Gods plan.

[PieAreSquared]

You mean like destroying the planet and then feeling bad about it and promising not to lose his temper again?

But he gave us the rainbow, to show us he wouldn't use rain again..isn't that sweet

 

[Saquist]

According to his personal religious fanatics, of course the people who put him to death might have felt otherwise.

No they knew what they were doing.

God is a cruel, spiteful and capricious master.

He allows you to have that opinion. That is also a provision of Job's testimony.

You god seems pretty second rate.

He's first rate all the way, even if you can't appreciate it.

Why would a god need this? Seems like if your #1 guy and a third of your staff try to kill you over your policies, you aren't proving your "right" to rule.

For one I think you're confusing God for Jesus.
Two, the rebellious attitude was the actions of one individual with the purpose to spread disorder so the question of right to rule becomes highly important to individuals such as yourself.

As the creator he has the right to dictate over his creation. Satan believes you he and everyone else should have the right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. You call God spiteful for allowing what happened to Job to continue. I understand why. Watching a crime happen does not seem to be the actions of a just person.

However consider that the scope God deals with is much wider.
Job is a poor example of spite because he was rewarded richly for his loyalty. There are many who are not rewarded. What about them?

Like he had a choice.

Indeed he did.

You really like making stuff up.

No conjuring required. Simple causality. There are any number of infinite courses time could take based on the most simple decisions to the most complex that have led us where we are to day. God could either avoid this only to have it crop up later or he could allow it deal with it and lay down preventative measures once the example has been made.

You mean like destroying the planet and then feeling bad about it and promising not to lose his temper again?

The Planet remained intact.
According to the biblical record it was not instigated by his anger but by the prevailing wickedness on the planet.

You mean like destroying the planet and then feeling bad about it and promising not to lose his temper again?

But he gave us the rainbow, to show us he wouldn't use rain again..isn't that sweet

Indeed. Examining the facts.
According to Numbers 23:19 God does not feel regret in the manner in which you are refering, the regret man feels for his error. Yet the bible does use this word in reference to God in more than a couple of scriptures.


“He would feel regret according to the abundance of his grand loving-kindness.” (Ps. 106:45)

In other words regret in the form of not wishing to take the action that justice requires similar to sympathy. This is notable in the Ninevites to which he would have brought down destruction if not for their repentance.

I could compare it to a parent having to punish by corporal punishment but not liking having to do so. I wouldn't expect a good parent would like punishing their child.

 

[Cannon]

So, gods plan huh. What god, if were talking about "God" the lord king, aka Jesus. Somewhere between going back, and starting up the big bang again.

What if one could race time back to the beginning? At one time there was a point of singularity.

Is it not possible that the God King himself raced time against himself after he "Ascended" to make us?

BTW, once your dead, you can go anywhere if you got the right ship.

 

[kerux]

Yes, he did not know the intention of Lucifer beforehand

Yes, but he did know.
That's the difference between a purpose an a plan.
A plan is structured, precision, and unyielding. Therefor there is either room for all of us or not. Either God planned all of us down to that detail or not.

Go's purpose for angels is to aid human beings.
Hebrews 1:13 - 14 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? ( www.addbible.com )

A purpose however is closed ended. It only describes the conclusion making room for detours if they need to be taken. A purpose allows for choices other than your own.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

God did not hold back from creating Satan because he did bring up a question of "right to rule". God did not shrink back from the consequences but allowed everything to proceed. Being all knowing he likely knew that there were many ways to avoid this outcome but settling the matter was more important than stiffling the rebels.

God cannot extinguish angels because they are part of universal order. Angels succor human beings, but satan meant the otherwise, for he did the opposite.

If he had stopped the Angel who became Satan he would have also stopped all of us from existing. The choice is an odd one. Any number of realities could have resulted from God choosing a course that avoided all these things but somehow I don't think God is the sort to second guess himself. He does what is good even if his creations chose not to.

Well this is truth. God shall not stop satan's existence for he is also assigned for the opposite of the angelic realm (the original abode, I mean) - Hell of everlasting torment.

 

[kerux]

of course

So god doesn't know everything then? He sounds so, human.

