance.  They would by default be experiencing good and evil.  I believe the eating of the fruit could be figurative in losing their innocence and becoming aware of that loss.

 

Again, understanding an experience is different than just being subjected to that experience.

 

[walterpthefirst]

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

IMO, there was no total ignorance. 

 

 

Can you support your opinion with anything from scripture?

 

How do you explain the scripture that I've cited, that contradicts your opinion?

 

Why would you, as a Christian, hold to an opinion that contradicts scripture?

 

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

They would by default be experiencing good and evil. 

 

 

But without any moral comprehension of what they were experiencing.  That is what you said.

 

So they could have had a million years of experiences in Eden and still gained no benefit from them.

 

No deeper insight into the goodness of god.

 

That is the logical conclusion of your own words on this matter.

 

You agreed that the eating of the fruit was when they understood the mind of god.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I believe the eating of the fruit could be figurative in losing their innocence and becoming aware of that loss.

 

So the Genesis narrative is now a mish-mash of figurative language and real event reportage?

 

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Again, understanding an experience is different than just being subjected to that experience.

 

 

That is my very point, Edgarcito.

 

 

Adam experienced god's warning about the forbidden tree.

 

But, for Adam, being subjected to that experience was different to him actually understanding it. 

 

You've drawn a clear line of division between Adam's experience and his understanding here.

 

You've basically said that he experienced god's warning without understanding it.

 

 

Is that really what you think about this?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

If we are defining innocence as only the ability to comprehend an experience from a moral standpoint, then yes, I agree they didn't have that ability before and it was taken from them by trickery.  

 

Ignorance of good and evil is not the same as innocence unless we agree to that stance please.  I see them as different.  They were not ignorant through experience being subjected to both good and evil but still innocent in their subjection.

 

To the figurative comment:  Fits pretty well with our experience as children.  Our parents typically try to give us truth and goodness through experience, and years later we understand how people are not quite who we thought they were.

 

Yes, that's what I think about this today.  

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

If we are defining innocence as only the ability to comprehend an experience from a moral standpoint, then yes, I agree they didn't have that ability before and it was taken from them by trickery.  

 

No.  Their moral comprehension was not taken from them by trickery.

 

They were tricked into acquiring it. (But only because god put a loophole in his warning that Satan could exploit.)

 

When they ate they acquired a comprehension of morality and a moral compass.

 

That was how they were then able to understand good and evil - opposite points on that compass.

 

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Ignorance of good and evil is not the same as innocence unless we agree to that stance please.  I see them as different.  They were not ignorant through experience being subjected to both good and evil but still innocent in their subjection.

 

You may see ignorance and innocence as different, but the bible does not.

 

As I have clearly shown from the verses and passages I cited.   

 

Scripture (and therefore god) treat them as one and the same thing.

 

So why is it that you, the Christian, are trying to treat them as separate and different things?

 

Shouldn't your beliefs be determined by and defined by scripture?

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

To the figurative comment:  Fits pretty well with our experience as children.  Our parents typically try to give us truth and goodness through experience, and years later we understand how people are not quite who we thought they were.

 

Yes, that's what I think about this today.  

 

I don't agree.

 

Our parents don't just passively let us experience truth and goodness and then leave us to draw our own conclusions about them.  To work out what we thought they meant without engaging in dialogue.  That is lazy parenting.  That is hardly parenting at all.

 

They also actively teach us, explaining and clarifying things if at first we don't understand them.  Repeating themselves if necessary.  Because they love us they want us to fully and properly understand their commands, their lessons and their examples.  Just as Jesus did with the disciples. 

 

If god truly wanted Adam to understand his warning about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why did he create Adam unable to comprehend what good and evil were?

 

And why did he warn Adam using a word (death) that he knew Adam could not comprehend via experience?

 

Do you, as a loving parent, consider the points covered in the two questions above to be examples of good and loving parenting?

