Christianity as the message of love

[audible]

snakelord : some excellent posts, I had been arguing the same point and he still dont get it does he, perhaps you tiger analogy will work, I wish I'd thought of it.

M*W : if I may: woody in answer to 1, you cant call a clear thinging person with sense reason and intellect insane, that label can only be attached to the religious as thay believe in fantasy figures.
and on question 2, this is the most common lame reason religious people come up with when someone has seen sense, and moved away from the realms of fantasy.
it could never be, that someone actually believed, and suddenly realised there was no god, by studying for a bloody long time.
it could have never been that they saw sense could it, had to be they never new god.
have you ever stopped to think that theres nothing to know.

 

[SnakeLord]

snakelord : some excellent posts

Very nice of you to say so.

perhaps you tiger analogy will work

Analogy? Dude, that was a true story. Have faith brother.

 

[Woody]

SL and Audible,

Actually I do understand what you are both saying. May I paraphrase it for you: You are saying Adam and Eve were just a couple of goo-goos that didn't see anything wrong with being naked before the fall. The original nudist colony as it were. National Geographic at it's best, no bras, no loin clothes, just plain naked like some of the modern tribal people. Yet with a bite of ye ole forbidden fruit suddenly they were enlightened to the world about them. God made sex for a good reason, but National Geographic became National Pornographic. They became "civilized" and wore clothes. Big Whoopie! So what's the big deal about being naked? I was born that way and I leave the world the same way. I remember when I went streaking in college. When everybody is naked it ain't no big deal. So what? doctors look at naked people all day long. What about a Gynecologist?

I gotta couple of questions for the both of you:

Who taught Adam to talk?

Has anyone spoken with a child psychologist as I originally asked, to determine what Adam's mental age was, given he had no knowledge of marriage, a father and mother, and yet made this statement:

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Adam did not have a class in anatomy and physiology, and yet he understood human reproduction -- does anyone disagree?

Adam did not have a family model to go by, and yet he understood the concept of wife and the concept of leaving your parents to go marry -- anybody disagree?

Adam understood the intimate oness of marriage when he said "they shall be one flesh" does anyone disagree with this?

I just asked the wife, and she has some background in the psychology field: We both agree: Adam had sex figured out real quick and the chemistry was already at work! Go figure it for yourself: Eve was a perfect 10. The only gooing and gahing Adam did was when he picked his jaw up off the ground. We also agree he had more sense than a lot of adults, and was likely above average in intelligence. God knows how to make a brain.

The last question: Was God being totally ignorant, unreasonable, when he asked Adam not to eat from the tree of good and evil? God made Adam, and he made Adam's mind. He knew what Adam could understand. I believe God was reasonable when he made his request, and I believe Adam understood quite well what God asked of him. He never said to God:

"Well, I just didn't know any better God, cut me some slack here!"

 

[Woody]

Audible,

you cant call a clear thinking person with sense reason and intellect insane, that label can only be attached to the religious as thay believe in fantasy figures.

Oh, come on, give me a break! I'll match logic wits with about anyone. Anyway, I want MW to answer the question I asked, and I am not calling her crazy. Someone could conceivable be delusional and think they saw God, therefore I posed that as a possibility.

Are you going to call the majority of the people in this world insane because they believe there is a supernatural God? If so, I think you are the one being unreasonable.

 

[SnakeLord]

Who taught Adam to talk?

Why would anyone need to teach him? The ability to verbalise exists in almost every animal, and will be utilised. When someone stamps on your foot you make a sound automatically. Communication is not a lot more than this, a bunch of sounds plopped together to state something. So, if a caveman saw a wooly mammoth round the corner he would say: "grunt grunt snortle grunt" and everyone else would know what he was talking about. That is the foundation of language. Give it a bit of time and that system of language would improve naturally. As I mentioned earlier, whales have a fascinating communicative ability, and although none of them are advanced enough to make skyscrapers, they have a complete and stable language that has developed naturally.

Has anyone spoken with a child psychologist as I originally asked, to determine what Adam's mental age was

I am a psychologist, (although not generally involved with children), and I can't determine a valid question anywhere here.

The claim you make about what Adam 'said' is a assumption without merit. From a historical point of view, the bible was not written by anyone even living close to a time where they could have known or learnt the exact words uttered by Adam.

From a biblical point of view, Adam could talk - but there is no discernible intelligence in the ability to vocalise. Even birds do it. Does the ability of birds to communicate mean they could understand god if he said: "don't eat the fruit"? Of course not.

The main issue of course, as you will be well aware, is that Adam didn't write Genesis, some dude several millennia later did.

Adam did not have a class in anatomy and physiology, and yet he understood childbirth -- does anyone disagree?

Well as per your earlier statement that I agree with, even animals know all this, or are you claiming animals just bonk for fun? And before you change the subject, yes I am aware that some snakes participate in group orgies. What can I say, snakes are smart - even in religious based instances.

But anyway, getting back on track.. Are you claiming that animals only bonk for fun?

Adam did not have a family model to go by, and yet he understood the concept of wife and the concept of leaving your parents to go marry.

A ritual invented by man is not specifically intelligent. Look at human sacrifice, wearing a turban and never being allowed to shave, those African tribes that scar their faces, or wait.. what about the South American tribal people who put massive discs in their ears and mouth causing it to look like they're chewing on a rubber band? Is this intelligence? I don't think so.

Adam understood the intimate oness of marriage when he said "they shall be one flesh" does anyone disagree with this?

Even the smallest creature is aware that they need to "join flesh" with a female in order to reproduce, or have fun.. whatever you reckon. Of course we can dismiss some from this, including the snail which is so overly intelligent it can bonk itself.

Further to which, "being one flesh" has nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual of marriage. I have no idea why you included it here.

I just asked the wife, and she has some background in the psychology field: We both agree: Adam had sex figured out real quick and the chemistry was already at work!

Sure, as did the sea cucumber, dung beetle, frog, mouse, goat, rabbit, (who excel at the job), and yes even bees who do it during flight. Hell, these dudes can bonk while flying.. now that's smart. Of course none of this even compares to the good old snail who just bonks himself. It's true, the god of snails didn't even create two - he just created one. Imagine if Adam had have been in that position. I could say he'd be fucked, but in reality he wouldn't be fucked

Oh, and let's not forget some South American frogs that with all their supreme intelligence can tell what the population statistics are like at any given moment and change sex accordingly. That's right, a dude frog realises there's too many blokes around, and so he changes himself into a woman.

Wait wait! Theres this moth, that in my opinion leads one of the most amazingly simple yet fun lives imagineable. The mother lays the eggs. Eventually the 'grub' or caterpillar is born. It then proceeds to dig a hole in the ground and go to sleep.... For 13 years. Upon waking, the caterpillar climbs up a tree and turns into a pupae. After a short while it emerges as a moth - where upon it walks over to a female, gives her a quick seeing to, and then drops dead.

