Christianity as the message of love

[MarcAC]

Well, we all thank you for your worthwhile contribution. :bugeye:

The Christians in this thread are giving a veritable lectur(ing). As those who do sit, learn and emerge from the darkness I will observe and enjoy. Carry on.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

however MarcAC, I beg to differ,I believe the xians are getting a hell of a pounding.
and still appear to be in the dark, even with the sunlight in there eyes.

 

[Woody]

SL,

My apologies, but I really don't think you can refute god. We can see here that god himself is clearly surprised to see Adam and Eve having any knowledge of what nakedness is. This really is the trump card, and instantly dismisses any counter claim that they were aware of being naked before eating the fruit.

God isn't surprised by anything here. Yes it appears A&E were not aware of their nakedness before the fall. But the bigger question I ask is: why were they ashamed after the fall? Husband and wife don't normally react this way when they are naked together. However, I'll give you credit that they did not know they were naked before the fall. I do believe God gave Adam whatever was needed and whatever was appropriate to make his decision regarding good and evil before he sinned. I believe God is reasonable:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

From another post:

But then, according to your statement above, it would be pertinent to state that he had this sinful nature before eating the fruit - otherwise he wouldn't have ate it. As a result, gods request can only have been against Adam's nature. Of course, I've already clearly established that he did not have the required knowledge beforehand, which is yet to be refuted, but it would be even worse for your claims that he did understand. That would show willful disobedience, proving beyond any doubt that he did indeed have a sinful nature from the start.

I do not by any means believe Adam was created with a sin nature, anymore than I believe Lucifer was created with a sin nature. Lucifer had a high position in heaven before his fall. Yet he chose to sin along with one third of the angels with him. They were cast out of heaven. I don't believe God created Lucifer as a murderer and a liar. Lucifer became Satan and he had a new nature and a new name:

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The majority of the angels in heaven did not follow his leadership. This shows that sinlessness can remain sinless even when a strong temptation from Satan is present. Also this proves in a biblical sense that you don't have to do something bad in order to do what is right. I think this bombs out a theory that was being bounced around concerning "original sin" as a prerequisite for knowing what to do good.

Back to Adam's original nature, I don't believe God created Adam with a sin nature:

For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Christ) shall many be made righteous.

Adam had to disobey before we could be sinners.

A person that chooses Christ (a good choice) undoes the bad choice that Adam made.

Once a person is born-again they have two natures to deal with as Paul described, and to a nonbeliever it looks like a schizoid personality:

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

But the good news for believers is that the old diseased nature will eventually die, and the new nature will take over.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The bad news for the nonbeliever is they are stuck with the old nature that just keeps on dieing.

A paranthetic note here: Everyone still has a choice to opt out of their sin nature if they want to -- alas I'm just flapping my lips to no avail.

If Adam had a good excuse he sure didn't say it to God: "Well, I just didn't know any better God, cut me some slack here!" That's because he didn't have a good excuse, but then again Snakelord wasn't there to defend him!

PS: Snakelord, you probably know the bible better than the average lackadaisical Christian. How did you take an interest in the Bible which you apparantly abhor?

 

[MarcAC]

...pounding...

Quite right - no lecturing - that's another way of interpreting water's post. Quite a qualitative difference I'd say - brawn against brain.
-
...and a lot of heart...
-
Here is an exemplary statement of the pounding...

Yeah, my apologies.

You ever so furiously emotional that you hit something hard (or maybe give it a pounding) and then feel the pain after?

 

[MarcAC]

According to you it should be "absolutely resistable".

As an observer, I'd say someone needs to review Jenyar's lecture notes.

...and I still see nobody coming close to refuting that.

It says cool but it kind of reminds me of something else too...

And who told them ignoring him was a bad thing?

Review the lecture notes! :bugeye:

 

[SnakeLord]

But the bigger question I ask is: why were they ashamed after the fall? Husband and wife don't normally react this way when they are naked together.

Actually they generally do when someone else comes along. My wife and I get nude a lot, (you probably didn't want to know that ), but if someone else walked in the room we'd be pretty fast to cover ourselves up aswell. Animals don't - my dog happily licks his balls in front of everyone and doesn't seemingly care, but humans are not like that - having self awareness.

It is that alone which they seemingly had a problem with. The bible does not say they felt guilty about disobeying, or as Jenyar put it: "ignoring god", nor does it show any willingness to lie or decieve god in any manner.

Gen 3:9 But yahweh called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked. "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."

Although I could, I wont get into a discussion over why god was having a walk about through the garden, or indeed why he doesn't appear to have known where they were.

The focus is on their nudity, which having eaten the fruit, has become evident to them. And so we must question why nudity is a problem.

There is some evidence to suggest that people started wearing clothing around 72,000 years ago, (wikipedia). The question might be: "Why wear clothes?". I see little reason to consider it as having started due to shame, but more likely due to the elements.

Depending on location, it can get cold, or really hot, or really windy, etc. Having something flapping about in the breeze isn't generally suitable. I know that if I were to strip and go outside, my nuts would freeze within 5 minutes. Of course, people before then would have been nude, which serves as explanation to why the genitals are the warmest area of the body. It's the source of reproduction and needs to be protected. After a while, with people wearing clothes, taboo would form naturally.

In the case of Adam and Eve that taboo has formed instantly, but then we must acknowledge, (as you have), that they were not even aware of their nudity beforehand and upon becoming self aware the problem arises. The question I guess we cannot answer is if my dog became self aware that he was licking his balls in front of everyone, whether he too would hide.

