Gods plan.

[Bishadi]

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.

but you will NEVER know what your child is doing, because he has his own relevance to choice

we teach our children to HOPEfully be of character to understand good and bad.

Now to understand G&B pure to nature (God), then we can know equally what choices will be made at each interaction the child experiences. (basically what all cultures do)

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

but you are; as all choices are bound to actions and cause an either/or

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

that is what you have been led to believe as no words existed before choice (the taking of the fruit) that is why it was not until after the event that adam even named his wife, as it was then that words began to label 'anything'..............

eg........ the story of choice is the rendition of man becoming conscious. Read Genesis 3 thoroughly!

as you shared why you do not capture

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?

all words and knowledge conveyabe in words is taught; period!

Did they get the knowledge from Adam and Eve or not?

Not!

as the majority on the globe have no idea who adam and eve are

If you didn't intruct them would they still know if there was no one else around?

Not an A&E story, but be certain, nor jesus, nor confucius but they can observe nature and live within the garden just as A&E did.

perhaps naked too because vanity would not even be an idea

 

[SnakeLord]

We're not dealing with children, nor child like minds.

But we are dealing with 'childlike minds', (a mind that, regardless to the physical age of its shell, has no knowledge of the world and it's workings).

1. They had no knowledge of good or evil - hence very childlike.
2. These people didn't even know they were naked - hence very childlike.

I take exception to your analogies

An explanation would be handy perhaps. What exactly do you take exception to and why?

Let me ask you a question just out of interest. You know your child is impressionable, more than that in fact - you know in advance that your child is going to take as truth the next statement he hears. Would you leave him in the presence of an atheist?

Adam and Eve had the information KNOWELDGE of what to do and what not to do.

But no capacity with which to make an informed decision. It doesn't matter what god says not to do if they don't have knowledge of good and evil - there is nothing to make what god says anymore pertinent than what the only talking snake in the entire universe says.

Of course we could progress this argument and show that the snake wasn't lying but for now this will suffice.

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

There seems to be a great misunderstanding here. Being a parent doesn't mean you're not just - punishing/telling your children off for going against what you tell them to do or not do is par for the course. The reason we tell them off/punish them is in the hopes that they'll remember it and hence not perform the action again. But being a parent that punishes their children does not in any way leave us with your last sentence shown above. You do both.

Your child goes to stick his fingers in the plug socket. As a parent you:

1. Prevent them from doing so. You save them from the harm that would be caused should they do it.
2. Tell them off for attempting it in the hopes that they don't attempt it again.

The bible says that he doesn't show perferential treatment before the Law.

Saving your children from harm is not "preferential treatment", it's being a loving parent.

According to the scriptures Addam and Eve were without sin.
Perfect doesn't mean programed never to do bad.

There seems to be some confusion over what has been said. You said: "God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem". If Adam and Eve were perfect and were disloyal, (took a snakes word over that of gods), then saying being loyal isn't a problem for perfect individuals is completely without merit.

So you're saying it was wrong to create them with the ability to choose for themselves

Incorrect.

Yet there was no physical Danger

Yes there was - death for them and all of their offspring for ever more. Further than that, unless you're suggesting that disease, predation and so on were currently existing aspects of the garden, it would seem those too were a result of the action.

They were given consequences and they believed

As far as believing goes, no - it seems they believed the snake more, (and he was telling the truth). Here we have an instance of two people and two entities that both give differing statements regarding outcomes. Without knowledge that one of them is good and the other is evil... there's no reason to suggest that the statement of god would be any more pertinent than the statement of the snake.

The plants and animals and insects still died.

Where does the bible say that? (Obviously veg was eaten).

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?

Oh no, I teach my children. I was pointing out from a christian perspective that our children - as a consequence of A&E's actions, should know innately.

Did your two year old daughter then proceed to have a conversation with the vulgarities using them in context for the first time?

With relevance to the actual discussion, she can certainly repeat what she has heard or been told should someone ask - yes.

Why was it necessary to deceive, trick, to lie, in order to get them to act?

1. It wasn't, the snake didn't lie.
2. The tree of life sat there untouched the entire time. Just because something is there doesn't mean they have to pay any attention to it. It's a reason market stalls have people speaking about their products.

The remaining paragraph was again an argument against the person instead of the argument.

I'll tell you what Snakelord. You win.

Win what? Didn't realise this was a competition.

 

[Saquist]

but you will NEVER know what your child is doing, because he has his own relevance to choice

we teach our children to HOPEfully be of character to understand good and bad.

I concur.

Now to understand G&B pure to nature (God), then we can know equally what choices will be made at each interaction the child experiences. (basically what all cultures do)

I don't understand.

but you are; as all choices are bound to actions and cause an either/or

okay, Lets say I understood what you said. What then?

that is what you have been led to believe as no words existed before choice (the taking of the fruit) that is why it was not until after the event that adam even named his wife, as it was then that words began to label 'anything'..............

eg........ the story of choice is the rendition of man becoming conscious. Read Genesis 3 thoroughly!