Surely this moth has to be the smartest of them all? He get's all of 5 minutes to figure out what to do with his winky, and then it's all over - unless of course the moth gods are providing him with visions in his sleep?

We also agree he had more sense than a lot of adults, and was likely above average in intelligence.

On what basis? Because he could talk and bonk? Come on..

God knows how to make a brain.

Unless you come out mentally retarded.

The last question: Was God being totally ignorant, unreasonable, when he asked Adam not to eat from the tree of good and evil?

Of course he was. I've already explained it all in depth, you just didn't bother paying attention to it, or responding to it.

I believe God was reasonable when he made his request, and I believe Adam understood quite well what God asked of him.

Your "beliefs" are unjustified and unsupported by the biblical texts.

 

[Woody]

SL,

I have enjoyed the humor of your response. But You always leave out my best quotes, or cut 'em off.

Adam did not say: "Well, I just didn't know any better God, cut me some slack here God, whatta you expect?"

Instead he said, "God 'ya know that woman you gave me, she just put that fruit up to my mouth, and I couldn't help myself, 'cuz I'm a whimp. I made me a little skirt, and I hid in the trees because I was frightened!" Yeah boy, some man he was, hiding behind his wife!

Another question:

When Mr and Mrs Chimp get together do you think they have a session on family planning before they have sex? Do you think animals realize sex leads to pregnancy? What basis do you have for believing this? When animals go into heat they don't think about the consequences. When humans get romantic, they can forget about the consequences too. I've heard of some primitive aboriginal tribes that haven't quite made the connection between intercourse and child bearing.

Of course some of them walk around as naked adults, and I guess you'll argue they have a 4 year old's mentality.

Maybe Skinwalker can be of some assistance here.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

water: It is not Christianity's fault if you "did it to yourself".
*************
M*W: I pursued christianity, I admit it, and I'll tell you about the experience I had that led me in the direction of christianity. I had just moved into a new house, and I was out in my driveway watching my son play on his hot wheels. I heard someone speak to me. I thought a neighbor must have been outside or something. I turned around -- all the way around, but no one was there! When I realized what I had heard, it stunned me, and I was terribly confused. The voice I heard said, "I died for you." Of course, I knew about christianity. After all, I had gone to a Baptist University and taken many theology classes. The religion just hadn't been a part of my life. I told my then husband about the voice I heard, and he said that was Jesus talking to me! Yeah, right! He never pushed me into christianity, because he himself had fallen away a long time before we knew each other. Religion was absolutely NEVER discussed in my home growing up, so there was no pressure there. I was the only one in my family with an interest in religion.

The confusion went on for a few weeks until I got settled in my home. Met the neighbors who were catholic charismatics, and I told my neighbor about my experience. She invited us to their charismatic worship service every week. I ended up telling the group about my experience. They all started saying, "Amen." "Amen." "Hallalujah." "Praise the Lord.", etc. Then they wanted to lay hands on me, which being the friendly and affectionate person I am, I welcomed it. Shortly thereafter, I began taking instructions in catholicism, and after a year of intensive study, I was baptised as a catholic.

I got into my religion, but I didn't feel that I wanted to participate in the charismatic group anymore. I had negative feelings about the group but not any individual. Alone, each was a great person and friend, but together, it started to feel like a witch coven or occult mass of sorts. I didn't have comfortable feelings around the "group." Kind of got queasy, if you know what I mean? I felt so strange around them, that eventually I just had to politely say I was busy and stay away from them. They spoke in tongues, but I was never able to naturally speaking. They told me I needed to be "baptised in the spirit" to talk in tongues. They had indicated many times that I wasn't "spirit-filled," although I felt true devotion to Jesus and his mother, and the saints, etc. So, a baptism in the spirit was arranged by the "group," and a catholic priest came to the home for the ritual. Each of us in turn met with the priest in another room while the "group" prayed in tongues and sang in the living room.

When it was my turn to speak to the priest in private, he asked me to confess my sins. Of course, I wasn't a terribly sinful person at all, but admitted to things like impatience and the occasional curse word. I think I remember him laying hands on my head or something as we prayed. Kindly, he absolved me from my "sins." I thought he was going to dismiss me, then he said, "is there anything else you need to tell me?" I said, "no," but he pursued asking me!!! I was getting to be very uneasy with his interrogation, because I couldn't think of anything else I had done that was a "sin!" I was pretty naive and innocent in those days -- extremely so. I was afraid of my own shadow then! (I know that's hard to believe, but it's true!). He told me to "think about it," and I sat there thinking what on earth it was I needed to confess! "Think," he kept saying. Then he asked me if I was using birth control! I couldn't lie to him, but I wondered how he knew to ask me that! Then, he said, "Oh, that's okay, the church doesn't view it as a sin anymore!" That was news to me! But, I don't know what the purpose was in that. To this day, it still confuses me!

So, life went on, and I was a devout catholic. I took my faith extremely seriously! Never missed church. Never missed holy days. Taught catechism 'religiously!' Was an officer of the local parish council. Traveled and lived in Europe, visited as many holy sites as I could, Fatima, Lourdes, Never, Bourges, The Vatican, Avignon, Chartres, Notre Dame de Paris, Reims, etc. So many more in other countries that I don't even remember. I had a wonderful experience in all of them -- except St. Peter's.

Went there on a religious pilgrimage with my church. Stayed in Vatican City. Toured every inch of Rome. Got to St. Peter's with the tour guide, but somehow I got separated from the group, and started venturing out on my own, amazed with every artifact I saw! The art was incomparable to anything I've ever seen except perhaps to the Louvre. I studied every piece, and watched as other faithful approached the statue or painting, and watched their reactions. I got that queasy feeling again, just like in the charismatic prayer group. It looked to me as if the faithful in St. Peter's were like political prisoners in asylums expressionlessly walking in circles! The observation was eerie. When the monks or cardinals or whatever they were in those black robes and Guido priest hats passed, they never smiled. They looked like zombies, too. Prostitutes hanging out in front of St. Peter's propositioning priests right there in broad daylight stunned me. I stood by one of the many confessionals, because I wanted to make a confession while I was in St. Peter's. I felt like I was hitch-hiking. Every priest that walked by, I asked for a confession. Either they didn't acknowledge me, or they didn't have time to do it, or they were very rude. Not the holy place I had imagined it would be. It was not the place I'd given my soul to. All the angels and saints had a hefty presence in St. Peter's, but I expected to see more of Jesus. He appeared to be an afterthought.