I do know however, that it is a common occurrence of maturity - that would in general appear to be one sided. There comes a time when a girl no longer wants her father to bathe her, or even see her when she's naked. She will always generally being comfortable naked in front of her mother, or seeing her mother naked - but with guys it's different. Boys mature slower than girls do, and will generally be more comfortable nude in front of either parent for longer.

That 'awareness' comes to all, and when it does they instinctively hide their "parts" from others. The same is seemingly true of Adam and Eve aswell. Upon eating the fruit they became aware of their nudity, and did the very first thing the rest of us do when we mature to a certain level.

However, I'll give you credit that they did not know they were naked before the fall.

Thank you, that's premise (B) out the way. However, both you and Jenyar seem to still be stumbling with premise (A) especially.. You go on to say:

"I do believe God gave Adam whatever was needed and whatever was appropriate to make his decision regarding good and evil before he sinned."

Without realising what you "believe" isn't of any merit. I have provided biblical support, and support from god's own mouth that show the contrary, and yet everytime you or Jenyar try and refute this, you either move onto irrelevant issues, (such as events after the fall and why people sinned), or resort to "I believe", and "I think" assumptions that have no credible value.

What you believe god gave Adam isn't supported by the bible, or by him.

I do not by any means believe Adam was created with a sin nature, anymore than I believe Lucifer was created with a sin nature. Lucifer had a high position in heaven before his fall. Yet he chose to sin along with one third of the angels with him. They were cast out of heaven. I don't believe God created Lucifer as a murderer and a liar. Lucifer became Satan and he had a new nature and a new name:

This is also unsupported, and the very biblical text, (John 8:44), you use just a few sentences later also disagrees with you:

"He was a murderer from the beginning".

The bible goes against everything you've just said. He is a liar, the father of lies, and a murderer since the beginning. This clearly shows he was made that way, created to have a sinful nature. You don't sin unless it is in your nature to sin, or you are ignorant of what a sin is. A priest doesn't just "become" a serial killer unless it is in his nature to be that way, lurking away in some deep dark recess of the brain. Mark Twain's butterfly comes in handy again. It can't sin - it is not present in it's nature. A tiger on the other hand will sin. It can't avoid it.

We've already discussed whether it is man's nature to sin, and you have implied agreeance to that. The question now would be: Is it also Satan's nature to sin? The answer is: of course - and that is attested to by John 8.

The majority of the angels in heaven did not follow his leadership. This shows that sinlessness can remain sinless even when a strong temptation from Satan is present.

Certainly, just like I can go without food for a while even when faced with the temptation of ice cream and hamburger advertisements. But I will eat eventually, it is absolutely unavoidable.

Also this proves in a biblical sense that you don't have to do something bad in order to do what is right.

Apologies, but I don't follow..

Back to Adam's original nature, I don't believe God created Adam with a sin nature

"Belief" isn't of any relevance or validity. If he had no sin in his nature, he wouldn't have sinned, (if you still subscribe to him having knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit). If he had no knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit, (which is supported), then the "original" sin was unwittingly committed. That does not excuse every human being from that time forth who did have that knowledge but sinned due to it being part of their nature.

Everyone still has a choice to opt out of their sin nature if they want to

No they don't. You've said it yourself several times now, even stating that god himself knows that man cannot, no matter how hard he tries, overcome his "sin nature". You can't opt out of anything, you are born to sin, and will be so for the rest of your life. Passing liability onto someone else does not change that fact in any way whatsoever.

PS: Snakelord, you probably know the bible better than the average lackadaisical Christian. How did you take an interest in the Bible which you apparantly abhor?

I am fascinated by history. Their cultures, stories, myths and legends. I don't 'abhor' the book at all, just the way in which some "consider it a living being". I am currently doing a degree in archaeology, (merely out of interest), because history does have so much to tell us.

 

[SnakeLord]

You ever so furiously emotional that you hit something hard (or maybe give it a pounding) and then feel the pain after?

As an observer, I'd say someone needs to review Jenyar's lecture notes.

It says cool but it kind of reminds me of something else too...

Review the lecture notes!

It is more than clear you do not have anything to offer to this discussion. Woody and I have certainly had our share of problems, but at least he makes the effort to try, which cannot be said for you.

I don't spend 2 or 3 hours making a post, providing details and support for the likes of you who can hardly string a sentence together, and when you do manage, the sentence is meaningless. From looking back through this thread, one thing has become apparent: You have nothing of value to say, instead thinking that your pointless little one liners are worthy because they're written in a fancy colour and contain lots of smileys.

Come back when you actually have something to say Marcac, you're a waste of space.

 

[Woody]

SL,

You are sounding like a Calvinist. Here is one of their favorite quotes about predestination:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Since you are a psychologist, tell me what the God of the bible should have done to get what he wants, Here are the criteria:

1) He wants someone with whom he can have a genuine loving relationship (just like we want).
2) By his own nature, he can not tolerate evil in his presense.
3) He wants the ones that love him to do it by their own choice, rather than just being a sugar daddy to them, or having robots that are programmed to love him (this is not real love).
4) He decided to create two people Adam & Eve to start a race of creatures that can love at his level, rather than just being house pets.
5) He doesn't want them to disobey, because that means they can't be in his presence. On the other hand he wants them to have the freedom to enjoy themselves too rather than being totally smothered by only his needs because he is not selfish, and he wants to share the freedom that he has.