No words existed before...choice?
I'm shocked.

as you shared why you do not capture

I'm sorry, captured what?

all words and knowledge conveyabe in words is taught; period!

I didn't comprend the context and meaning of this statement.

Not!

as the majority on the globe have no idea who adam and eve are

Well the bible refers to what happend in the Garden of Eden as inherited sin. So I was asking him if his children alreayd knew right and wrong or did he have to teach them. If he had to teach them then clearly they didn't get any knowledge from Adam and Eve. If he had to teach them then they didn't inherent that knowledge and therefore litteral Good and Bad is not what the Bible was talking about but rather it was speaking of the authority to do as one sees fit as to what good and bad which the mass of evidence in the bible actually tells us is so.

Not an A&E story, but be certain, nor jesus, nor confucius but they can observe nature and live within the garden just as A&E did.

perhaps naked too because vanity would not even be an idea

So why do all humans where cloths? It's in every culture.

@ Snakelord

The remaining paragraph was again an argument against the person instead of the argument.
Win what? Didn't realise this was a competition.

If you were capable of proving the doctrine you are using this might be a relevant discussion. You have told me in very certain terms that you are un willing to look deep into the information or either question the doctrine you're using. You've also used several off point metaphors. That's where you win.

 

[SnakeLord]

If you were capable of proving the doctrine you are using this might be a relevant discussion.

I'm sorry, I thought it was an interesting and 'relevant' [?] discussion regardless to either of us proving anything. As it so happens I'm just using the bible.

Here's an interesting thing; In Genesis we see god in his very own words say "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". If you contend that Adam and Eve actually had that knowledge before eating the fruit, you're either dismissing god as a liar or the bible as wrong.

If it's the former I find it somewhat amusing that even with an understanding of good and evil you don't believe god, but yet seem to have problems when A&E don't believe him either. If it's the latter.. little more needs be said.

Now, it is one thing to abandon a discussion - I have no personal quarrel with that. What I do consider rude is while completely abandoning the actual discussion, you seemingly have some urge to continue trying to accuse and attack the poster. Where did I tell you in "very certain terms" that I was unwilling to look deep into information or question doctrines? Kindly provide the evidence, (proof if that's a word you prefer), of refrain from making such accusations - especially after you've abandoned the actual discussion. Thank you.

 

[Saquist]

I'm sorry, I thought it was an interesting and 'relevant' [?] discussion regardless to either of us proving anything. As it so happens I'm just using the bible.

Hmmm.
It is intresting.
And you are using the Bible, however there is a clear road block for you on this issue.

Here's an interesting thing; In Genesis we see god in his very own words say "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". If you contend that Adam and Eve actually had that knowledge before eating the fruit, you're either dismissing god as a liar or the bible as wrong.

That is incorrect on both counts and a logical fallacy, snakelord.
Bible writers have written and disagreed on these issues and a couple bible translations make this a shade more understandable.

Now, it is one thing to abandon a discussion - I have no personal quarrel with that. What I do consider rude is while completely abandoning the actual discussion, you seemingly have some urge to continue trying to accuse and attack the poster. Where did I tell you in "very certain terms" that I was unwilling to look deep into information or question doctrines? Kindly provide the evidence, (proof if that's a word you prefer), of refrain from making such accusations - especially after you've abandoned the actual discussion. Thank you.

I honestly haven't attacked you in anyway from my perception but if I have I am sorry, truely. I will tell it like it is. You've twice used a doctrine orignating from the Catholic Church, a concept of Good and Bad staticly adverse to hebrew understanding aswell as the Trinity doctrine which even according to the Catholics own encyclopedia is not a biblically endorsed concept. In other words admitted error. You're actually clinging to the english in a very odd way failing to consider another context.

In both situations you either ignored the information entirely or evaded prompting to respond to your position on these doctrines....yet you continue to use them. These are your actions, they have spoken for you but you yourself have called it irrelveant. Yet it is very relevant.

And what poster are you talking about?

 

[SnakeLord]

That is incorrect on both counts and a logical fallacy, snakelord.

Kindly explain how it is incorrect on both counts or a logical fallacy, Saquist.

Bible writers have written and disagreed on these issues

That people disagree on these issues does not make it incorrect or a logical fallacy. Of course you could show that the argument is wrong without debating me. This reminds me actually, you still need to support your earlier accusation that I "have told [you] in very certain terms that [I am] un willing to look deep into the information or question doctrines"

Support or retract.

couple bible translations make this a shade more understandable

Feel free to provide such translations. Once that's done we can then explore which of those should be taken as more appropriate or valid and so on. Just making the statement is far from being sufficient.

You've twice used a doctrine orignating from the Catholic Church, a concept of Good and Bad staticly adverse to hebrew understanding aswell as the Trinity doctrine which even according to the Catholics own encyclopedia is not a biblically endorsed concept.

1. We're not talking about the trinity, we're talking about the fall of man and bad parenting. It doesn't matter what anyones encyclopedia thinks about the trinity with regards to this discussion.