Rome was rife with paganism -- something foreign to me at the time. Who were all these gods? So many of them had similar stories to Jesus! How could that be? How could anyone but Jesus be born of a virgin? How many more crucified saviors were there? It was all too confusing. I only believed in one savior -- Jesus Christ, but he was nowhere to be found in christianity.
*************
water: Blaming Christianity and saying it is evil is like blaming the knife you used to cut you. Can you really blame the knife?
*************
M*W: No, I wouldn't blame the knife. If I cut myself with it, I was probably clumsy.
*************
water: Already then, you have *treated* Christianity as an addiction -- so this is all it was for you. You are blaming the drug for you being the druggie.
*************
M*W: When I was a christian, I didn't see myself as an addict to christianity -- just the opposite -- I couldn't get enough of it!!! It wasn't until I was able to free myself from it to realize it had been an addiction! I'm not blaming the religion for addicting me -- I'm blaming myself for letting it happen.
*************
water: All that happened then is that yu realized that the way you approached Christianity is not healthy, but then by throwing away your unhealthy approach, you also threw away Christianity.
*************
M*W: No, I approached christianity with an eagerness to learn, a willingness to be part of a community and fellowship. Again, my approach was very healthy from the git go. Maybe I let it become an addiction. Aside from my interaction with christianity, there were just too many "ifs" that occurred like where was the love? There was no christian love emanating from within St. Peter's. There was darkness and fear! That's not what Jesus was about! At least not the Jesus I knew! I got that same queasy feeling just like I did with the charismatic "group." They actually told me I was "praying wrong!" That "God didn't hear me!" I found this corny, because the God I knew heard everything I've ever said! Furthermore, I believed he answered my prayers many times.
*************
water: It's like taking the position that one should never trust anyone again -- based on one's experience that one has been betrayed some time.
*************
M*W: Well, I happen to be a very trusting sort. Too trusting, in fact. I've been betrayed many times in my life, because I never saw it coming. Well, I didn't WANT to see it coming, so I just repressed everything that could potentially become a "betrayal." Still do that today, even! I didn't take my experience personally. What I felt then, and what I've learned since then, true christianity is not what it appears to be. I may be betrayed many more times in my life, but never again by christianity. I trust my instincts. I rely on my inner-wisdom (gut-feelings), and I will move onward as a happy person, content in my lifetime accomplishments, proud of my family (which is growing). They are my greatest accomplishment in this life, and I have no regrets.
*************
water: But you refuse to give others that credit?
*************
M*W: I don't understand what credit I haven't given to others.
*************
water: You have a bad, bad attitude. You presume others are entrapped -- while you simply know better?
*************
M*W: A long time has passed since I untrapped myself, and I've learned a lot about christianity -- more now than what I learned from within! Yes, I do presume others are entrapped by the same faith I was caught up in, and just like me at the time, they don't know it, won't believe it, and are in total and complete denial. To you and the other christians on sciforums, you think I have a "bad, bad attitude." To my family, and to those whom I have inspired by my beliefs, respect and admire me. So, it really doesn't bother me at all that christians on sciforums would think I have a bad attitude or that I'm even the anti-christ! Christianity as I knew it is the same christianity that you and the other christians on this forum believe in. It's Pauline Christianity, and it has absolutely nothing truthful to say about Jesus Christ. I believe he existed. I believe he was a Rabbi and a very good spiritual teacher, but he wasn't a savior at all. To learn the truth about Jesus Christ, one would need to read the Gnostic Gospels and related texts. They are about the real Jesus Christ.
*************
water: I hope you are listening to yourself. Next time you get robbed, remember, it was you who allowed the robber to rob you.
*************
M*W: One must protect themselves at all times, or at least be cautious in all potential circumstances of danger. I've had a Neo-Nazi aim a rifle at me in Germany, not once but twice. Once during a Neo-Nazi uprising in Wiesbaden, and another time at the Iron Curtain check point near Fulda. I've been robbed twice in my home. My children and I once by gunpoint, and once a break-in while we were away. I have no fear for my own life, because I know how strong my spirit is. It has led me far and wide in my life. I've done things other people can only dream about! Seriously! I put myself through school and through the USAF, and I deal with life and death everyday in my world. Believing in christianity gave me something to trust in other than myself. That's what Jesus talks about in the Gnostic Gospels -- "becoming fully human." Give yourself your own power within, let it manifest, and you can do all things. This is letting the positive energy flow through you, with you, and in you. The idea of the "trinity" Jesus spoke about was the body, mind and spirit. Three gods in one. This is when salvation comes. Read Jesus's words by the real people he spoke them to -- the people who knew him and walked with him on earth, which is something that Paul didn't do. Didn't even know Jesus. Never met him.
*************
water: So how can you say Christianity is evil -- when it was all *your* doing, entering and exiting?
*************
M*W: I trusted it. I looked forward, futilly I might add, to salvation, but I came to realize that the only salvation I or anyone else will ever have is the guiding force within compelling us to become "fully human." To reconcile the three personages in our body, mind and spirit, making us whole. Christianity doesn't allow this to occur, because christians are always looking outside themselves to find salvation and happiness. That's not necessary. Everything we need to survive in this world; everything we need for salvation, is already there within. It's up to the individual to let it grow and manifest in their lives as it guides them. We are all in the process of our own spiritual creation, and the tools we need are our bodies, our minds, and our spirits. We are living the lives our spirit creates. We need to all it to make us whole. That is salvation.
*************
water: Whatever we do, we are ultimately limited to our own individual experience in everything.
*************
M*W: Yes, that's all we've got. We CANNOT or SHOULD NOT rely on someone else's description of a savior or salvation. We can only know what is ours from within. Your soul and your salvation will not come from your belief in christianity or a dying Jesus. These were Paul's ideas. Believe in yourself. You are the only one who knows you well.
*************
water: The way YOU approached Christianity -- "I wanted the rules. I wanted to learn the rituals." -- you approached it as an addiction, so this is what it was for you, an addiction.
It does not mean it is this way for everyone, or that it is an inherent trait of the Christian faith.
*************
M*W: As I stated, I didn't "approach" christianity for an addiction, I never thought of it as such. I have never had an addictive personality, anyway. After the fact, I was very much aware how christianity purposefully practiced ritual addiction. Do anything repetitively enough, and you end up physically starving for it. Then comes the withdrawal, and I tell you what, trying to leave christianity, the withdrawal was miserable time for me! I've never used heroine or morphine, but the withdrawal I had from christianity was probably harder.

But, it wasn't the rules and the rituals that I was addicted to, it was the whole idea that christianity offered salvation! It was the idea of salvation I was addicted to. I think this is what addicts most christians. We all probably have more than enough rules and rituals in our lives -- the work-a-day world, the daily grind at home, etc. We're like robots going through the necessary motions everyday, day after long dreary day. So I don't see the rules and rituals as something to look forward to.