How can God get what he wants with Adam and Eve, and still be righteous, reasonable, and coexistent?

I believe everyone should have a choice to be in the relationship or not be in it. I believe that forced love is not love at all.

So how did God "go wrong" with Adam and Eve?

 

[SnakeLord]

1) He wants someone with whom he can have a genuine loving relationship (just like we want).
2) By his own nature, he can not tolerate evil in his presense.
3) He wants the ones that love him to do it by their own choice, rather than just being a sugar daddy to them, or having robots that are programmed to love him (this is not real love).

These can be answered quite easily, which is: He should buy a dog.

I do realise that on number 4 you make mention of pets, and seem to imply that a pet cannot love on the level of a human, or god perhaps - but I would be inclined to disagree with that statement, even to say that they can show love above and beyond that of a either. I am reminded of a man who died, and his pet german shepherd that stayed at his graveside until it's death a long time later.

Then look at god's love. It's a fraud, and asks for too much. How can anyone ask you to show your love through fear? Do you consider demands for sacrifices as a show of real love? Do you consider the annihilation of your children - no matter what wrongs they do, as real love?

Is this real love? :

"I shall subject you to terror, consumption and fever, making you dim of sight and short of breath. You will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it. I shall turn against you and you will be defeated by your enemies. Your foes will have mastery over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. And if, in spite of this, you will not listen to me, I shall punish you seven times over for your sins. I shall break your proud strength.... And if you go against me and will not listen to me, I shall heap seven times more plagues on you for your sins. I shall send wild animals to attack you and rob you of your children.... You will eat the flesh of your sons, you will eat the flesh of your own daughters..." and so on and so forth

Now I ask you to write this in a 'love note' and present it to someone you have true love for. Ask them if they consider this a valid sign of your undying love. Ask if love would ever make demands and vulgur threats such as this. Tell me Woody, your child has been naughty. Would you kill her for it? Do you think in doing so you would show her just how much you love her?

No offence, and excuse my language, but that's fucking repulsive. Is that the love you speak of? And there I was thinking wife beaters were nasty.

5) He doesn't want them to disobey, because that means they can't be in his presence. On the other hand he wants them to have the freedom to enjoy themselves too rather than being totally smothered by only his needs because he is not selfish, and he wants to share the freedom that he has.

Funnily enough, a wife beater would say exactly the same thing. Where is the love in this? More often than not, the abuse comes out of jealousy:

Exodus 34:14 ..for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.

That pretty much says it all. I've seen some disturbed people in my time, but god takes the cake.

How can God get what he wants with Adam and Eve, and still be righteous, reasonable, and coexistent?

Well, getting some help with his issues would be a good start - although he is no more righteous or reasonable than a wife beater. He just doesn't have to answer to anyone for his "sins".

I believe everyone should have a choice to be in the relationship or not be in it.

I agree, as does the beaten wife down the road. The principle is the same though. A wife chooses to leave her husband who then finds her and kicks the living shit out of her. In god's case it isn't just an ass whooping - it's plagues, floods, sulphur bombs, closing wombs, and a vast array of other stuff not suitable for under 18's.

I believe that forced love is not love at all.

Absolutely.

So how did God "go wrong" with Adam and Eve?

He said "you must not.." Love does not say that, and nor does it deal out curses because of it.

I could give you an all-round analysis of his mental state if you wish

 

[Jenyar]

I don't know why you would say it invalidates my premise, when it isn't even relevant to it. (A) states that before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had no knowledge of good and evil - which is fully attested to by the bible and god, and yet to be refuted by you. It doesn't make any claims for man's behaviour after eating the fruit, nor was it an attempted explanation to why people after then decide to sin.

However, the answer can probably be seen in Woody's post, and I'm sure it would be normal for any christian to state that "all people sin", including yourself? So, take it from a person who sins.. Find the nearest person to you that you know has sinned and does sin, and ask them what you've asked me. You have knowledge of good and evil, and yet you still sin.. But why? According to you it should be "absolutely resistable".

I am not the one saying that Adam and Eve would not have sinned if they knew "better". My premise is that they did know better.

However, if your argument is only valid in Adam and Eve's pre-fall situation, and becomes invalid the moment it enters our and Cain's post-fall situation, then part of your premise is that they should be judged by different criteria than we are. But that is not how your argument goes: you judge them by post-fall standard of morality.

If your logic were consistent, and the crux of your argument really was only the presence/absence of "knowledge of good and evil", then:

P1 Adam and Eve lacks knowledge of good and evil
P2 They are faced with good/evil
I1 They have no criteria for behaviour to deal with good/evil
I2 Therefore they have no reason to resist temptation
C They never had real choice; they were "set up"
(This is the same argument used in your tiger analogy.)

By that logic:
P1 Cain has the knowledge of good and evil (the moral knowledge gained by his parents)
P2 He is faced with good/evil
I1 He has criteria to deal with good/evil
I2 Therefore he has reason to resist temptation
C He has an edge over Adam and Eve; he cannot make the same mistake, and the "set up" would fail.​

If the knowledge of good an evil were the only criteria that would enable Adam and Eve to make an educated decision, then its presence in Cain's case would have been conclusive. However, it is not, as Audible also points out. That points to an inconsistency in the argument, something that is not accounted for.