Of course God knows beforehand the opposite of him, evil or unrighteousness. God is good and therefore he knew beforehand that whoever is against him must be evil. And satan first made rebellious thoughts against him.

 

[Saquist]

Go's purpose for angels is to aid human beings.
Hebrews 1:13 - 14 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? ( www.addbible.com )

I do not understand the relevance of the statement in context with the quote.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

I have not found sufficient proof in the biblical recorded that God predestines all things. You mention Romans 8:29 which in the King James uses the the word Predestined. Yet, to these same ones, 2*Peter 1:10 says: “Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for if you keep on doing these things you will by no means ever fail.” ;

So, if they were predestined to succeed how could they possibily fail?

God cannot extinguish angels because they are part of universal order. Angels succor human beings, but satan meant the otherwise, for he did the opposite.

Well this is truth. God shall not stop satan's existence for he is also assigned for the opposite of the angelic realm (the original abode, I mean) - Hell of everlasting torment.

I'm sorry. I know a reference to universal order.
I do know Revelations purposed Satan's destruction.
Revelations 20:1-3 Discribes Satan being bound in a abyss for a thousand years. Then it describes his destruction in Revelations 20:10 in the Lake of Fire which is is defined by Rev 21:8 as the second death.

This is merely from cross-refernce of all foreknowing. I can only presume logically that merely foreknowing does not therefore mean that those he knows of there future had no choice.

Because we're dealing with a being that can observe with out effecting the observed. So knowing the future does not plan the future and there for does not room choice.

Even with out the external source of God it is difficult to prove other even for a human being, that knowing the future removes element of choice but for some reason people believe this nonetheless.

 

[swarm]

I could compare it to a parent having to punish by corporal punishment but not liking having to do so. I wouldn't expect a good parent would like punishing their child.

What a lame buch of excuses for the inexcusable, but that last one is the lamest.

You don't "punish" your children by killing all but one of them.

Now do you burn them forever in the oven.

Only the most evil parent ever would do that to his kids.

You worship satan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No they knew what they were doing.

You don't know what you're doing.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Of course God knows beforehand the opposite of him, evil or unrighteousness. God is good and therefore he knew beforehand that whoever is against him must be evil. And satan first made rebellious thoughts against him.

You said god didn't know satan would be evil, so he doesn't know everything then. :shrug:

 

[Saquist]

You don't know what you're doing.

You don't know what you're going?

What a lame buch of excuses for the inexcusable, but that last one is the lamest.

You don't "punish" your children by killing all but one of them.

Swarm, lets not be obtuse.
No one is suggestin parents kill there children. It is metaphorical to consequences and the responsibility of authority.

Now do you burn them forever in the oven.

I'm going to guess you meant, "nor" instead of "now".

You might or might not be intrested to know you're relating the work of Dante's Inferno which was a very loose and inaccurate interpretation of certain Bible prophetic metaphors that are far from litteral.

Hell Fire is a teaching of domination created by religious authorities very early on to intimidate the masses to specificly do their will.

Examination of the full context with research reveals that the Hell Fire that most Christians believed in was not what the Hebrews understood to be of Death and Hell. To the Hebrews Fire is synonomous with complete destruction. Hell or acording to the Hebrew "sheol" meant simply "the common grave of mankind, not a firey torment. Sheol is never related to anything firey in the Bible and even more telling Hell or Sheol is said in the dream like prophecy of Revelation to ALSO be thrown into the Lake of Fire and Sulfer that so many believe is also Hell.

So apparently they think this scripture means that Sheol or Hell will be thrown into itself. In actuality this prophecy describes Hell being emptied of the dead and then being thrown into a destructive fire, destroyed forever.

Litterally it's a ressurection to life for some and eternal destruction for the wicked who are simply determined to do wrong, even by man's standards.
Living without wicked people on Earth sounds good to me but to each his own. Some would find that boring.

 

[SnakeLord]

the responsibility of authority

Not everyone is a parent - and many of them probably aren't particularly good parents but let's look at a scenario and the "responsibility" of a parent:

1. You make a playground for your children.
2. Your kids don't have knowledge of good or evil.
3. The most evil being in existence, (a paedophile let's say), walks into the playground - but your kids don't know he's evil, because they have no knowledge of good or evil.
4. The paedophile 'corrupts' your children.