I know christianity is not the same for everyone. Most christians I know go through those robotic motions believing everything they hear about christianity, and hearing what they think they believe. We hear what we desperately WANT to hear, and we believe whatever we WANT to believe. Just because the masses do it doesn't mean its true, healthy or even right! Every dog will have its day. Christians believe blindly because they are afraid to believe otherwise, because that's what they've been brainwashed to do. I believed blindly, too, but then I started seeing the truth and became very much aware of the deceit and lies and, most of all, the emotional control christianity had over people's lives.
*************
water: This is fallacious, non causa pro causa. Show that it indeed follows that Christianity is dying because it is "evil".
*************
M*W: There are some updated statistics online, but I don't remember the website. There is one called adherents.com, but it is not up to date. Newspapers, journals, broadcasts, you name it, all over the world has been stating that christianity is dying worldwide. Europe is fastly becoming Islamic (even in Italy)! Canada, too, had declining christian numbers and increasing atheistic numbers. Australia, too. Overall, the totals are declining worldwide. That's also been stated on the forum a number of times by a number of people. For whatever reasons christianity is dying really doesn't matter. If it was really the true church of Jesus Christ, one would think Jesus could work some kind of miracle to keep it afloat, but that's definitely NOT happening. Churches EVERYWHERE are losing their faithful and, consequently, losing their funding. It's been published over and over again in Christianity Today. Church leaders from everywhere are trying to figure out ways to "lure" their lost "sheep" back in. It doesn't appear to be working. Not my words -- theirs. Personally, I don't know why they are so afraid about losing their faithful, especially since they preach about the rapture! Maybe that's where all the christians have gone!
*************
water: Also, show how "christianity is the greatest evil in this world" and how "It has the power to take your mind away, and you become a blood-sucking zombie."
*************
M*W: I believe I've already covered this above. It's not only my OPINION, but it is the OPINION of others who believe christianity is evil -- Pauline Christianity -- the one the christian churches teach! There's a consensus of opinion on this forum about Paul being the Antichrist. He diverted attention from the memory of the true christ. Then this is EVIL!
*************
water: Otherwise, those statements are just your BELIEF, NOT PROOF.
*************
M*W: Nor can you prove Jesus even existed!!! Nor God either!!! But, hey! If you have some kind of proof, I'm sure we all want to know about it! Inevitably, I offer more proof than even christianity can! I'm here, I'm alive, I've experienced it from the inside, and I've been researching this phenomenon for about 20 years. When I make the statement that "christianity is evil," I don't mean "it's made a few mistkes," or that perhaps the early church fathers could have "exaggerated on a few dogma." When I say "evil," I clearly mean EVIL. My statement stands as do my opinions, because you will find that I'm NOT alone in these beliefs (or lack thereof). There are many good threads archived that would back up what I have stated here.

In one of the Gnostic Gospels, Jesus was quoted first-hand saying, "He who has ears, let him hear." This does not only mean to listen to what comes in from the 'outside', it means that which we hear from the 'inside.' The truth can ONLY be found from within.
*************
water: You still speak like an addict.
*************
M*W: Words are cheap, but I'm no longer a victim of christianity.

 

[SnakeLord]

I have enjoyed the humor of your response. But You always leave out my best quotes, or cut 'em off.

All due respect Woody, but you "cut off" three quarters of my posts since I joined this discussion on page 5, and now you've done it again but this time "cut off" the entire post. You have no place to talk. I spend a great deal of time and effort making sure my replies to you are complete, whereas you never show that same courtesy. Need I really scroll back just to point out everything you've ignored, every question left unanswered, every ask for textual support dismissed?

Will this even be answered?

Adam did not say: "Well, I just didn't know any better God, cut me some slack here God, whatta you expect?"

Instead he said, "God 'ya know that woman you gave me, she just put that fruit up to my mouth, and I couldn't help myself, 'cuz I'm a whimp. I made me a little skirt, and I hid in the trees because I was frightened!" Yeah boy, some man he was!

It's strange to see you do an instant turn around. A minute ago you were happily informing the world of how cool and intelligent Adam was, how much of a man he was - not like an animal or child, and yet in this post you state the complete opposite - seemingly trying very hard to point out how childish he was. So which is it Woody? Should I even expect a response to this?

However, as I have posed to Jenyar: What are you suggesting Adam should have said? Are you stating Adam should have lied? His statement to god is fully supported as the truth by the biblical text before it. The snake tempted eve and she gave some to Adam. That is what Adam says to god when confronted, and it is a sign of honesty. It's bizarre seeing you religious folk for some reason wanting and expecting Adam to lie to god. It's somewhat amusing to see the thing you find as the biggest weakness is honesty.

Even more amusing by the fact that you state he should have said: "Well, I just didn't know any better God, cut me some slack here God, whatta you expect?", when just a minute ago you were sitting here claiming he did know better. What you're doing now is telling everyone who reads the religious section in sciforums, that Adam should have boldly lied his ass off to god.

Perhaps you could do with some of that fruit?

Btw, should I expect a response, other than a claim that I'm now insulting you and you're once again going to add me to ignore?

When Mr and Mrs Chimp get together do you think they have a session on family planning before they have sex?

Of course they do. Perhaps they don't sit down and discuss it as a couple, but they "plan" a hell of a lot more than humans do. You can see my response later in this thread for further details.

Do you think animals realize sex leads to pregnancy?

I refer to a question, happily ignored, from my previous post;

Do you think animals just have sex for the sheer fun of it?

What basis do you have for believing this?

Well, where to start?

Did you know: It is the queen bee that gives birth. Drone bees will fly behind her and "give it to her". When they are finished with their duty, their whole innards rip out along with their penis which gets stuck in the queen. Other bees then fly along and remove the remains of the previous drone. At that stage the process is repeated by another drone. It is the sole purpose of a drone bee.

They do not sacrifice their lives bonking the queen bee just to see if it's more fun than daytime television.

We're talking about an animal with a brain the size of an ant's poo, and yet it is well aware of it's purpose in the system, and the queen is well aware of what bonking several drone bees will lead to. It bonks to reproduce. End of story.

When animals go into heat they don't think about the consequences.

Says who? Do you know the effort and planning birds go through to build a nest? They find the best twigs and leaves, in some cases, (Eider ducks), they make the next comfortable with their own feathers, (down). Ant colonies make massive birth chambers and have specific ants just to look after the young.

Of course, some animals don't tend to "care" all that much, but that is not generally true of mammals. Turtles will lay and bury their eggs and then leave them to fend for themselves, but mammals show more than enough care and planning before even getting pregnant, that it is pertinent to state that the consequences are of far more importance for them.

How many women do you know make a nursery before even getting pregnant? And yet a bird will do it, as will the majority of animals.

I've heard of some primitive aboriginal tribes that haven't quite made the connection between intercourse and child bearing.

Christian propaganda.com?

Of course some of them walk around as naked adults, and I guess you'll argue they have a 4 year old's mentality.

If they truly couldn't figure out the connection between intercourse and pregnancy, as you suggest, what mentality would you claim is reasonable?

Why do I get the distinct impression this entire post will be ignored?

 

[MarcAC]

...That goes for all the bashing going on in this thread.