I propose that the "missing link" is simply the antithesis of sin, namely obedience. Obedience to conscience, which humans (and animals) are born with, and which is shaped by norms decided solely by God in this case (in the absence of any social development). Yet in this case you seem to subscribe to two opposing premises: 1) God is sovereign and may decree what He wants ("the dude is god, he can do whatever he wants") 2) God is subject to post-fall atheist morality, as if He was not sovereign and His word was not law and therefore morally binding.

It would be easy to expose such a double-standard if there is one: Do you, SnakeLord, believe absolute morality exists? In other words, is there a moral standard that would be valid pre- and post-fall?

Personally, I believe there is, but it is inextricably bound to God's nature -- what He considers good and evil. If He is sovereign, then Adam and Eve should have listened, just as Cain should have listened. If He is not, they had no reason to listen, not before the fall, and not after it. No valid argument can have both premises, because they are contradictory.

Again this is irrelevant to premise (B), which states that they were not aware of their nudity before eating the fruit - which is fully supported by the biblical text and god. I didn't state or imply that they didn't hide, or that god ever had a problem with their nudity, simply that they did not understand that they were naked before eating the fruit.

The question of nudity before the fall is simply a non-issue. Such self-consciousness can only be explained by a post-fall awareness of estrangement from God. As you said: you and your wife only feel the need to cover yourselves when there is a stranger in the room; if you were into threesomes you might react differently. The only distinction between shame and no shame is the relationship involved. The relationships between Adam, Eve and God had changed.

Third time lucky. This is relevant. There are several things we could look at:

1) I am somewhat confused over what you're trying to get at with saying the snake said "any" tree whereas god had actually said a specific tree. The snake is not guilty of anything here, which can be seen merely by the fact that he was asking a question, not making a statement. After asking, Eve explains it to him in full - which is what generally happens when someone asks a question.

If there was any doubt in Eve's mind about God command, the question might have justified an "objection, leading the witness!"

The question could have two effects: it could sow doubt if Eve did not understand God's command; and it would bring attention to this one tree as an exception, if she did. As you say, Eve was able to explain it to him in full. If you ask your tiger whether he understands, I doubt he would be able to explain it to you in full. If you ask your child whether she understand, maybe even throwing in the possibility of a different understanding to test her understanding, and she explains it in full, in spite of your suggestive question, you might be certain she will know if she disobeys.

2) The "you shall not die" part can be seen in two different ways. Firstly one must look towards translation. While several versions bend around it by saying "doomed to die", or something along those lines, many bibles, (including the kjv), imply that they would die that very same day. This is of course freely open to debate, and always will be.

The second part is one of beliefs. Christianity believes that man has a soul, (which is the real him). Either way, that soul, (which is you), lives forever - in god's presence or the devils. The word "eternity" springs to mind, which is clearly a sign that we don't die.. ever, but that we merely get rid of our outer shell, our "soul carrier". So what dies exactly? "You" don't.

This is not really what Christianity believes. The reality is twofold: we believe that God will resurrect everyone for judgment, and then "the soul who sins is the one who will die" (Ez.18:4). This death is therefore not only natural, but spiritual, and we believe this is to this extent that God warned Adam against death. On the other hand, the serpent only had physical death in mind and therefore seemed quite correct that they did not die. The difference was, and still is: God's word against his. That is why understanding this is so important.

Yeah, my apologies.

No problem, except, you still mix the two up:

Sure, as do animals. But that 'ability' is more on the parents side who drags their kid away by the ear, or picks their child up from the ground. It's one of forced removal as opposed to the child "obeying". The same is seen in the animal kingdom. Cats grab their kittens by the scruff of the neck for example. They do this because they know damn well that if they do not force them away from whatever it is, the kid will most certainly go for it - not because they want to disobey, but that they don't understand. They do not have the required knowledge in order to make an informed decision. The same goes for Adam and Eve and I still see nobody coming close to refuting that.

It's interesting, in this respect. Before the fall, God treats Adam and Eve as children. He enjoys their company, and they are cofortable in His. He shows them the way to live, and they show understanding. But then something foreign enters, and with that, the strange reaction of sin. (A close reading reveals that the Bible does not say where sin comes from, only what form it takes). But after they had sinned, God does pick them up by the scruff of their necks and takes them away from Eden and the tempting tree. Their existence now takes on explicitly natural proportions.

Again, it is from this natural, post-fall perspective that you judge their actions. God treated them as humans, and they reacted as humans. The fruit did not just seem innocuous, but also "desirable for gaining wisdom". Name one animal who actively seeks "wisdom". So I repeat that you are inconsistent by regarding them now as human children, now as animals, as it suits you -- you cannot use both perspectives in the same argument.

The only way disobeying God could be motivated was if they ignored Him and everything they knew Him to be, if they considered something else more desireable -- if they didn't, whether they knew right from wrong or not, they would have still followed God.

This has no valid basis.

It has as basis the premise that God is sovereign in word and deed. No knowledge -- past or future; moral, scientific, or otherwise; present or lacking -- affects this premise if it's true. If God has priority, this gives priority to his commands, his judgment, and his decisions. If He doesn't, if the one supreme God does not represent the only objective judgment, then everything He says or does is subject to our subjective judgment, and indeed Adam and Eve's subjective judgment.

Everything hinges on whether you regard God as a sovereign God, or as a means to justify ourselves.