2. I have used the bible and it's own words, I haven't opted for any christian sects doctrines. If my statements run in a similar manner to catholic doctrines, (I assume then that catholics also state that this god is a bad parent), then that still wouldn't mean it was wrong.

If you contend that catholic doctrine is wrong, that's something we could examine once you provide some support for the statement and indeed show that my mentioning the events that took place in the bible are somehow only a part of catholic doctrine.

Before any of that of course, you could always start by focusing on the actual discussion itself - including my last post that has yet to be responded to. If you don't want to continue the discussion that is fine, but then a post that just basically says; "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong", without anything whatsoever to actually support it, is as pointless as it can get.

 

[Saquist]

Kindly explain how it is incorrect on both counts or a logical fallacy, Saquist.

You present this premise as though there are only two conclusions.
You are attempting mitigate or completely erase the logical third option present by cultural context, nor have you established the the terms' definitive meaning even in the face of "know" being used as a point of Authority.

If you contend that Adam and Eve actually had that knowledge before eating the fruit, you're either dismissing god as a liar or the bible as wrong.

You start from a litteral premise. That which you beligerently force in the options you present while ignoring the third. It's similar to a fallacy of many questions or begging the questions only that the conclusion is a mockery of the arguments I've already made, in that the goal is to corner by forcing the false conclusion.

you still need to support your earlier accusation that I "have told [you] in very certain terms that [I am] un willing to look deep into the information or question doctrines"

Support or retract.

I can not retract.
You have said:

The remaining paragraph was again an argument against the person instead of the argument.

When in reality I said:

You've already have uttered the Doctrine of the Trinity. You have made it relevant

Which makes this statement of yours false:

We're not talking about the trinity,

When you clearly brought up the Trinity into the discussion:

You can't mention jesus because he was god - the statement would be pointless.

You then promptly, refused to answer.
Indicative of an emotional reaction.

Feel free to provide such translations. Once that's done we can then explore which of those should be taken as more appropriate or valid and so on. Just making the statement is far from being sufficient.

You see I brought up other sources before.
You called it irrelevant instead of asking for the sources. Why the change.
Why are you teasing?

1. We're not talking about the trinity, we're talking about the fall of man and bad parenting. It doesn't matter what anyones encyclopedia thinks about the trinity with regards to this discussion.

So this statement is false. You did bring the Trinity into the discussion.

2. I have used the bible and it's own words, I haven't opted for any christian sects doctrines.

That's false because you have used the Trinity Doctrine.
It's also false ... "I have used the bible and it's own words," Because it implies you know the context of those words and you don't. You ignored them for yet another Catholic doctrine.

If you contend that catholic doctrine is wrong, that's something we could examine once you provide some support for the statement and indeed show that my mentioning the events that took place in the bible are somehow only a part of catholic doctrine.

But that should have been done when it was first mentioned.
You ignored it. I deserve to know why.
It appears you're playing a game of literal word use that falls short of logic.
Your actions have been duplcitous.
I ask questions you evade.
I present information you ignore it.
You say one thing and then deny saying it.
Then when I leave the discussion because of these antics you ask for proof....Was it not important to you before?

 

[SnakeLord]

You present this premise as though there are only two conclusions.

Feel free to provide the third.

nor have you established the the terms' definitive meaning even in the face of "know" being used as a point of Authority

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

You're suggesting that the very statement made is meaningless. Man hasn't now become like anyone with regards to knowledge of good and evil - they had that all along. So dear Saquist, kindly provide your translation of the text and explain to me how it seemingly means the complete opposite of what it actually says.

That which you beligerently force in the options you present while ignoring the third.

I'm waiting.. Now, before making more accusations against me it might be worth considering that perhaps I'm not ignoring anything but instead presenting a case from the way I see and understand it. If you find error in there and see something that I might have missed, it's somewhat pointless throwing more and more accusations without taking the time to sufficiently explain the option that I have missed. It just seems strange to me that you take all this time to tell me I'm wrong or unwilling etc but, judging by the last bunch of posts to me, never actually take the time to explain how I am wrong etc. Please do so now.

I can not retract.
You have said:

“ The remaining paragraph was again an argument against the person instead of the argument. ”

When in reality I said:

“ You've already have uttered the Doctrine of the Trinity. You have made it relevant ”

Which makes this statement of yours false:

“ We're not talking about the trinity, ”

With due respect dear Saquist, I don't see me telling you here in "very clear terms" that I am "unwilling to look deep into information or question doctrines"

When you clearly brought up the Trinity into the discussion:

“ You can't mention jesus because he was god - the statement would be pointless. ”

You then promptly, refused to answer.
Indicative of an emotional reaction.

It is unfortunate that this has now been dragged so swiftly away from the actual discussion. However, as it is my character that is being questioned, I feel it somewhat pertinent to respond. You claim here that I "promptly refused to answer" and then go on to make some valueless claim to emotions. The facts of the matter show otherwise. After making that statement you responded with:

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.