These things happen unfortunately quite often around the world. Here's the thing that I actually missed out from the analogy:

5. You know the paedophile is going into the playground
6. You know the paedophile is going to have his way with your children
7. You, a supposedly all-loving parent, sit there and let it happen - well, watch it happen and do nothing.
8. Once the paedophile has his way and goes off to enjoy himself, you curse your children.

Even if you're not a parent, you recognise bad parenting. If it was a parent that genuinely loved their children, the paedophile wouldn't have even got in the playground in the first place. That is what any good, loving parent would do.

The god of the bible watched as the most evil entity in existence went into the garden and corrupted his kids. Worse in fact, the god of the bible put him in the position whereby he could - he set it up so it would happen. He is directly responsible for it. That my friend is as bad as parenting can get - and works completely against "parental responsibility".

Every parent, (and even non-parent), is aware of this. What the theist does is try to blame the abused child for the actions of the paedophile and his equally as bad superior. It's really quite disgusting.

 

[Saquist]

Not everyone is a parent - and many of them probably aren't particularly good parents but let's look at a scenario and the "responsibility" of a parent:

1. You make a playground for your children.
2. Your kids don't have knowledge of good or evil.
3. The most evil being in existence, (a paedophile let's say), walks into the playground - but your kids don't know he's evil, because they have no knowledge of good or evil.
4. The paedophile 'corrupts' your children.

These things happen unfortunately quite often around the world. Here's the thing that I actually missed out from the analogy:

5. You know the paedophile is going into the playground
6. You know the paedophile is going to have his way with your children
7. You, a supposedly all-loving parent, sit there and let it happen - well, watch it happen and do nothing.
8. Once the paedophile has his way and goes off to enjoy himself, you curse your children.

Even if you're not a parent, you recognise bad parenting. If it was a parent that genuinely loved their children, the paedophile wouldn't have even got in the playground in the first place. That is what any good, loving parent would do.

The god of the bible watched as the most evil entity in existence went into the garden and corrupted his kids. Worse in fact, the god of the bible put him in the position whereby he could - he set it up so it would happen. He is directly responsible for it. That my friend is as bad as parenting can get - and works completely against "parental responsibility".

Every parent, (and even non-parent), is aware of this. What the theist does is try to blame the abused child for the actions of the paedophile and his equally as bad superior. It's really quite disgusting.

No...you use the word corrupted.
What you mean is that parent should protect they're children being violated. Which God did do and what Good parents do. BUT every Good parent knows that you can't keep your child from every bad influence and to try is meet futility. And if you could you'd handicapped them against learning how to make good decisions and dealing with temptation.

I sense your bias.
The scriptures never say Satan did anything to Adam and Eve. So corupted is a word that you're using at your pleasure but it is not accurate in dipicting what the bible says transpired. It does tell me how you see it. But they are not the same thing.

No one made Eve take what didn't belong to her.
Eve did not make Adam take what didn't belong to him. The only corupting was done by Adam and Eve themselves.

 

[SnakeLord]

BUT every Good parent knows that you can't keep your child from every bad influence and to try is meet futility

That is a consequence of not knowing what is going to happen. If you knew something bad was going to happen, any loving parent would prevent it.

Cause and effect means that sometimes we have no choice but to watch pain occur for the greater good, (taking your child to get an injection). Of course what we all know is that if we could remove the pain from the injection we would - without batting an eyelid.

And if you could you'd handicapped them against learning how to make good decisions and dealing with temptation.

Incorrect. There are ways with which to teach our children - ignorant of these things - how to deal with these things should they occur. Sure, the child rarely has the power to stop it and so become a victim anyway, but we as parents make sure they have what is needed to prevent 'bad things'. What good is a complete and total lack of knowledge of good and evil when facing a situation that demands knowledge of good and evil?

What you should also note is that if you use the handicapped excuse, you have no basis with which to excuse the curse and the state of all of their offspring that are held accountable for their mistakes. So, you're seemingly one of those parents that would consider your children handicapped if they didn't get corrupted by a paedophile. Is that justification to curse them when it happens?

In this instance, Eve is entirely blameless. She had no knowledge of good and evil so how could she ever make a distinction between an evil being's statements and a good ones? The fact is, she couldn't.