And who told them ignoring him was a bad thing?

This is secondary to whether God's command was a good or a bad thing. If God is considered sovereign, ignoring Him is by extention a bad thing -- it is sequitur. At that level, any other knowledge is besides the point. The sin of Adam and Eve was that they desired to be like God more than they desired to obey (or even consult) Him.

If you can rationally hold the notion, from definition or from Genesis, that God is not sovereign, then you would have found a loophole for Adam and Eve's sin. But as it stands, it was not relative sin against some required standard or ideal amount of knowledge -- but objective sin: rebellion against God's sovereignity, they sinned against God himself as a standard.

 

[Jenyar]

So how did God "go wrong" with Adam and Eve?

He said "you must not.." Love does not say that, and nor does it deal out curses because of it.

Then please explain this:

"I have a daughter and a pet tiger. I told my daughter not to do something, and having an understanding of right and wrong, she had the ability to make an informed decision over whether to listen to me or ignore me. Out of love and understanding, she 'obeyed'.​

Must I take that to mean you don't love your daughter? And if you told her not to do something, based on what knowledge should she listen to you? Does she know good and evil apart from you, or because of you? If to her you are on equal or lesser footing as the stranger on the street, what does it say about her understanding, and if you are to be listened to in spite of strangers, what does it say about you?

As for dealing out curses: In Genesis 3, a) the serpent was cursed because of his deceit (3:14); b) Eve was not cursed, but told the plain consequences (3:16); c) Adam was not cursed, but the ground (3:17) -- in other words: everything else became hard; where they once took life for granted before, they would no longer be able to. The desired knowledge of good and evil, and they got it.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Jenyar: I believe we are still refering to Adam and Eve, you quoted that Snakelord, had said "you must not" then you go on to say, explain this: having read back I assume this is also so Snakelords I told my daughter not to do something, and having an understanding of right and wrong, she had the ability to make an informed decision over whether to listen to me or ignore me. Out of love and understanding, she 'obeyed'. as you can see I bolded the next part of his statement, as 1, he has not said must, in the second statement, Must is an order, it is not a loving thing to say, to a child thats, fighting talk, but using diplomacy works.
2, she made an informed decision, having knowledge of good and bad, Adam and Eve could not, before the fall, as they did not have that knowledge.
humanity has been cursed you name it we've had or got it.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar: I believe we are still refering to Adam and Eve, you quoted that Snakelord, had said "you must not" then you go on to say, explain this: having read back I assume this is also so Snakelords I told my daughter not to do something, and having an understanding of right and wrong, she had the ability to make an informed decision over whether to listen to me or ignore me. Out of love and understanding, she 'obeyed'. as you can see I bolded the next part of his statement, as 1, he has not said must, in the second statement, Must is an order, it is not a loving thing to say, to a child thats, fighting talk, but using diplomacy works.
2, she made an informed decision, having knowledge of good and bad, Adam and Eve could not, before the fall, as they did not have that knowledge.

SnakeLord implied that "you must not" cannot be said with love. To presume he can but God cannot is irrational. Whether the person hearing this understands why or not does not affect the speaker's intention. That "must" depends on how important it is: he might suggest that she doesn't kick the dog, but he will tell her she must not play with hydrofluoric acid if she ever comes across it in his absence. Her decision to listen may or may not be influenced by her knowledge of acids, but the real decision in the end is whether to obey him or not.

humanity has been cursed you name it we've had or got it.

Galatians 3:13
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."​

 

[Woody]

SL,

He said "you must not.." Love does not say that, and nor does it deal out curses because of it.

So if God made himself vulnerable as a man, and said "you must not try to kill me" he shows he is incapable of real love. Is this your view SL?

You forget that the Lord has a nature too, and that coexisting with sin is like co-existing with poison -- he does have a limitation.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Also, if God created everything, he created our ability to evaluate love.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?

And we become the student that teaches the teacher how to do it -- no?

That is ok, and I will refrain from a rebuttal, because I did, after all request it from you. I want you to continue explaining how God should have done it given the requirements, and just one more:

6) God is righteous, can not allow evil in his presense, and he feels by his own nature that wrong-doing must be paid for (kind of like the way we feel about unpunished crime).

I could give you an all-round analysis of his mental state if you wish

Sure go ahead and do that, while you are at it, figure out how to solve His dilemma with mankind. I pose Jesus as the solution. Let's hear yours if that's ok.

Regarding God's need for company you said:

He should buy a dog

.

SL, Why didn't you buy a dog instead of getting married?

What should "Mrs. God" be like? I'll give you a hint, he does have a bride in mind.

You are the doctor and God is the patient, let's hear what you have to say for your patient, that might be constructive and beneficial for him. It is not appropriate for you to be mad at your patient, but you can have the liberty if it is needed.

 

[SnakeLord]

However, if your argument is only valid in Adam and Eve's pre-fall situation, and becomes invalid the moment it enters our and Cain's post-fall situation, then part of your premise is that they should be judged by different criteria than we are. But that is not how your argument goes: you judge them by post-fall standard of morality.

I really don't see why you're making such confusion out of such a simple premise, or how you think it becomes invalid at a later stage in history, (Cain or Jack the Ripper, it makes no difference to premise (A) )

Also, the premise doesn't concern itself with whether they should be judged differently. (A) states that before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had no knowledge of good and evil - which is fully attested to by the bible and god, and yet to be refuted by you.