 

 

Ed, 2 hours ago I asked you five separate questions, but you responded only to one.

 

Now I'm asking you another five separate questions.

 

This time please answer all five.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.  Their moral comprehension was not taken from them by trickery.

 

They were tricked into acquiring it. (But only because god put a loophole in his warning that Satan could exploit.)

 

When they ate they acquired a comprehension of morality and a moral compass.

 

That was how they were then able to understand good and evil - opposite points on that compass.

 

 

 

You may see ignorance and innocence as different, but the bible does not.

 

As I have clearly shown from the verses and passages I cited.   

 

Scripture (and therefore god) treat them as one and the same thing.

 

So why is it that you, the Christian, are trying to treat them as separate and different things?

 

Shouldn't your beliefs be determined by and defined by scripture?

 

 

I don't agree.

 

Our parents don't just passively let us experience truth and goodness and then leave us to draw our own conclusions about them.  To work out what we thought they meant without engaging in dialogue.  That is lazy parenting.  That is hardly parenting at all.

 

They also actively teach us, explaining and clarifying things if at first we don't understand them.  Repeating themselves if necessary.  Because they love us they want us to fully and properly understand their commands, their lessons and their examples.  Just as Jesus did with the disciples. 

 

If god truly wanted Adam to understand his warning about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why did he create Adam unable to comprehend what good and evil were?

 

And why did he warn Adam using a word (death) that he knew Adam could not comprehend via experience?

 

Do you, as a loving parent, consider the points covered in the two questions above to be examples of good and loving parenting?

 

 

Ed, 2 hours ago I asked you five separate questions, but you responded only to one.

 

Now I'm asking you another five separate questions.

 

This time please answer all five.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

I agree with you first statement.....they were tricked into acquiring it.  Their innocence was taken.  I didn't phrase that correctly.

 

I believe you've confirmed my original contention...."that we can't answer" all these questions.  You've just asked me questions I can't possibly answer nor can you.  Would you like to move on?

[walterpthefirst]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I agree with you first statement.....they were tricked into acquiring it.  Their innocence was taken.  I didn't phrase that correctly.

 

Thank you Ed.

 

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I believe you've confirmed my original contention...."that we can't answer" all these questions.  You've just asked me questions I can't possibly answer nor can you.  Would you like to move on?

 

Seriously?  You can't answer these three?

 

So why is it that you, the Christian, are trying to treat them (ignorance and innocence) as separate and different things?

 

Shouldn't your beliefs be determined by and defined by scripture?

 

Do you, as a loving parent, consider the points covered in the two questions above to be examples of good and loving parenting?

 

There's no mystery involved here.  You can possibly answer them.  All you have to do is to look inside yourself and give honest answers.  But if that's too big an ask, no matter.

 

 

 

There is just one answer to the other two questions.  I can answer both of them and the answer fits and explains much.  The reason why god did not want Adam to properly understand his warning and the reason why he used a word that Adam couldn't possibly comprehend was because...

 

...it was god's will to make Adam fail.

 

Read it for yourself Edgarcito.

 

Romans 8 : 18 - 25.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

42 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Romans 8 : 18 - 25.

 

I'm thinking the conventional interpretation is subject to frustration because of A&E's choice, not creating with intent to frustrate.  This is not your interpretation I gather?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For the record:

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.  Romans 8

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

For the record:

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.  Romans 8

That doesn't definitively define the perspective.  The conventional perspective is post-A&E sinning as a function of their autonomy, not God created Adam and Eve to subject them to frustration.

 

I see your point, but don't agree.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

47 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That doesn't definitively define the perspective.  The conventional perspective is post-A&E sinning as a function of their autonomy, not God created Adam and Eve to subject them to frustration.

 

I see your point, but don't agree.

If you wish to discuss anything with me, Ed, you first need to either explain why you do not consider suffering to be evidence or withdraw your claim that my logic is not based on evidence.  I've already told you that I have nothing to say to you until you do.  Have a good day.