What is most interesting is that most of the "dark space" posters are here. Featureless dark spaces.

 

[SnakeLord]

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

 

[Woody]

SL,

I apologize for not answering every question, and perhaps we need to boil them down to the root causes:

1) You think God was unreasonable when he asked Adam not to eat from the tree -- I believe that God is always fair and reasonable, though I might question some things, I have faith that he knows what is best.

2) You believe that Adam did not have the intellect to understand what God commanded. I believe that God gave Adam the intellect to make the appropriate choice, just as he gave Soloman the wisdom to judge his people, God gave Adam whatever wisdom was appropriate to understand his choices.

3) You believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a good thing to be tasted and experienced and made A&E smarter, hence raised their standing. I believe the tree lowered their standing, and they were better off before they ate the fruit.

Adam was, how much of a man he was - not like an animal or child, and yet in this post you state the complete opposite - seemingly trying very hard to point out how childish he was. So which is it Woody? Should I even expect a response to this?

Yes, I'll shoot as straight as I can. Adam was made a man and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with that fact. He and his wife were naked and unashamed, not out of ignorance, but because they had no evil thoughts. They knew they were naked, but they weren't ashamed about it. Shame comes from sin, not from nakedness. Hence when they sinned they were ashamed. Their eyes being opened with sinful thoughts behind them -- yes indeed they were ashamed because of what they thought as a result of the nakedness that was always there.


On the otherhand you say they were better off with their eye's opened, like maybe God wanted them to sin, and this is their good reward, as though God is going to reward sin, which he is not going to do.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed I see they were not ashamed of being naked, where does it say they didn't know they were naked?

You are just assuming they were like 4 year old children because that is the best explanation you can come up with in your experience.

This is a logical falacy because it assumes the way things are now must have been the way things were then. It assumes that we know what Adam and Eve thought because of the age of accountability that we now know about, and ignores what it would be like as an adult without a sinful nature. 4 year olds have a sinful nature though they don't know right from wrong, and they have no trouble at all being selfish, angry, and ill-behaved. Adam and Eve were not that way before the fall. After the fall look at the results -- yeah Adam looks like a man before the fall and almost childish after the fall. Fear does strange things to people.

A&E knew good and evil through experience, but God knows it without being evil. Are you going to say God has the mind of a 4 year old since he has not eaten from the tree of good and evil? Or will you say God commits evil?

I've heard of some primitive aboriginal tribes that haven't quite made the connection between intercourse and child bearing. ”

Christian propaganda.com?

NOPE, just plain old fashioned television programming when I didn't give a rat's ass about religion. This was so many years ago, I'm trying to put it together. It worked something like this -- men and women in the tribe only had sex after they were married. They concluded that marriage caused childbirth rather than sexual intercourse.

 

[SnakeLord]

1) You think God was unreasonable when he asked Adam not to eat from the tree -- I believe that God is always fair and reasonable, though I might question some things, I have faith that he knows what is best.

I don't think "unreasonable" quite cuts it. As I mentioned to Jenyar, the dude is god, he can do whatever he wants. What I have stated is that he played a rigged game. We could even ignore the biblically supported truth that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil prior to eating the fruit, and as such had no position with which to make an informed decision, (something that you have yet to refute). Further from that we could also look at god's omniscience, and what worth it is for god to have put the tree there in the first place, or the snake for that matter. It's equivalent to giving a serial killer a hacksaw and then getting pissed off when he chops you into digestable chunks. It's not so much "unreasonable" as it is plainly stupid.

2) You believe that Adam did not have the intellect to understand what God commanded. I believe that God gave Adam the intellect to make the appropriate choice, just as he gave Soloman the wisdom to judge his people, God gave Adam whatever wisdom was appropriate to understand his choices.

Well, he most certainly didn't have the required knowledge, (knowledge of good and evil). This is fully attested to by the bible and you have yet to refute that with anything other than personal thoughts. Please refer back to my tiger analogy in order to get a clearer grasp of the concept.

3) You believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a good thing to be tasted

But as seen in your very own statement, Adam wouldn't have known whether it was a good thing to do until he'd eaten it. You keep getting right to the point without even realising it. The only way to judge whether it was good or not was to eat it and thus gain the knowledge of what good and evil mean. It is that bloody simple.

I believe the tree lowered their standing, and they were better off before they ate the fruit.

How so, aside from a few minor inconveniences such as painful childbirth which doesn't (generally) mean so much anymore?

I know in earlier posts you mentioned eternal life, but not once have you been able to substantiate that claim, and the biblical texts do not support it.

He and his wife were naked and unashamed, not out of ignorance, but because they had no evil thoughts.

But then of course, they wouldn't know whether they were having evil thoughts or not, because they wouldn't be able to understand what evil implied. We go back to the tiger. It kills without care, without moral implications or worry that it has done something wrong. You and I might consider murder evil, but to the tiger it is completely meaningless. Those thoughts might exist, but would carry no moral implications for the tiger.

You go on to point out that they felt no shame by being naked beforehand, and yet after eating did feel shame. You state above that they felt no shame because they had no evil thoughts, which merely breaks down as: after eating the fruit they finally understood the 'evil' in it. No, I don't personally believe nakedness is evil, but we can see that it was certainly a factor for them, and you seemingly agree with that given your statement above.

Let's go back to the tiger.. He kills some people - having no knowledge of good and evil. Later on we give him a magical fruit. If he now chooses to kill some people it would be an informed decision that he would be guilty for making. That doesn't imply that before eating the magical fruit that he didn't kill people, merely that it had no meaning or consequence prior to consumption of that fruit.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

They knew they were naked, but they weren't ashamed about it. Shame comes from sin, not from nakedness. Hence when they sinned they were ashamed.

Well see, this can be debated. Let's look at the text:

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realised that they were naked.

This biblical text here supports the claim that they were not aware that they were naked beforehand, but only realised that they were naked after eating the fruit.

And if that is not solid enough biblical evidence for you, we can just listen to the words of god himself.. Shall we? Okely dokely:

Gen 3:11 "Who told you that you were naked?"

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.

He then figures out that nobody told them they were naked, but that they had eaten the fruit. This can be also be seen in Gen 3:11. So, in god's own words, the fruit from that tree provided them with the understanding of nakedness. Don't take it from me, take it from god himself.

Their eyes being opened with sinful thoughts behind them -- yes indeed they were ashamed because of what they thought as a result of the nakedness that was always there.

god doesn't agree. He claims they never even knew they were naked before eating the fruit. Who are we to argue with him?

On the otherhand you say they were better off with their eye's opened, like maybe God wanted them to sin, and this is their good reward, as though God is going to reward sin, which he is not going to do.

Of course I say they're better off. As a result of their actions, we have knowledge of good and evil, and yes - we even understand what nudity is. I am quite happy to be a bit more than a chimp.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed I see they were not ashamed of being naked, where does it say they didn't know they were naked?