As I have said to you before, god can do whatever he wants - that is not the issue here. Read premise (A) until you understand it.

By that logic:
P1 Cain has the knowledge of good and evil (the moral knowledge gained by his parents)
P2 He is faced with good/evil
I1 He has criteria to deal with good/evil
I2 Therefore he has reason to resist temptation
C He has an edge over Adam and Eve; he cannot make the same mistake, and the "set up" would fail.
If the knowledge of good an evil were the only criteria that would enable Adam and Eve to make an educated decision, then its presence in Cain's case would have been conclusive.

You've made a couple of mistakes. I shall ammend them for you:

I2 Therefore he has the ability to make an informed decision
I3 He has an edge over Adam and eve, and while he can make the same mistakes, he would do so knowingly.

I fail to see how you conclude that having knowledge of good and evil instantly makes Cain unable to sin, or "make the same mistakes".

1) God is sovereign and may decree what He wants ("the dude is god, he can do whatever he wants")

Sure.

2) God is subject to post-fall atheist morality, as if He was not sovereign and His word was not law and therefore morally binding.

Actually, I argue the case for god's word and laws in another thread. Kindly read the "mormonism and homosexuality" thread, where I am currently in a discussion with a christian who disagrees with me when I tell him god's word is law. But none of this is of any relevance to premise (A).

He can do what he wants and his laws are laws, but Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is fully attested to by the bible and by god.

Do you, SnakeLord, believe absolute morality exists? In other words, is there a moral standard that would be valid pre- and post-fall?

For the sake of this discussion I'll say sure.

If He is sovereign, then Adam and Eve should have listened, just as Cain should have listened.

Sure, Cain should have listened - but chose not to. In the case of Adam and Eve, they didn't have the required knowledge to make any informed decision until they had eaten the fruit. god attests to this:

"Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".

Before that time, whether they should or should not listen to him is completely meaningless. With no knowledge of good or evil, god is just another creature walking around - his word and laws without any worth to Adam and Eve.

If He is not, they had no reason to listen, not before the fall, and not after it.

If he is, they still had no reason to listen, (before the fall), given that they had no knowledge of good and evil. Just because you do, and can make the distinction and understand that god is head honcho who's laws are absolute, is meaningless to someone who does not have that knowledge.

That's the very simple concept you seem completely unable to grasp.

You seem to be arguing that because god is the big cheese they should have just listened to him. That's not even a valid argument given premise (A) which states they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, and as result god is just another nobody to them.

The question of nudity before the fall is simply a non-issue.

To you perhaps. But tell me, is it right? Your next entire paragraph isn't needed if we just both agree that premise (B) is correct, or would require more work if you state premise (B) is not correct. Saying it's a non-issue isn't an answer.

The relationships between Adam, Eve and God had changed.

Sure, but it isn't relevant to premise (B).

The question could have two effects: it could sow doubt if Eve did not understand God's command; and it would bring attention to this one tree as an exception, if she did. As you say, Eve was able to explain it to him in full. If you ask your tiger whether he understands, I doubt he would be able to explain it to you in full. If you ask your child whether she understand, maybe even throwing in the possibility of a different understanding to test her understanding, and she explains it in full, in spite of your suggestive question, you might be certain she will know if she disobeys.

You know, I had a pet parrot. I taught it a specific song that it spent the rest of it's life repeating to anyone who cared to listen. Being able to repeat what someone has said to you is no remarkable feat. "Did god say...." / "No, he said..." It doesn't imply that they understood the moral issues within it.

What does "you will die" mean to someone who has never seen or witnessed death? Because she used the word 'death', does that instantly mean she understand what it is? Of course not.

You know, as is my nature, I once sat down and memorized every single Trivial Pursuit question. Come Christmas time, the family gathered round for a game and I won without losing a turn. Needless to say, they've never played the game with me again. This was a damn long time ago, so undoubtedly now I've forgotten most - but at that time I could reel them off from the top of my head. I didn't understand many of the answers, but I could repeat and remember them. For instance.. Who led the Kontiki expedition? Answer: Thor Heyerdahl.

I have no idea what Kontiki is or means, no idea who Thor Heyerdahl is, and no idea of what the question or answer is talking about.

But I can still answer it if someone asks.

This is not really what Christianity believes.

Well, that depends on the specific christian.

On the other hand, the serpent only had physical death in mind and therefore seemed quite correct that they did not die.

Which seems to be your agreement that premise (C) is correct.

The difference was, and still is: God's word against his. That is why understanding this is so important.

What is important is that you understand that without the required knowledge of good and evil, no informed comparison could be made between the snake and god.

God treats Adam and Eve as children. He enjoys their company, and they are cofortable in His. He shows them the way to live, and they show understanding.

Where is this stated? I wouldn't say he "treated them as children", after all - the biblical text shows he made them as workers - to cultivate and take care of the garden. As for enjoying their company.. While the bible does mention him taking a stroll, he doesn't even know where they are.

But then something foreign enters

It sneaked in, god unaware that he had left the front door open?

Name one animal who actively seeks "wisdom".

It would depend upon what meaning you establish from the word. For instance, the dictionary says:

1: accumulated knowledge
2: the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience
3: ability to apply knowledge or experience

If we go by this understanding then most mammals actively seek wisdom. A lion cub for example will actively learn how to kill its prey, etc. (and in the definition above would come under 'wisdom').