You didn't mention any errors with my statement that jesus wouldn't count - you just went on about robots and perfect not meaning one can't sin. I actually responded to this:

"You said: "God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem". If Adam and Eve were perfect and were disloyal, (took a snakes word over that of gods), then saying being loyal isn't a problem for perfect individuals is completely without merit"

You didn't respond to this at all - in fact the entire post was ignored save for the last sentence of it which was when you made the accusation that I have clearly told you I am unwilling to look deep into the information.

If you don't mind, I really don't have time to sit here watching a person launching into full scale personal war while completely avoiding the subject. While I recognise that it is a common tactic employed when one can't debate the subject, it's not something that is really worth the time going through. Now, note that if jesus isn't god, he isn't god - it doesn't change the biblical statements that adam and eve had no knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit.

It's also false ... "I have used the bible and it's own words," Because it implies you know the context of those words and you don't. You ignored them for yet another Catholic doctrine.

1. It can't be claimed false that I used the bible and it's words - that's exactly what I did. Understanding the context or not wouldn't change that fact.

2. You go on to assert from an apparent position of superiority that I "don't know" the context of those words - which is fine in itself but doesn't work too well when followed by the accusation that I 'ignored them'.

3. I wasn't aware that Adam and Eve not knowing good and evil before eating the fruit and gaining the knowledge of good and evil upon eating it was specifically a 'catholic doctrine'. If it is, it is I suppose. I'm somewhat at a loss right now as to what you're saying exactly... Catholics are wrong? Can you show why they're wrong?

But that should have been done when it was first mentioned.
You ignored it. I deserve to know why.

I didn't 'ignore' anything. Go back through the posts and you'll see. Even when you very first mentioned catholics as being murderers and liars and everything else. Your posts from that point progressed further and further into a personal attack against me. I openly dismissed a couple of such statements because - well, I shouldn't have to explain why twice, I explained it to you at that time. If you have forgotten it's because it is not conducive to good discussion - as witnessed perfectly by me being forced into having to go through all of this when it isn't even the discussion.

The last paragraph of your post was dismissed because it's a personal attack and has no evidential basis. Is there any chance that you could be decent enough to focus on the actual discussion? If the intention is to simply ignore it in preference of continual attacks on my character, kindly send them to me via email.

Continued use of such tactics here will result in me adding you to ignore. That seems a shame but necessary if I am forced to undergo such attacks on the basis that I said something that a catholic might agree with, (jesus is god). If jesus isn't god, ok - it's neither here nor there to whether Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil. Is it? No, it isn't.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Some people truly talk a lot without saying anything.

 

[swarm]

The knowledge is irrelevant.

Obviously.

 

[Saquist]

Feel free to provide the third.

You may review the previous post for that.

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

You're suggesting that the very statement made is meaningless. Man hasn't now become like anyone with regards to knowledge of good and evil - they had that all along. So dear Saquist, kindly provide your translation of the text and explain to me how it seemingly means the complete opposite of what it actually says.

Actually the scriptrues previously show that the meaning is inconsistent.
Adam and Eve were given the actual knowledge of knowing what is bad in the context of the Tree of Good and Bad. It is the cultural significance of the use of the words that leads historians and bible scholars to presume that knowing here is not used in the tradition english manner.

I'm waiting.. Now, before making more accusations against me it might be worth considering that perhaps I'm not ignoring anything but instead presenting a case from the way I see and understand it.

ignore 3. Hence: To refuse to take notice of; to shut the eyes to; not to recognize; to disregard willfully and causelessly;

The observation is valid and confirmed.
Your reasoning for doing so does not assuage your "actions" I perfectly understand when you're presenting a case from your persepective. Do not propose to present your case on my position falsely as you know I do not support your arguement a nor do majority of the facts.

With due respect dear Saquist, I don't see me telling you here in "very clear terms" that I am "unwilling to look deep into information or question doctrines"

Yet you did ignore your own use of a trinity doctrine.
Your actions speak for you clearly. Blinded by narrow vew of the word meaning doesn't absolve you.
Your perspective is irrelevant.

It is unfortunate that this has now been dragged so swiftly away from the actual discussion. However, as it is my character that is being questioned, I feel it somewhat pertinent to respond. You claim here that I "promptly refused to answer" and then go on to make some valueless claim to emotions. The facts of the matter show otherwise. After making that statement you responded with:

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.


You didn't mention any errors with my statement that jesus wouldn't count - you just went on about robots and perfect not meaning one can't sin. I actually responded to this:

I addressed your statement by questioning the use of the Trinity Doctrine and you ignored it. The relevance directly impacts your statement. You have consistently indicated a dedication to a known unsupported religious doctrine. Your statement can't be addressed fully untill you acknowledge that I can't support an unproven religious philosophy.

Your attempt to force the conclussion based on the unproven philosphy that is unsupported by the bible is the second time you have attempted to manipulate the disucussion by presenting premises to a conclusion derivitive of reasoning that I have not adopted. Your arguments are decidedly disconnected.

It's grounds for terminating the disussion with you.