I have already pointed that out above. But what the hell, just for fun I'll point it out again.. Ready?

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realised that they were naked.

If that isn't good enough, the only completely 100% trustworthy source is god himself. What does he have to say on the matter? Let's find out..

Gen 3:11 "Who told you that you were naked?" He asked. "Have you been eating from the tree I forbade you to eat?"

Don't blame me, it was god who said it.

You are just assuming they were like 4 year old children because that is the best explanation you can come up with in your experience.

My arguments have all been supported and just. Those arguments consist of the following:

A) Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and as a result from that, did not have the ability to discern any wrongdoing with eating the fruit. -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

B) Adam and Eve did not, before eating from the tree, understand that they were naked -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

C) The snake told the truth -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

D) It was pretty much you and Audible having a discussion over child-like mentality. In my original few posts I stated "like animals". I have since reiterated that statement. I have also spent some time explaining some animal facts to you, such as:

They communicate, they procreate, they do not have knowledge of good and evil, they do not understand what nakedness is.

I have provided data to establish these cases, and a lot of biblical support that likens Adam and Eve to other animals.

What more do you want? I have provided solid arguments for each and every factor taken into consideration, and have ended up with a case that would require a little more than "I think..", or "I believe", to crack.

This is a logical falacy because it assumes the way things are now must have been the way things were then.

It doesn't 'assume' anything. It all comes from the bible or from god's mouth.

and ignores what it would be like as an adult without a sinful nature.

"Without a sinful nature" isn't accurate. "Without knowledge of what sin is", is far more appropriate.

We could say that a tiger has a sinful nature. Give it the chance and it will spend it's days killing whoever it can find. From our position we can easily state a tiger has a sinful nature, but the issue you miss in doing so is that it doesn't have knowledge of what sin is, and any claim about is nature being sinful or otherwise is solely dependant upon your understand of what sin is, which doesn't help him at all.

In the same respect we could state that Adam and Eve did in fact have a sinful nature. After all, the very first thing they do is sin, but until the sin is committed, it is simply meaningless, because they don't have knowledge of what a sin is - and thus that sin isn't in fact a sin. To you yes, to them no.

I would like to briefly state for the benefit of Jenyar, who would undoubtedly now say: "But he's god, he can do what he wants". Sure, but I'd just point out that it isn't of relevance to my arguments.

4 year olds have a sinful nature though they don't know right from wrong, and they have no trouble at all being selfish, angry, and ill-behaved.

Back to the 4 year olds heh? If they don't know what a sin is, they're not sinning. To you they are, but to themselves they're not. As a result, saying "don't eat the fruit", is completely bloody meaningless. You might regard fruit consumption as sinful, but if they don't even comprehend the meaning of sin, you're simply wasting your time.

Adam and Eve were not that way before the fall.

But they were, and I have shown that beyond any doubt whatsoever. The bible and god both fully support that conclusion.

After the fall look at the results -- yeah Adam looks like a man before the fall and almost childish after the fall.

Where is that supported? You have on former posts even hinted at the opposite to be true. Earlier you stated that in the garden they had a life of luxury and ease, with no worries or cares in the world, but that after the 'fall' he had to start working for a living and so on. This is the typical child to man scenario. A child generally leads an idyllic life of ease and luxury, but when he reaches manhood ends up with hard work and "sweat of the brow".

The very story of Adam Eve would surely make you see the move from innocent childhood into the world of manhood? He didn't know he was naked and didn't understand the difference between good and evil, (which you claim is an attribute of 4 year olds on your earlier quote). While I prefer to look upon it as a case of "animal to human", it can happily be looked upon as a case of "child to man".

Fear does strange things to people.

You think so? I'd be inclined to agree. Hey, what's this?...

Gen 22:1 It happened some time later that god put Abraham to the test...

Tell me Woody, why does god spare Abrahams son? What is it that makes Abraham pass gods test?

Gen 22:12 "Do not raise your hand against the boy", the angel said. "Do not harm him, for now I know you fear god."

This is just one instance that shows god's agenda is for people to fear him, but there are many more:

Exodus 20:20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. god has come to test you, so that the fear of god will be with you to keep you from sinning."

Leviticus 19:14 " 'Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your god. I am the lord .

Leviticus 25:17 "Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your god. I am the lord your god."

Sheesh, this is a long ass list.. I'll compile it down a tad..

Lev 25:36, Lev 25:43, Deut 5:29, Deut 6:2, Deut 6:13

Deut 10:12 "what does the lord your god ask of you but to fear the lord your god.."

How about the NT?

Corinthians 7:15 And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling.

Peter 1:17, Peter 2:17, Rev 14:7, Rev 19:5

Need I continue? Of course though, there is always one person who will disagree, and in this instance it's John, who states:

"..fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

Still, the dude obviously never paid attention to the bible or god.

So, finally after all that, the conclusion: If Adam and Eve showed fear to god after eating the fruit, then god has clearly got what he desires, and the whole affair has been a rip-roaring success. There is no earlier implication that they feared god until they had eaten the fruit. Upon eating the fruit they hid and "were afraid". See, god wins.

If you told me to now draw a picture of god, I would make a drawing that somewhat resembled the cancer man from the X Files.

All the annihilation of man, the cursing, the killing and it has all been for him. He has used everyone as a scapegoat for his evil deeds - humans, his angels, his own son. All for the express purpose of driving fear into the very heart of every human on the planet. It is what he feeds on, and is the very reason christians believe in a day when the world will be destroyed, satan will be loosed upon us, even when we want to die we wont, and only to end up cast out into a pit of gnashing teeth.

Closing womens wombs, turning people to salt, drowning everyone, causing plagues, and so on, all to force humanity into unquestionable fear.

And like zombies in this sick and twisted game of his, man unwittingly goes along with his 'masterplan' that leads to nothing but pain and death, happily providing the nourishment that god requires.

A&E knew good and evil through experience

After eating the fruit. I have shown that, and you haven't even come close to refuting it.

Or will you say God commits evil?

Absolutely.

 

[Woody]

SL,

Let's go back to the tiger.. He kills some people - having no knowledge of good and evil. Later on we give him a magical fruit. If he now chooses to kill some people it would be an informed decision that he would be guilty for making. That doesn't imply that before eating the magical fruit that he didn't kill people, merely that it had no meaning or consequence prior to consumption of that fruit.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

OK I'll try to tackle the tiger example. You and Audible think this is a strong case, but remember that analogies break down quickly, as all analogies do in a realistic discussion. I have never seen anyone win by arguing with analogies. (I will have to defer the rest of the questions until later.)

You said: I asked my tiger to be good, and he goes out and does what any tiger will do by his own nature: ie he kills people, etc. If I'm leaving anything out please correct me but I am trying to stay focused.