If we used this definition:

4: Wise teachings of the ancient sages

Then clearly animals would not apply.

But your mention of Adam and Eve seeking wisdom only helps to support premise (A) all the more.. Some more definitions:

5: The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

And thus "seeking" wisdom would imply that they were seeking the ability to discern or judge what is true and right - negating any claim that they knew what was right beforehand.

6: Common sense; good judgment

Again, they were seeking common sense and good judgement, which negates any claim that they would have these attributes before eating the fruit.

Now, as you said, the fruit was "desirable for gaining wisdom", which shows they did not have that wisdom before eating the fruit - the wisdom such as "good judgement" and the "ability to discern what is right".

The dictionary says 'gaining' is: "To come into possession" - and so what is established here is that upon eating the fruit, they would 'come into possession of the ability to discern what is right".

So I repeat that you are inconsistent by regarding them now as human children, now as animals, as it suits you -- you cannot use both perspectives in the same argument.

Ok, that's a fair call. I personally don't have a problem with either, so you can pick one.

It has as basis the premise that God is sovereign in word and deed. No knowledge -- past or future; moral, scientific, or otherwise; present or lacking -- affects this premise if it's true.

I have no quarrel with this, but Adam and Eve wouldn't have understood this premise. It would have been entirely meaningless to them.

Everything hinges on whether you regard God as a sovereign God, or as a means to justify ourselves.

Nothing hinges on what I think about god, but on the knowledge that Adam and Eve didn't have in order to discern what was right, what was good, what was true, and what was evil.

Must I take that to mean you don't love your daughter?

Why? I have never and will never tell her she 'must not' do something, but I will certainly advise her from my field of experience. However, if she chooses to smoke, get tattoos, turn into a religious nut, or marry a black man it is her right, and if I do love her will never hold her to ransom for her decisions, or punish her for applying her rights. Of course it would be impossible to compare this to Adam and Eve because my daughter does have knowledge of good and evil - and thus can make informed decisions.

And if you told her not to do something, based on what knowledge should she listen to you?

The knowledge of good and evil/ right and wrong? The knowledge that Adam and Eve did not have.

Does she know good and evil apart from you, or because of you?

Probably a bit of both.

If to her you are on equal or lesser footing as the stranger on the street, what does it say about her understanding, and if you are to be listened to in spite of strangers, what does it say about you?

I'm sorry but I don't really understand the question you're asking.

The desired knowledge of good and evil, and they got it.

This seems to imply that you now agree that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit. If this is the case, premise (A) is concluded.

SnakeLord implied that "you must not" cannot be said with love. To presume he can but God cannot is irrational.

I didn't presume or imply any such thing. I can say "you must not" if I choose to, as can god if he chooses to. It's just not a sign of real love.

Whether the person hearing this understands why or not does not affect the speaker's intention. That "must" depends on how important it is: he might suggest that she doesn't kick the dog, but he will tell her she must not play with hydrofluoric acid if she ever comes across it in his absence. Her decision to listen may or may not be influenced by her knowledge of acids, but the real decision in the end is whether to obey him or not.

A) Unlike someone I could mention, I wouldn't be stupid enough to leave something 'dangerous' in a place where she could reach it.

B) Having a quite stable knowledge of good and evil gives her a foot hold. She wouldn't just go and kick the dog because she understand and recognises the moral issues that go with it. Adam and Eve did not have that ability.

C) If she did somehow get hold of some acid, whatever the outcome, I wouldn't kick her out of the house.

D) I have never and would never say she "must not" do anything. What I actually do is to keep things like acid well out of the way until such time where she has developed enough to understand the dangers of it. god on the other hand puts a shotgun in her toy chest before she's old enough to even know what a gun does.

 

[MarcAC]

Come back when you actually have something to say Marcac, you're a waste of space.

Come back? I've been listening in from the start! Indeed there is nothing to add on my part...
-
... yet.

 

[SnakeLord]

Woody:

So if God made himself vulnerable as a man, and said "you must not try to kill me" he shows he is incapable of real love.

Yes, and don't christians agree with this? Did not god come down as a vulnerable man and get himself killed? Did he say "you must not kill me"? No he didn't. He came down and died for us so sayeth christianity. He stood there taking the licks, not saying "you must not do this", but accepting it.

Isn't that the most loving and selfless act according to christianity? That he gave his life for you? He could have just struck all the bad guys down with lightning, or teleported himself to a safe place, but no.. he stood there and took it like a man.

Are you really trying to debate against what I said, or do you actually agree with it?

Wasn't the very purpose of jesus' words to not say "you must not"? Love thy neighbour - and if he hits you, turn to him the other cheek aswell. That is love no? To love someone else no matter how they are or what they do, and instead of striking back and saying "you must not do that", to actually just let them do it more?

As one of jesus' followers, I don't really understand why you would disagree with me.

You forget that the Lord has a nature too, and that coexisting with sin is like co-existing with poison

We 'co-exist' with poison, and yet manage just fine.

And we become the student that teaches the teacher how to do it -- no?

Certainly.

6) God is righteous, can not allow evil in his presense, and he feels by his own nature that wrong-doing must be paid for (kind of like the way we feel about unpunished crime).

So why create a creature who's inbuilt nature is to sin? And so inbuilt that as you said earlier - god knows we are not, no matter how hard we try, capable of getting rid of our "sin nature".