"You said: "God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem". If Adam and Eve were perfect and were disloyal, (took a snakes word over that of gods), then saying being loyal isn't a problem for perfect individuals is completely without merit"

You didn't respond to this at all - in fact the entire post was ignored save for the last sentence of it which was when you made the accusation that I have clearly told you I am unwilling to look deep into the information.

If you don't mind, I really don't have time to sit here watching a person launching into full scale personal war while completely avoiding the subject. While I recognise that it is a common tactic employed when one can't debate the subject, it's not something that is really worth the time going through. Now, note that if jesus isn't god, he isn't god - it doesn't change the biblical statements that adam and eve had no knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit.

Snakelord. If you don't have time, I understand. I am not asking for your time. But I will avoid the subject assidiously if you continue to misrepresent my position in your reasoning. The schism cannot be allowed to persist. It must be resolved. You are not just wasting your time but my time aswell. So untill you acknowledge my position for the sake of the discussion I will find fault with your argumenative process of ignoring and litteral errors in conclussive statements.

1. It can't be claimed false that I used the bible and it's words - that's exactly what I did. Understanding the context or not wouldn't change that fact.

Ignoring the context is ignoring a possible meaning. That subjects you to a similar possibility of false hood by misrepresentation. You have ignored the context.

You'e not saying anything.

Was your response. This argument exemplifies blatant ignorance of the third option and thus a logical fallacy you've dedicated to your arguement.

2. You go on to assert from an apparent position of superiority that I "don't know" the context of those words - which is fine in itself but doesn't work too well when followed by the accusation that I 'ignored them'.

Superiority is irrelevant and perceived.
Allow me to specify. Your ignoring the possilby context suggest you don't know any context at all but of the sentence itself.

3. I wasn't aware that Adam and Eve not knowing good and evil before eating the fruit and gaining the knowledge of good and evil upon eating it was specifically a 'catholic doctrine'. If it is, it is I suppose. I'm somewhat at a loss right now as to what you're saying exactly... Catholics are wrong? Can you show why they're wrong?

Yes it is a Catholic Doctrine. Some of the doctrines used by the Catholic church have become prelevant but they are the original source. Among them is the concept that the true sin was sex and thus sex being sinful which is why they're preist practice abstinece and do not marry (or at one time). Most historians recognize that Adam and Eve were given instructions or knowledge as to what was good and bad in God's eyes prior to their actions. They also acknowledge that their behavior exemplifies their comprehension of that knowledge.

The conclusions of those individuals is logical taking in the previously referenced use of "know" by Jesus in the Greek, and the tendancy to use that word in relation to Kings and Judges. Thus it explains the apparent contradiction.

I didn't 'ignore' anything. Go back through the posts and you'll see. Even when you very first mentioned catholics as being murderers and liars and everything else. Your posts from that point progressed further and further into a personal attack against me. I openly dismissed a couple of such statements because - well, I shouldn't have to explain why twice, I explained it to you at that time. If you have forgotten it's because it is not conducive to good discussion - as witnessed perfectly by me being forced into having to go through all of this when it isn't even the discussion.

True. You addressed it when I first identified the use of Catholic doctrine.
You dissmissed it. Then again used another Catholic doctrine and continued to ignore it's implication on the argument you were making and forcing.
So you were ignoring.

The last paragraph of your post was dismissed because it's a personal attack and has no evidential basis. Is there any chance that you could be decent enough to focus on the actual discussion? If the intention is to simply ignore it in preference of continual attacks on my character, kindly send them to me via email.

[
Continued use of such tactics here will result in me adding you to ignore. That seems a shame but necessary if I am forced to undergo such attacks on the basis that I said something that a catholic might agree with, (jesus is god). If jesus isn't god, ok - it's neither here nor there to whether Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil. Is it? No, it isn't.

I am not required to know the actions you will carryout in private, Snakelord. They are your decision alone and you do not need to consult with me on the matter. I have no preference to attack you. However your actions have interfered with the discussion. You regard my criticism as attacks. Very well. There will be no further criticism. Since you are unwilling to cease the actions or explain yourself then consider the discussion between us terminated for the second time.

 

[SnakeLord]

Adam and Eve were given the actual knowledge of knowing what is bad in the context of the Tree of Good and Bad.

Kindly support this claim with biblical text.

It is the cultural significance of the use of the words that leads historians and bible scholars to presume that knowing here is not used in the tradition english manner.

Pertinent source material please.

Yet you did ignore your own use of a trinity doctrine.

1. Considering that the subject is not about the trinity, it is inconsequential.
2. Even if it was relevant, that you do not believe in it does not argue against it. If you have some facts to show that A) the doctrine is wrong and B) because that doctrine is wrong, anything else the catholics say is also therefore wrong then fair enough. Remember, we are talking about Adam and Eve, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and gods statement.

You have consistently indicated a dedication to a known unsupported religious doctrine. Your statement can't be addressed fully untill you acknowledge that I can't support an unproven religious philosophy.