False assumption #1: It assumes a tiger can understand human conversation regardless of what language it is spoken in. No man is capable of communicating at this level, It would be unreasonable for us to expect a tiger to understand it much less obey it.

Adam could carry on a conversation with God according to the genesis account. I give God the benefit of the doubt on his request because I am faithful. If I doubt God, he can not work with me, and he can not trust me. Faith is a two way street between me and God regarding temptation:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

God gives me a way out of temptation, as he did with Adam.

False assumption #2: Assuming the tiger understands what you said he was asked to do -- the demand is against his own nature. A tiger must kill in order to survive. Hence he must go against his own god-given survival instincts to obey you.

God's request for Adam was not against nature. Adam could eat anything he wanted except the fruit from the forbidden tree. This is a good example of God's permissive will. Adam still had plenty of good choices, but only one bad choice-- going against God. After the fall Adam had a new nature called a sin nature.

God knows that man can not sucessfully overcome his new nature called "sin." No matter how hard man tries he still does what is in his sin nature. God being the reasonable, and compassionate God that he is -- sent Jesus to do what we are not capable of: to take our sin nature away from us when we die. God gives us a second chance to live. In your example the tiger is killed for doing what a tiger does. This illustrates the difference between man and God. With God there are many second chances with his mercy and grace, with man it's: "I don't get mad, I get even."

I'll pen one more before I go:

Tell me Woody, why does god spare Abrahams son? What is it that makes Abraham pass gods test?

To be all inclusive here, what did Adam and Isaac both do that got Gods' attention. You have to remember that Isaac was laying on the alter as a voluntary sacrifice by his own decision. They both agreed that God would raise Issac from the dead:

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Way to go Abraham -- your faith is stronger than mine! God was well pleased with Abraham's obedience.

 

[water]

Ahahhahahhah.... your endless discussions (between atheists and theists) are never going to end!

Why do you think so?


(Disregarding your play of words -- "endless" and "never going to end".)

 

[Jenyar]

SnakeLord,

I agree with Woody that we have to boil this down to some root assumptions. There are things you have to clear up for your reasoning to make sense.

A) Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and as a result from that, did not have the ability to discern any wrongdoing with eating the fruit. -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

By this argument, having gained this knowledge, temptation should have become absolutely resistable, and sin should be rejectionable by conscience ("with knowledge") -- it being now "clear" that it was wrong to disobey God, and that certain things that seem good and desirable are not. For instance, after God's warning, Cain (who did not just "look angry" as you say, but "was very angry" 4:5) should have had the moral and normative guidelines (now "knowing the necessary difference between good and evil that A&E lacked") to resist sin. Please explain why he did not, since it seems to invalidate your premise.

B) Adam and Eve did not, before eating from the tree, understand that they were naked -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

Shame is associated with guilt. That's why they hid from God -- God had no problem with their nakedness before, He made them that way. They were only hiding because they now had something to hide, something that made them fear God (Gen. 3:10).

(PS. "Fearing God" is the Hebrew way of describing perfect faith: being aware of your sin -- knowing that He is your judge, coupled with the knowledge that He also loves and forgives. If you have no guilt, you would have no reason to fear.)

C) The snake told the truth -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

The snake told only half-truth. It asked whether God really said "You must not eat from any tree in the garden?" while God only said they must not eat from that specific tree. It also said "you will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4); which part of God's warning "you will surely die" didn't come true? (Longer life-expectancy only means putting death off.)

D) It was pretty much you and Audible having a discussion over child-like mentality. In my original few posts I stated "like animals". I have since reiterated that statement.

After you assured me you regarded Adam and Eve as human children and not animals ("[post=767819]Animals? No.. Children? Yes.[/post]"). Children have the ability to recognize their parents, and the ability to obey their parents even if they cannot see why they should -- especially when they cannot see why they should. This is the essence of authority and the only way parental love can be exercised. In order to learn, children must first allow themselves to be taught.

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. Whatever Adam and Eve knew or didn't know, they were aware that they were ignoring Him, and in that respect it was a willful and conscious choice.

 

[audible]

SnakeLord,

I agree with Woody that we have to boil this down to some root assumptions. There are things you have to clear up for your reasoning to make sense.

his reasoning makes perfect sense, it's yours that does not, keep on reading and you'll find out why.
“

A) Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and as a result from that, did not have the ability to discern any wrongdoing with eating the fruit. -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

”
By this argument, having gained this knowledge, temptation should have become absolutely resistable, and sin should be rejectionable by conscience ("with knowledge") -- it being now "clear" that it was wrong to disobey God, and that certain things that seem good and desirable are not. For instance, after God's warning, Cain (who did not just "look angry" as you say, but "was very angry" 4:5) should have had the moral and normative guidelines (now "knowing the necessary difference between good and evil that A&E lacked") to resist sin. Please explain why he did not, since it seems to invalidate your premise.

firstly how you could come up with this response, to that statement is strange, to say the least.
it does not invalidate anything, lets read back what you said,"having gained this knowledge, temptation should have become absolutely resistable, and sin should be rejectionable by conscience ", but it was'nt, was it or is'nt is it, else god would have not had to flood or send his son, your whole statement jenyar is completely irrelevant.
“

B) Adam and Eve did not, before eating from the tree, understand that they were naked -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

”
Shame is associated with guilt. That's why they hid from God -- God had no problem with their nakedness before, He made them that way. They were only hiding because they now had something to hide, something that made them fear God (Gen. 3:10).

also irrelevant, what has this and the last statement to do with whether they knew right and wrong prior to the fall.

(PS. "Fearing God" is the Hebrew way of describing perfect faith: being aware of your sin -- knowing that He is your judge, coupled with the knowledge that He also loves and forgives. If you have no guilt, you would have no reason to fear.)

well this is just plain contradictory, so what it says is, if you have no fear, then you have no faith, again where is the relevance.
“

C) The snake told the truth -- This is supported by the biblical text, and indeed by god himself.

”
The snake told only half-truth. It asked whether God really said "You must not eat from any tree in the garden?" while God only said they must not eat from that specific tree. It also said "you will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4); which part of God's warning "you will surely die" didn't come true? (Longer life-expectancy only means putting death off.)

KJV gen 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I dont know what version your reading, but I'd like to know where it says "any" in the KJV.
the snake did not lie.
“

D) It was pretty much you and Audible having a discussion over child-like mentality. In my original few posts I stated "like animals". I have since reiterated that statement.

”
After you assured me you regarded Adam and Eve as human children and not animals ("Animals? No.. Children? Yes."). Children have the ability to recognize their parents, and the ability to obey their parents even if they cannot see why they should -- especially when they cannot see why they should. This is the essence of authority and the only way parental love can be exercised. In order to learn, children must first allow themselves to be taught.