I absolutely detest coca cola. I cannot have it in my presence. As a result, I don't buy 1000 cans of coke and put them right in front of me. To do so would be the most moronic idea imagineable.

SL, Why didn't you buy a dog instead of getting married?

I did buy a dog, but found having sex with it wasn't all that nice.. :bugeye:

But I am led by an instinct to reproduce. That requires a woman.

What should "Mrs. God" be like?

Why should there be a Mrs. god? Does god share the human and animal need to procreate?

You are the doctor and God is the patient, let's hear what you have to say for your patient, that might be constructive and beneficial for him. It is not appropriate for you to be mad at your patient, but you can have the liberty if it is needed.

I'll work on it after dinner.

 

[Woody]

SL,

Yes, and don't christians agree with this? Did not god come down as a vulnerable man and get himself killed? Did he say "you must not kill me"? No he didn't. He came down and died for us so sayeth christianity. He stood there taking the licks, not saying "you must not do this", but accepting it.

Isn't that the most loving and selfless act according to christianity? That he gave his life for you? He could have just struck all the bad guys down with lightning, or teleported himself to a safe place, but no.. he stood there and took it like a man.

Are you really trying to debate against what I said, or do you actually agree with it?

We are agreeing, and you have moved to my next point. Actually Jesus stood there and took it like God. But you get the Gist.

As one of jesus' followers, I don't really understand why you would disagree with me.

No, actually I commend you.

We 'co-exist' with poison, and yet manage just fine.

We do not co-exist with poison in our body if that's what you mean. I think you probably mean something different though. God does not coexist with sin in his presense any more than we can have poison in our body, the sin has to go. But yer doing fine so far Doc.

So why create a creature who's inbuilt nature is to sin? And so inbuilt that as you said earlier - god knows we are not, no matter how hard we try, capable of getting rid of our "sin nature".

We seem to have a bit of a disagreement here, but not a show stopper. Regardless of whether God created man without a sin nature (fundamentalist view) or whether he created man with a sin nature (calvinist view), the current state of affairs needs to be fixed. One could argue as many have done extensively, that man must taste sin to find out how bad it is. That doesn't make God such a bad guy if He's willing to jump in with you and help you out of it like Jesus did. On the other hand if you tell God you don't want his help, and you like sin better after trying it, then the onus falls on you.

Why should there be a Mrs. god? Does god share the human and animal need to procreate?

Yes, he does at his level of existence (not the animal or human level of which he is neither): the Church is His intimate bride and "born-again" believers are His children. The body of believers constitutes his bride as a whole, each believer is like a vital component (organ if you will) within her. Some are the hand, some are the foot, some are the eye, some are the ear, some are the mouth, and so on. Jesus, by the way, is the groom.

Ponder it but take time and eat your dinner. I also have duties: preparing for an exam in March.

 

[§outh§tar]

You have nothing of value to say, instead thinking that your pointless little one liners are worthy because they're written in a fancy colour and contain lots of smileys.

I learned too.

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually Jesus stood there and took it like God.

I think "like a man" is more pertinent. If he had have done it god's way, all those people would have been plague infested and annihilated. To this I would add that god and jesus are two completely different beings who do not only do everything different to each other, but tend to disagree with each other.

I was going to do a big essay on this, but I'm lazy

You've even hinted at it yourself. Earlier you said "god cannot be in the presence of sin", and yet jesus often was, and happily so.

The OT calls angels the sons of god and humans servants of god whereas the NT says that angels are the servants and men are the sons.

In the OT, god says that it is he who makes people blind, deaf and crippled etc, whereas in the NT jesus says it's the devil who does that. The list is literally endless, and if I can ever muster the energy to write it up in full it will show just how different these two supposed beings were.

We do not co-exist with poison in our body if that's what you mean.

Yes we do. Ketones to name but one.

Hell, we can even ask religious nutbags:

"The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood." (Watchtower 9/15/1961, pages 564)

I know that was written a while ago and yes, they're all lunatics but we do live with poisons.

I think you probably mean something different though.

Yeah, I did.

Namely that we do co-exist with poisons. They don't have to be "in our body", because us sinners are not in god's body. So for the sake of your comment, we do co-exist with poisons.

God does not coexist with sin in his presense any more than we can have poison in our body

But he does. Check this:

1) Sin is everywhere.

2) god is everywhere.

As a result, he does have to co-exist with sin in his presence.

But yer doing fine so far Doc.

Yeah, I know.

One could argue as many have done extensively, that man must taste sin to find out how bad it is.

Well here's the thing: The majority of christians are not circumcised and have no problem with eating pork - even though these are laws of god, going against which is a sin according to that very same god. Does it taste bad to you?

Why do go against god and eat pork? You "tasted" it to know how "bad it is", but then decided it wasn't bad at all, and that in this instance god was wrong.

And so god has the things that he regards as sins, and yet they are meaningless to man. While he will undoubtedly make you burn for it, in your eyes you haven't done anything wrong - and that is where a lot of the problem lies.

And by the way, you don't need to taste deadly poison to know how bad it is.

That doesn't make God such a bad guy if He's willing to jump in with you and help you out of it like Jesus did.

How did he help you out? Think about it for once.. what has he helped you with?

On the other hand if you tell God you don't want his help, and you like sin better after trying it, then the onus falls on you.

Do you eat pork? Are you circumcised? Do you stone prostitutes, witches and bad children to death? If not, you're a sinner. The onus is on you.. apparently.