Unless the word 'unproven' has changed recently, there isn't really anything left that you can support. It seems however that your position has changed. Prior to this moment it wasn't a matter of not being able to support the unproven, (a bizarre statement in itself given that you do in fact support many things that are 'unproven'), but a statement that catholics were wrong. I am still waiting to find out why they're wrong - and I assume such response will be proven by you otherwise even you wouldn't be able to support it.

So untill you acknowledge my position

I've acknowledged your position:

1. You state that catholics are wrong concerning the trinity and eternal hellfire, (not that that has any relevance with concerns to A&E knowing about good or evil or not). As you must understand, that is an unproven claim.

2. You state that A&E did know about good and evil before eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not only does this render the very name of the tree quite redundant but it also renders gods very own words as pointless.

3. You consider it correct and loving action to let your children suffer the (death causing) consequences of their actions.

Right so far? If not, kindly explain your 'position', (with relevance to the discussion).

hat subjects you to a similar possibility of false hood by misrepresentation. You have ignored the context.

Incorrect. I might be unaware that the relevant statements actually mean something completely different to what they say, and I have offered you the opportunity to correct it with an explanation. You should understand that I can't do that for you.

Some of the doctrines used by the Catholic church have become prelevant but they are the original source. Among them is the concept that the true sin was sex and thus sex being sinful which is why they're preist practice abstinece and do not marry (or at one time)

While this is... interesting, I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Most historians recognize that Adam and Eve were given instructions or knowledge as to what was good and bad in God's eyes prior to their actions

Support this claim please. To my understanding, 'most historians' consider the Adam and Eve story as fictional.

The conclusions of those individuals is logical taking in the previously referenced use of "know" by Jesus in the Greek, and the tendancy to use that word in relation to Kings and Judges

Apologies but I am going to have to ask for further details.

However your actions have interfered with the discussion

I assume by this you mean the brief use of an idea that catholics also hold? I don't see that this has interfered with anything. If you contend that the notion is wrong, (in this instance that jesus is god), then you can politely say so and explain why you think it is wrong. From there you can then explain why using an idea that catholics also believe hampers the argument concerning Adam and Eve and knowledge of good and evil.

I am unsure at this time why the usage of an idea that catholics hold as true is causing you such a problem. I shall assume that it's because you consider anything that catholics believe as wrong? If that's the case, I'm going to have to ask you to support it - using your own demanded criteria, ("prove it").

Since you are unwilling to cease the actions

I am more than willing to cease using anything the catholics might happen to hold as true the very second you can show me that the catholics are wrong. Until such time, why the demand that I cease it?

I find it puzzling. You are seemingly demanding that I cease talking about something that you think is wrong. I shall leave that with you, see if you can work out why such demand is really quite strange.

 

[Bishadi]

but you will NEVER know what your child is doing, because he has his own relevance to choice




I concur.

Now to understand G&B pure to nature (God), then we can know equally what choices will be made at each interaction the child experiences. (basically what all cultures do)



I don't understand.

That the rules of Good and Bad are found in nature, not just religions and if people return to truth over beliefs, then each can comprehend the rules equally.

okay, Lets say I understood what you said. What then?

it meant that we each can choose to do 'good or bad' based on what we comprehend.

and no matter what action we take, it wil either be of good or bad and can be measured

No words existed before...choice?
I'm shocked.

some will be as many are taught God wrote words or gave us words, when reality shares mankind created all words (all cases)

I didn't comprend the context and meaning of this statement.

Not!

same as above mankind created every word that exists; (if i am wrong share an example, please)

just as every word a person knows is either learned or they created them.

Babies are not born knowing 'Momma'........... nor the term God

Well the bible refers to what happend in the Garden of Eden as inherited sin.

no it doesn't and why i posted the scriptures to discredit that belief

some bibles may represent that, but that is not genesis, they are newly created opinions after the schism

So I was asking him if his children alreayd knew right and wrong or did he have to teach them.

all children learn from the previous generations knowledge/words/language and beliefs

If he had to teach them then clearly they didn't get any knowledge from Adam and Eve.

no one got any knowledge from adam and eve; as there is nothing in writing from them; anywhere on the globe!

If he had to teach them then they didn't inherent that knowledge and therefore litteral Good and Bad is not what the Bible was talking about but rather it was speaking of the authority to do as one sees fit as to what good and bad which the mass of evidence in the bible actually tells us is so.

sorry charlie............... knowledge evolved and it was when choice (consciousness) was born, that adam even named his wife. not before

so not only were no words or conversations happening between god and adam, but that no words even existed before consciousness (show me an instinctive animal that speaks, writes or articulates)

So why do all humans where cloths? It's in every culture.

vanity

self awareness often begets pride

again, just like words, it was until after choice was known; that either word or clothing (self) were even in existence.

The whole story is a metaphor and in reality the comprehension of that story is one of the seals to be opened.

 

[TheVisitor]

Kindly support this claim with biblical text.

I am more than willing to cease using anything the catholics might happen to hold as true the very second you can show me that the catholics are wrong. Until such time, why the demand that I cease it?

I find it puzzling. You are seemingly demanding that I cease talking about something that you think is wrong...