The only way disobeying God could be motivated was if ignored Him, 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. Whatever Adam and Eve knew or didn't know, they were aware that they were ignoring Him, and in that respect it was a willful and conscious choice.

not so,I was the one that mentioned small children, however small children, animals, or puppets, it's all the same they did not have the required knowledge, if for instance a nasty stranger was giving a sweet/candy to a toddler who would stop the child from taking it, it's parents, but the child would have still extended it's arm, so if the parent is not overseeing what the child is doing all the time the child will accept the candy, it is not until that child can grasp right from wrong, can it ever understand it was doing wrong, and in the case of an aninmal, that is even hard to do.
on the point of willful and ignoring, you only have these is you first understand the concept of right and wrong, if not, you can not be accused of willfulness or rudeness.( try to think about that small child or that tiger analogy(true story).
so in conclusion snakelord, reasoning is faultless in my opinion.

 

[Woody]

Audible,

“ Originally Posted by woody

There is one very important point you have overlooked -- if you want your free will you give up the option of not having it, ”

Audible's response: this make no sense!

OK, this was not clearly stated (too wordy).

Let me say it this way: A virgin only gets one chance to be a virgin.

If you will not surrender your free will to God, he will not take it and you are stuck with it after you die.

 

[audible]

If you will not surrender your free will to God, he will not take it and you are stuck with it after you die.

I dont believe in an afterlife, however that is just how it should be, free will before and after.
my right to be the person, I choose to be, should be accepted by your god in this life or in the next, hard cheese, if it does'nt like it.

 

[SnakeLord]

OK I'll try to tackle the tiger example. You and Audible think this is a strong case, but remember that analogies break down quickly, as all analogies do in a realistic discussion. I have never seen anyone win by arguing with analogies.

Well, analogies aren't really there to win debates, but to serve as a more readily understood example of the point - which in this instance would be the meaninglessness of giving orders to something that cannot comprehend good and evil.

False assumption #1: It assumes a tiger can understand human conversation regardless of what language it is spoken in. No man is capable of communicating at this level, It would be unreasonable for us to expect a tiger to understand it much less obey it.

While I agree with you, it isn't important. However, I do understand your concern here so can certainly come up with a different analogy, although it wouldn't really be needed.

False assumption #2: Assuming the tiger understands what you said he was asked to do -- the demand is against his own nature. A tiger must kill in order to survive. Hence he must go against his own god-given survival instincts to obey you.

I agree with this aswell. As Mark Twain once said: There is nothing you can do to get a butterfly to kill, their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it...

He goes on to say:

Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

(Thou shalt not kill)

He brings up some interesting things in this short story, which leaves me with a question to you:

Is a demand to not sin going against man's nature? I would state that the evidence is conclusive that it is in man's nature to sin - and sin to such a degree that there comes a time when every single man, woman and child on the planet is so full of it that god has to drown them all and start again.

god "regrets having made humans" (Gen6:6), and indeed everything else (6:7)

He even goes on to say that every living thing is corrupt, (Gen 6:12), and that human hearts contrived "nothing but wicked schemes all day long" (6:5).

That is a lot of sin, and we can see throughout the biblical text - from start to finish - that man cannot help but sin. It is his nature to sin.

However, none of this is really relevant to my statements concerning no knowledge of good and evil before eating the tree, no recognition of nudity, and that the snake was telling the truth.

As an interesting side note: Tigers don't just kill for food.

God's request for Adam was not against nature. Adam could eat anything he wanted except the fruit from the forbidden tree. This is a good example of God's permissive will. Adam still had plenty of good choices, but only one bad choice-- going against God. After the fall Adam had a new nature called a sin nature.

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.

God knows that man can not sucessfully overcome his new nature called "sin."

Why do you say "new"? (see text above)

No matter how hard man tries he still does what is in his sin nature.

So you agree that man's nature is to sin? In which case you negate your own claim that: god's request for Adam was not against nature.

God being the reasonable, and compassionate God that he is -- sent Jesus to do what we are not capable of: to take our sin nature away from us when we die.

For what reason? god makes humans with an inbuilt sinful nature, that he dislikes so much he is constantly seen annihilating his creation given the first chance, but then why make something that cannot help but sin? Something that by it's very nature is compelled to sin? You might claim he's given us choice and free will, but that does not stand up under scrutiny. You yourself said:

"God knows that man can not sucessfully overcome his new nature called "sin.""

If we can't overcome it, choice and free will are meaningless, and god already knows this apparently. The same is true of your next sentence:

"No matter how hard man tries he still does what is in his sin nature."

Again, this completely negates choice in the matter.

All those people who drowned did not sin by choice, it was their nature. Adam did not eat the fruit by choice, it was his nature.. and so on.

jesus becomes nothing more than smokescreen, a ruse, attempting to "forgive" you for something god gave you, knowing full well that you cannot in any way avoid it.

To be all inclusive here, what did Adam and Isaac both do that got Gods' attention. You have to remember that Isaac was laying on the alter as a voluntary sacrifice by his own decision. They both agreed that God would raise Issac from the dead:

This is not true.

The text shows that Isaac was not aware he was the one about to be killed. This can be seen here:

"Look", he said, "here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (22:7)

By reading it, you can see that Isaac was unaware and as such hardly a "voluntary sacrifice by his own decision". By reading 22:1 you can see that Abraham was told to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering, but as shown above, all unknown by Isaac. Abraham then "bound" Isaac, which does in no way suggest it was "voluntary sacrifice by his own decision".

 

[SnakeLord]

Now to Jenyar..

There are things you have to clear up for your reasoning to make sense.

Okely dokely, I'll give it my best shot..

By this argument, having gained this knowledge, temptation should have become absolutely resistable, and sin should be rejectionable by conscience ("with knowledge") -- it being now "clear" that it was wrong to disobey God, and that certain things that seem good and desirable are not. For instance, after God's warning, Cain (who did not just "look angry" as you say, but "was very angry" 4:5) should have had the moral and normative guidelines (now "knowing the necessary difference between good and evil that A&E lacked") to resist sin. Please explain why he did not, since it seems to invalidate your premise.

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".

Shame is associated with guilt. That's why they hid from God -- God had no problem with their nakedness before, He made them that way. They were only hiding because they now had something to hide, something that made them fear God (Gen. 3:10).

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 snake told only half-truth. It asked whether God really said "You must not eat from any tree in the garden?" while God only said they must not eat from that specific tree. It also said "you will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4); which part of God's warning "you will surely die" didn't come true? (Longer life-expectancy only means putting death off.)

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.

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.

After you assured me you regarded Adam and Eve as human children and not animals ("Animals? No.. Children? Yes.").

Yeah, my apologies.

Children have the ability to recognize their parents, and the ability to obey their parents even if they cannot see why they should

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.

whether they knew right from wrong or not, they would have still followed God.

This has no valid basis.

Whatever Adam and Eve knew or didn't know, they were aware that they were ignoring Him

And who told them ignoring him was a bad thing?

Your quote is entirely meaningless to someone without the required knowledge.