The scriptures never say Satan did anything to Adam and Eve. So corupted is a word that you're using at your pleasure but it is not accurate in dipicting what the bible says transpired.

Corrupted:

to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal
to lower morally; pervert: to corrupt youth.

Corrupted is the accurate word to use. His statements that god was wrong caused the following events. Eve wouldn't have known better, having no knowledge of good or evil.

This is of course entirely irrelevant to the point - that of parental responsibility. Whether the paedophile shoved it in or said "hey, try this", the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulder of the parent that sat by and watched it happen - knowing full well how it would happen, when it would happen and that his children weren't equipped with the knowledge needed to avoid it. Oh, and he put the paedophile there in the first place. This is - with no excuse, the grandest of all evils as far as "loving parent" goes.

 

[Saquist]

That is a consequence of not knowing what is going to happen. If you knew something bad was going to happen, any loving parent would prevent it.

So you're saying that you would spend your entire life shepparding your child?
You'd never trust them to do the right thing?

Incorrect. There are ways with which to teach our children - ignorant of these things - how to deal with these things should they occur. Sure, the child rarely has the power to stop it and so become a victim anyway, but we as parents make sure they have what is needed to prevent 'bad things'. What good is a complete and total lack of knowledge of good and evil when facing a situation that demands knowledge of good and evil?

Ah....but that is a common misconception that they did not know Good and Evil. Before you run to that scripture in Genesis, you should know that the aramaic concept represented in the scripture is most often the perogative of an authority figure such as a JUDGE or KING who has the right to decided what GOOD and Bad is. THUS Jesus words in the New Testament to the young ruler who refered to Jesus as "GOOD TEACHER", yet Jesus reprimanded him saying tersely only one knows what Good is. (GOD)

Note after Adam and Eve sin, God says to his son. Now they are like us knowing GOOD and Bad. They both had the authority to decide what was GOOD and BAD. Adam and Eve did not, haveing taken that Authority by doing what they were told not to do, they took that Authority for themselves, what is right and wrong without God.

What you should also note is that if you use the handicapped excuse, you have no basis with which to excuse the curse and the state of all of their offspring that are held accountable for their mistakes. So, you're seemingly one of those parents that would consider your children handicapped if they didn't get corrupted by a paedophile. Is that justification to curse them when it happens?

Still that doesn't make any sense...a logical fallacy.
For one to be exposed to temptation is not analogous or directly related to being molested. That is the prime reason why your bias has clouded the propper cause and effect.

Not even after sin can you accuse God of bad parenting buecase the child has already rebeled and left the house. You don't want God's help. You can't hold a parent responisble for the actions of a child that is not in there custody. Believe it or not you and everyone on this Earth is a free and INDEPENDENT moral agent responsible for their own actions.

Your concept of Good and Bad in the Garden of Eden is a Catholic endorsed error that makes no sense at all and it never has. You are taking the word of liars and murders that have schemed and ploted to stay in power over the people. What's left of them is empty traditions they can't even be support by the very book they claim to be dedicated to. Among the worse of these is the teaching of HELLFIRE, THE IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL, and the TRINTY.

Just because these are the most POPULAR understandings doesn't make them correct. Frankly now I understand where you're covering from. Maybe you're not biased afterall.

 

[SnakeLord]

So you're saying that you would spend your entire life shepparding your child?

Let's be clear what you're asking me. If I knew in advance that my child was going to accidentally fall off a cliff, would I prevent it from happening? If I knew in advance that my daughter was going to have a car accident, would I prevent it?

The answer is always going to be yes. No, that does not mean that I will spend every minute of every day preventing my daughter from living - but then it's the only option available to me because I don't know when such instance will arise where I should be there to save her. If I knew, I would happily let her get on with her life and just pop by everytime I knew she was about to get whacked.

You'd never trust them to do the right thing?

With no knowledge of good and evil.... of course not. But that is not the issue here. The issue is knowing that they can't and wont while sitting back watching the most evil entity in existence - that you allowed to be there - messing around with your kids.

Ah....but that is a common misconception that they did not know Good and Evil

Appeal to biblical flaw.