SnakeLord...I haven't went back and read through all the posts in this thread but I hit a lot of them, enough perhaps to catch some of the major points both sides here are putting forth.

First I'd like to say it is refreshing to see such an unbiased view being used to discern the underlying meanings the text in question contains, whether or not you happen to personally believe in it's authenticity.
A lot can be discovered in any field of study when a person approaches it from that perspective, much more than someone who is already leaning towards a certain definition or outcome of the issue.

I really am surprised of the whole debate between yourself and Saquist because I have read many of his posts in other threads and thought they were pretty rational, but in this area I believe he is operating with a slight bias towards a certain theology and you have done a very good job of revealing it can be a hindrance in this case to the complete understanding of the matter.
That being said however...

I have to admit to having a bias on this subject also. Admittedly I am a "theist" but not so much a conventional one.
I believe a somewhat "out of the box" explanation to the issue here at hand can tie together most of these questions, and although I would be hard pressed to "prove" my ideas, such is the case with most assertions that have to do with God or gods and the realm of the supernatural.
I can quote or supply reference scriptures used for the basis of nearly every statement I will make here if you like.

Let me lay down a few highlights of my interpretation of the written events in question and I would like to hear both of your comments.

Here is just a few mined from the last page or so...

Adam and Eve....
1)- Did know about good and evil before eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2)-Became like "one of us".
3)-The true sin was sex.
4)-God finds loyalty more important and for perfect individuals that's not a problem".
5)-If Adam and Eve were perfect and yet were disloyal...
6)-Is this even possible?
7)-Were possibly fictional characters...

This is quite a good set of questions right here and I'm sure there were many more I missed but I'll just start with these.

1)-Yes, Eve stated to the serpent she already knew right from wrong when she quoted God's word to Him.
2)-There was a certain aspect to life they had been previously unaware of.
3)-Yes, sex was the eventual manifestation of the original sin...but sin itself would be defined as "unbelief" so it started when Eve took the serpents word over God's word...."the day you eat or "partake" thereof that day you shall die."
4)-God was testing loyalty and still is. It is interesting you used the term perfect here.
5)-I would say that process of perfecting mankind and testing is still going on.
6)-The bible says; "Lucifer was created "perfect" until iniquity was found in him" so that possibility does appear to exist
7)-According to the Bible's genealogy listings, Adam and Eve were actual people...however I think as many natural types in scripture have spiritual applications and all scripture have compound revelation that Adam and Eve also represent a larger group of people even today that make up a mystical body...Christ and his many membered "bride" which is the group of redeemed made up of those born again of His spirit throughout all the ages since His death and resurrection.

As stated in question 3) sex was a major issue, but not between Adam and Eve.
The bible says God requires His followers to have no other gods before me, but does not say there are no "other" gods.
There are in some assertions two Christian gods referred to in the bible.
The God of heaven, who is referred to as Jehovah or the God of gods...and the god of the earth who is called Satan, or was called Lucifer before he fell.
What makes much of the confusion about many issues in the bible clearer and ties many unanswered questions together is this...
Adam wasn't the first or only man created in the bible.
The God of the earth had an offspring or representative in human form...it was the serpent.
The God of heaven had an offspring or representative in human form...that was Adam.
Through a sexual relationship with this other man referred to as "the serpent" Cain was born and God made sure he was allowed to live so a mixture of both species could be made to exist and set the stage for the contest we are all a part of today.
The bible isn't about the original creation of man, it is about the final creation of man in God's image...the creation of God.
Jesus is therefore referred to as the "beginning of the creation of God" because Adam fell and He completed the creation's purpose.

Comments...?

 

[Saquist]

Fascinating.
If I've read correctly you are proposing that Adam and a Serpent or Man who was called a serpent had sexual intercourse and produced the man named Cain. -

It's creative.

 

[Saquist]

Thanks for clearling that up.

I believe the son's of God scripture, referenced as Angels by scholars did say they descended from heaven. To my knoledge no other creature inhabits heaven.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

To your knowledge?

 

[TheVisitor]

Fascinating.
If I've read correctly you are proposing that Adam and a Serpent or Man who was called a serpent had sexual intercourse and produced the man named Cain. - It's creative.

Well....close, it was Eve and the serpent not Adam and the serpent.
I don't believe the Serpent was a female although some "non cannon" books do reference this other creature as Adam's first wife "Lilith", created at the same time as Him before Eve was taken from his side.
That is not what I'm referring to here.
It was only after Eve was separated from Adam she was able to be deceived and thereby seduced by a man called the serpent producing Cain.
Adam in his whole original condition representing God could not have been deceived...IMHO of course.

I believe the sons of God scripture, referenced as Angels by scholars did say they descended from heaven. To my knowledge no other creature inhabits heaven.

PROVERBS 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?

JOHN 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

The sons of God descending comes from their being attributes of God through the Lord Jesus Christ born first as mortals like you and I, and then being born again by the Spirit and given the power to become sons of God.

JOHN 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

ROMANS 8:18
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

ROMANS 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.


The angels that are thrust out of heaven descend having been deceived by Lucifer...