Before you run to that scripture in Genesis, you should know that the aramaic concept represented in the scripture is most often the perogative of an authority figure such as a JUDGE or KING who has the right to decided what GOOD and Bad is

You'e not saying anything. What we know - so sayeth god - is that they had no knowledge of good or evil. The minute they ate the fruit the god/s said: "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". We know, so sayeth god, that they didn't have any knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit.

God says to his son. Now they are like us knowing GOOD and Bad. They both had the authority to decide what was GOOD and BAD. Adam and Eve did not

Adam and Eve didn't "decide", they came to know - so sayeth the gods. Before such time that one knows, one doesn't know. There was no "decision" that could be made that was based upon any knowledge. Without knowing, such decision is meaningless.

Still that doesn't make any sense...a logical fallacy.
For one to be exposed to temptation is not analogous or directly related to being molested.

I didn't say "molested". I said corrupted. Kindly pay attention.

You don't want God's help.

Standard theist irrelevant tripe. Ignore the argument, claim the poster hates gods - it's dumb, (no offence).

Believe it or not you and everyone on this Earth is a free and INDEPENDENT moral agent responsible for their own actions

Why would you say that? I take it you make such statement on the basis that you and I actually know good and evil and can therefore make an educated decision regarding the two?

Your concept of Good and Bad in the Garden of Eden is a Catholic endorsed error that makes no sense at all and it never has. You are taking the word of liars and murders that have schemed and ploted to stay in power over the people.

I don't know where this comes from but the discussion has nothing to do with power over people or anything like that. You seem to be chasing phantoms of your own creation.

Among the worse of these is the teaching of HELLFIRE, THE IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL, and the TRINTY

That such subjects clearly irk you is something I can only suggest you take up with the appropriate people. I certainly didn't mention a trinity or souls or anything like that and frankly I find that I am now having to even go through this quite indicative of an inability to stay focused on the subject at hand.

 

[Saquist]

Let's be clear what you're asking me. If I knew in advance that my child was going to accidentally fall off a cliff, would I prevent it from happening? If I knew in advance that my daughter was going to have a car accident, would I prevent it?

The knowledge is irrelevant.
That's what I'm trying to tell you. NOT because you're not capable of action but that the action lies with the child to do as you have directed. Incidental events are one thing knowing and willing going against you direction is another. There is nothing you can do to prevent it, unless you're going to make all their decisions for them SO I as you are you going to sheppard them all they're life and direct their decision making. I think most teenagers would say that you didn't trust them and they'd be right.

The answer is always going to be yes.

So you would make all her decisions for her to make sure she make the right ones. That's your call how you want to spend your time. God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem.

You'e not saying anything. What we know - so sayeth god - is that they had no knowledge of good or evil. The minute they ate the fruit the god/s said: "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". We know, so sayeth god, that they didn't have any knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit.

So how did God expect them to make the right decision if they didn't know what litterall "good and bad was"?

You're saying that telling them not to eat the fruit wasn't informing them what was bad?

You're saying that telling them death was the penalty for disobedience was not defining what was bad by consequence? How then would you propose to tell your child what is the difference between good and bad?

Adam and Eve didn't "decide", they came to know - so sayeth the gods. Before such time that one knows, one doesn't know. There was no "decision" that could be made that was based upon any knowledge. Without knowing, such decision is meaningless.

Not true. Eve repeated exactly what God said to Adam to Satan posing as the snake. Adam MUST have told Eve? Why would he do that? Why would he warn her if he didn'n't understand that death was undesirable, thus bad?
Why would Eve say it back to Satan in response to his suggestion to eat the fruit? If they didn't know the difference between good and bad why did Satan have to decieve them in the first place?

I didn't say "molested". I said corrupted. Kindly pay attention.

Please also note the bible doesn't say they were corrupted by Satan.
You were out of context.

Standard theist irrelevant tripe. Ignore the argument, claim the poster hates gods - it's dumb, (no offence).

I'm going to assume you don't mean stomach lining.
No, You in this case refers to all mankind not you in particular. Man doesn't want god's help. that's the nature of rebellion. That's how the bible often uses YOU sometimes in plural.

Why would you say that? I take it you make such statement on the basis that you and I actually know good and evil and can therefore make an educated decision regarding the two?

On the basis that we decided for ourselves, yes, we are Independent from God of what is Good and Bad.

I don't know where this comes from but the discussion has nothing to do with power over people or anything like that. You seem to be chasing phantoms of your own creation.

I will tell you where is comes from.
It comes from you. You have repeated unresearched traditional understandings without knowing the underlying or original logic the Hebews addressed Adam and Eve.

That such subjects clearly irk you is something I can only suggest you take up with the appropriate people. I certainly didn't mention a trinity or souls or anything like that and frankly I find that I am now having to even go through this quite indicative of an inability to stay focused on the subject at hand.

Yet you speak the same line of thoughts as them as though you learned from them.

 

[SnakeLord]

The knowledge is irrelevant.
That's what I'm trying to tell you. NOT because you're not capable of action but that the action lies with the child to do as you have directed.

Knowledge is fully relevant.

As the parent we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than they do. If there is a bottle of bleach, (or magical fruit), that will cause pain, death and all that jazz, it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure it is beyond the reach of their children. It is parental responsibility, not child responsibility. The child, by being a child and having a childs brain, might do a great many things that go against our wishes and hopes but it is our responsibility as parents to ensure their continued safety and wellbeing.

If you disagree with this I submit that we're going to have to leave the discussion here on the basis of irreconcilable difference on what it is to be a parent.

Incidental events are one thing knowing and willing going against you direction is another

Your responsibilities as a parent do not change. If you tell your kid to wait outside the shop while you go off and try on some nice clothes, that child then ends up talking to and walking off with a seemingly nice stranger and ends up being found in a ditch somewhere, it's not the childs responsibility, it is yours.

There is nothing you can do to prevent it, unless you're going to make all their decisions for them SO I as you are you going to sheppard them all they're life and direct their decision making.

During the period where a parent finds themselves having to instruct children what to do and what not to do, it would be a tad silly to claim that it is time to expect them to function successfully by themselves in the world. You'll find that a time comes when your parents stop telling you what to do - the reason for that is that you are now of an age where you have a suitable level of knowledge and experience with which to go out and be responsible for yourself.

We're not talking "all their life", we're talking just long enough that we know we no longer have to go about telling them what to do and what not to do.

So you would make all her decisions for her to make sure she make the right ones. That's your call how you want to spend your time.

I don't quite see how you arrived at this statement. I wont make her decisions for her, I would protect her from the damaging consequences of those decisions - in this instance we are talking death, pain and suffering for everyone and everything for all time, (until god destroys the universe that is).

God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem.

So.. god didn't create Adam and Eve perfect? If he did then clearly it is a problem, but if not them I have no idea who it is you're referring to. You can't mention jesus because he was god - the statement would be pointless. So who are these perfect individuals?

So how did God expect them to make the right decision if they didn't know what litterall "good and bad was"?

The same way you expect your children not to stick their fingers in the plug socket even though they have no knowledge of electricty, death or the pain of 50,000 volts. As a responsible parent you typically would use safeguard just incase they do or hope that you're in the right place where you can jump in and prevent the harm just before it happens.

You're saying that telling them not to eat the fruit wasn't informing them what was bad?

1. It's inconsequential. Without knowledge of good and evil, there's no valid reason with which to listen to the invisible man over the talking snake. How could you make a distinction between the two?

2. Out of interest, what's 'bad' about gaining knowledge of good and evil? Would you rather be like them prior to eating it? Question: How then could you ever make any distinction between the two? You're only able to even ask the question here because you understand good and evil, (because they ate a fruit).

You're saying that telling them death was the penalty for disobedience was not defining what was bad by consequence?

If there's no death in the garden, saying death is the penalty is meaningless - they have no knowledge of the concept. Furthermore, without understanding of good or bad, how do they determine that death is something to be avoided?

How then would you propose to tell your child what is the difference between good and bad?

Seemingly I don't have to because our ancestors ate a fruit. Having said that, it seems to take some time to kick in.

Not true. Eve repeated exactly what God said to Adam to Satan posing as the snake.

My brother came to my house and, being angry at the phone company or something, he reeled off an entire sentence of vulgarity. My two year old daughter repeated it perfectly.