REVELATION 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

REVELATION 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

They come down into humanity through the part of Cain's lineage that remains in us today through the carnality of the flesh.
In the soul of man the sons of God are born through the Spirit of God.
Jesus is called the "beginning of the creation of God" and the "firstborn of many brethren"
Two different groups and two different means of "coming down".
This explains the waring within us of the flesh against the Spirit.
The battles from heaven have come to the earth.

 

[SnakeLord]

TheVisitor:

1)-Yes, Eve stated to the serpent she already knew right from wrong when she quoted God's word to Him.

Incorrect. Eve repeated what god had said to her. The ability to repeat statements is not an indication that one understands consequences, right from wrong nor would it be an indication that she believes it.

Having said that, as far as my original statement was concerned, it wouldn't matter anyway - in that a loving parent would protect and then tell off as opposed to not protect and then curse.

2)-There was a certain aspect to life they had been previously unaware of.

There were countless aspects of 'life' they would have been previously unaware of, but the statement from god that they have "now become like one of us" was directly related to their prior lack of knowledge of good and evil.

3)-Yes, sex was the eventual manifestation of the original sin..

You will have to forgive me for finding this somewhat strange. A god creates our species with vaginas, penises, testicles, wombs, sperm, eggs and so on and yet sex is somehow wrong? Seems a little odd to me. Could you explain it?

so it started when Eve took the serpents word over God's word...."the day you eat or "partake" thereof that day you shall die.

So basically god was saying the day they 'had sex' would be the day they'd die? Must have been some serious sex.

4)-God was testing loyalty and still is.

By checking to see if we're having sex?

5)-I would say that process of perfecting mankind and testing is still going on.

If god is omniscient, there's no 'testing' to do.

6)-The bible says; "Lucifer was created "perfect" until iniquity was found in him" so that possibility does appear to exist

Passage please.

 

[TheVisitor]

TheVisitor:

1)-Yes, Eve stated to the serpent she already knew right from wrong when she quoted God's word to Him.

Incorrect. Eve repeated what god had said to her. The ability to repeat statements is not an indication that one understands consequences, right from wrong nor would it be an indication that she believes it.

I can see how you might come to that opinion, I would concede it is possible she did not fully understand what was said.
Many times we are not asked to "understand", but first to "only believe"...
The understanding comes later.
Did the seventy that left Jesus understand when He said they should "eat His flesh and drink His blood?....No.
He didn't explain it to any of them, but the other twelve didn't leave Him.
They believed and stayed with Him, even though they did not yet understand.
The understanding came later, after the lack of it separated those that believe from those that do not.

Having said that, as far as my original statement was concerned, it wouldn't matter anyway - in that a loving parent would protect and then tell off as opposed to not protect and then curse.

She was allowed to conceive Cain to carry out a greater purpose, and he was latter marked not to be killed so that purpose might continue.
She was only cursed in her childbearing, which also implies it wasn't an "apple" she ate but the original sin was somehow connected to sex.
Not sex with Adam, but adultery...sex with the man referred to as the serpent or Satan.
Cain was of the "wicked one"....Eve was his mother, but Adam was not his father.

I JOHN 3:12
Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

3)-Yes, sex was the eventual manifestation of the original sin..

You will have to forgive me for finding this somewhat strange. A god creates our species with vagina's, penises, testicles, wombs, sperm, eggs and so on and yet sex is somehow wrong? Seems a little odd to me. Could you explain it?

Lets don't take what I said out of context....I never said sex with her husband Adam was the original sin, or even a sin at all...
No one said or even implied anywhere that "sex is wrong".
Actually you can look back and see I said that "sin" was the act of "unbelief".

It started as a thought, and the "sin" wasn't a physical act at all.
That was what resulted from her unbelief in God's word.
The unbelief that was first in her mind eventually manifested in her body.
The physical act in question was not sex with her husband Adam, but adultery with another man that resulted in her bearing another man's child that wasn't even her husband's.
Believing God's word would have protected her from being taken advantage of and being seduced by an enemy of God.

5)-I would say that process of perfecting mankind and testing is still going on.
If god is omniscient, there's no 'testing' to do.

Good point....
Perhaps the testing is more for our benefit...to reveal our own character and areas we need to work on.
The fiery trials that are more precious than gold.

I PETER 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

I PETER 4:13
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

6)-The bible says; "Lucifer was created "perfect" until iniquity was found in him" so that possibility does appear to exist

Passage please.

Certainly.

EZEKIEL 28:12
Son of man, (referring to Ezekiel)...take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, (referring to Lucifer) and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

EZEKIEL 28:14
Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

EZEKIEL 28:15
Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

EZEKIEL 28:16
By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

EZEKIEL 28:17
Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

...................

This was addressed to the king of Tyre but a mortal king was obviously not the "anointed cherub" who was in Eden the garden of God....or the one cast as profane out of the mountain of God....or the one destroyed from walking among the stones of fire.
The spirit in him may have been that anointed cherub.
This scripture then is commonly accepted to be referring to Lucifer even though it does not directly state that name here...