What's your point? That unless one understands something in full, they don't have the ability to repeat it?

Furthermore, Genesis doesn't mention god telling Adam.

Why would Eve say it back to Satan in response to his suggestion to eat the fruit?

Because... the snake asked her what had been said. Again it would seem that you are suggesting that an ability to repeat a statement means you fully understand it. I submit that such claim is false.

If they didn't know the difference between good and bad why did Satan have to decieve them in the first place?

To get them to do something right now. Just because my daughter doesn't understand what will happen if she sticks her fingers in the plug socket does not mean that it's the very first thing she does when she wakes up. It's doubtful that she even notices that they're there. If someone wanted her to, pointing it out to them will certainly help speed up the process.

No, You in this case refers to all mankind not you in particular. Man doesn't want god's help.

That doesn't make sense given the few billion people that go about praying to gods to help them.

The last two bits of your post were statements about the person, not the argument. Not only do they not aid in respectful discussion, but they're inaccurate. As such they have been dismissed from the discussion.

 

[Bishadi]

The knowledge is irrelevant.
That's what I'm trying to tell you. NOT because you're not capable of action but that the action lies with the child to do as you have directed.

you just contradicted yourself.


knowledge is what makes choice relevant to action

meaning; you are telling the child what to believe, rather than him making a choice to understand it before he imposes an action.


KNowledge is completely relevant to all actions if any wish to be responsible for what they do.

the stance you have taken is do as are told, irrelevant to responsibility of knowing what you did and why

 

[Saquist]

Knowledge is fully relevant.

As the parent we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than they do. If there is a bottle of bleach, (or magical fruit), that will cause pain, death and all that jazz, it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure it is beyond the reach of their children. It is parental responsibility, not child responsibility. The child, by being a child and having a childs brain, might do a great many things that go against our wishes and hopes but it is our responsibility as parents to ensure their continued safety and wellbeing.

Knowledge is relevant when it is drawn upon.
But in this case it isn't because it was disregarded.
We're not dealing with children, nor child like minds.

If you disagree with this I submit that we're going to have to leave the discussion here on the basis of irreconcilable difference on what it is to be a parent.

I take exception to your analogies. You may be right, it may be fruitless to continue.

Your responsibilities as a parent do not change. If you tell your kid to wait outside the shop while you go off and try on some nice clothes, that child then ends up talking to and walking off with a seemingly nice stranger and ends up being found in a ditch somewhere, it's not the childs responsibility, it is yours.

Again you're using actions to support your argument.
No action against them was taken. It's gotta match... It's completely different if someone says something wrong as opposed to doing something wrong to your child.

During the period where a parent finds themselves having to instruct children what to do and what not to do, it would be a tad silly to claim that it is time to expect them to function successfully by themselves in the world. You'll find that a time comes when your parents stop telling you what to do - the reason for that is that you are now of an age where you have a suitable level of knowledge and experience with which to go out and be responsible for yourself.

You're right it would be silly but no time limit was dictated to Adam and Eve on doing what their heavenly father saw was right. Adam and Eve had the information KNOWELDGE of what to do and what not to do.

I don't quite see how you arrived at this statement. I wont make her decisions for her, I would protect her from the damaging consequences of those decisions - in this instance we are talking death, pain and suffering for everyone and everything for all time, (until god destroys the universe that is).

You see, Snakelord God doesn't have that luxury. He also has to be just, not just a parent. He doesn't protect them from the consequences of their actions. He has too rule fairly. If it were as simple as being a parent and doing anything for your child I grant you the argument but he can't be biased. The bible says that he doesn't show perferential treatment before the Law.

So.. god didn't create Adam and Eve perfect? If he did then clearly it is a problem, but if not them I have no idea who it is you're referring to. You can't mention jesus because he was god - the statement would be pointless. So who are these perfect individuals?

According to the scriptures Addam and Eve were without sin.
Perfect doesn't mean programed never to do bad. That's an illogical assumption when you know the choice was appart of the program. So you're saying it was wrong to create them with the ability to choose for themselves so loyalty wouldn't be an issue. I still wouldn't agree with that, robots are not good because they know the difference between good and bad and acknowledge it. They merely do what they are programed to do because they have no choice.

The same way you expect your children not to stick their fingers in the plug socket even though they have no knowledge of electricty, death or the pain of 50,000 volts. As a responsible parent you typically would use safeguard just incase they do or hope that you're in the right place where you can jump in and prevent the harm just before it happens.

Yet there was no physical Danger. I'm asking why did God expect them to do what he had commanded if they didn't know right from wrong.

1. It's inconsequential. Without knowledge of good and evil, there's no valid reason with which to listen to the invisible man over the talking snake. How could you make a distinction between the two?

But they were given knowledge. God told them Not to Eat from the Tree. So it was of consequence here. If you believe they didnot have that knowledge then you have to disregard the instructions they were given. That's not logical. They were given consequences and they believed. You can use your arguement that perhaps Eve didn't know the difference the invisible man and what the snake said but Adam wasn't decieved so, why did he do it, when he did not before?

2. Out of interest, what's 'bad' about gaining knowledge of good and evil? Would you rather be like them prior to eating it? Question: How then could you ever make any distinction between the two? You're only able to even ask the question here because you understand good and evil, (because they ate a fruit).

Why risk death over curiousity?

If there's no death in the garden, saying death is the penalty is meaningless - they have no knowledge of the concept. Furthermore, without understanding of good or bad, how do they determine that death is something to be avoided?

Can you show that they didn't know what death was.
Neither questioned what Death was.
The Bible didn't say say they didn't know what Death was.
The plants and animals and insects still died.

Seemingly I don't have to because our ancestors ate a fruit. Having said that, it seems to take some time to kick in.

I don't understand. You either believe that your children are now born knowing Good or Bad or you have to teach them. Which did you have to do with your children? Did they get the knowledge from Adam and Eve or not? If you didn't intruct them would they still know if there was no one else around?

My brother came to my house and, being angry at the phone company or something, he reeled off an entire sentence of vulgarity. My two year old daughter repeated it perfectly.

What's your point? That unless one understands something in full, they don't have the ability to repeat it?

Did your two year old daughter then proceed to have a conversation with the vulgarities using them in context for the first time? If not then you didn't recognize that Eve did. Her actions showed she abstained from eating the fruit based on the warning and then ate it when told they would not die. That begets comprehension. Otherwise exemplify the disharmony of actions versus the language use.

Furthermore, Genesis doesn't mention god telling Adam.

But it does, clearly.
And if you believe what you've said then how did Eve know because there is no mention of Eve communicating with God prior?

Because... the snake asked her what had been said. Again it would seem that you are suggesting that an ability to repeat a statement means you fully understand it. I submit that such claim is false.

I've made no such suggestion.
This is your suggestion.

So why did she do what the snake said? You're saying she understood the words "eat from the tree" but not die? Why? Why then did she eat from the tree now and not before?

To get them to do something right now.

That's not logical. You said they didn't know what good and bad was. Why was it necessary to deceive, trick, to lie, in order to get them to act? You're saying that a lie has the purpose of spuring a person to action? Isn't that the purpose of a command imperative? He never gave them a command. The record said deceive, do you have justification for a different perspective other than what your young daughter would do?

That doesn't make sense given the few billion people that go about praying to gods to help them.

If that were true then they would be searching and informing themselves.

The last two bits of your post were statements about the person, not the argument. Not only do they not aid in respectful discussion, but they're inaccurate. As such they have been dismissed from the discussion.

You didn't have to tell me. You either wish to answer or you do not.
But your statement is false. You've already have uttered the Doctrine of the Trinity. You have made it relevant and I knew you would because you are showing telltale signs of a particular understanding. So you have been taught Catholic beliefs and are unwilling to let go of them dismissing the releance becomes and intresting because you also dismissed the factual information I presented according to Bible scholars concerning the true nature of "good and bad"...heck even certain translations have a better grasp of this.

I'll tell you what Snakelord. You win.
I don't think you're ready to talk about this. But I must applaud your even tone and respect for the discussion. Perhaps next time a little further.

 

[Saquist]

you just contradicted yourself.

Negative, the knowledge is irrelevant if no action is taken against your child and infact the action belongs to your child. In this case the knowledge I speak of is that of knowing what your child is going to do.

I do not refer to the knowledge of knowing Good or Bad.