Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Syne]

How could Moses write about his own death?

Further, the 5 books of Moses are known for having been written by three different writers.

Can you try any harder to completely miss the point? Genesis was written well after the events of creation. Quit being so hopelessly obtuse already.

Also, Moses did not die until Deuteronomy, and tradition only accredited him with writing most of that book.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

She didn't make the remark that it was pleasant to the eyes. The narrator says that, from her perspective. And when she sees that, she eats the fruti. Meaning she had never seen that the tree was pleasant to the eyes before. Meaning she had never seen the tree before. Or maybe she had but had never noticed it, but that seems unlikely.

You're right, ''she had never seen that the tree was pleasant to the eyes before'', she had always seen it as something not to asociate with. Not that she had never
seen the tree before.

I don't see how that's possible. If I said to you, "When I saw this girl was pretty, and that she smelled nice, I asked her out," would you think I had ever seen her before? That's exactly what's being said about Eve's experience with the tree.

That depends on the context. It could be that you see this girl all the time, but she made no effort to make herself look pretty or smell nice, then one day she made the effort. Meaning you would have seen her for the first time in that light. Or someone might just point something out to you that you never noticed before, about the girl, and again you see her for the first time, in that light.

That makes no sense, jan. Earlier you said that because Cain wasn't included in Genesis 5, he wasn't Adam's son. I explained to you that neither Cain nor Abel were mentioned, because Genesis 5 is a geneology that links Adam to Noah. This connection is through Seth's line, so there would be no reason to mention the other children by name. Did you also fail to notice that only one child is named in every generation of that geneology? It says for pretty much everyone that "He had sons and daughters," but only lists the child who leads to Noah by name.

If Cain was Adam's son, then he would have been his first born, which is very significant.
That being said, Cain had children, and was alive and well, so why was Cain (Adams first son allegedly) and his decendants not mentioned in the geneology?

Also, we know from the Bible that Satan (the devil) had seeds on the earth..

Quote from Jesus..''Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.''

also...

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
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.

As for Cain's lineage, that's in Genesis 4, which begins with:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain," ​

How much clearer does it need to be?

Admittedly it gives the obvious impression that Cain was the result of A+E, but that's where it begins and ends.
Everything else leads to the conclusion that Cain was not Adam's son. Maybe the translators wanted to suppress the idea of ''the devils seeds'' roaming the earth.

That would only make sense if Abel were his only other son, but this is known to be untrue. He had three who were named--Cain, Abel, and Seth--and many others who were not. The significance of those three is evident: Cain kills Abel, becoming the first murderer, and Seth begins the line that leads to Noah. None of the others were of any "historical" (I put it in quotes because I doubt any of these people really lived) significance.

We know that Abel, born after Cain, had no off-spring, and was not present, had no use for being in a geneology table.

Cain, who was alive, with off-spring, being the significant first born, would have been mentioned in the family tree. So why is he not mentioned?

Oh, so you're saying that if Cain was Adam's son, he would have given God a proper offering. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. First of all, they each just brought stuff from where they worked. "Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil." So it stands to reason that Abel would bring something flock-related while Cain would bring something soil-related. Secondly, the point of having Cain's offering rejected is to set up the ensuing murder that defines them both. It's a plot device.

Obviously God was not satisfied with Cain's offering, and He was satisfied with Abels, so there was obviously a discrepancy. Then again what would
the devil or his seed know about offering to God.

There's just no reason to believe that based on the text. The whole point of the serpent is to trick Eve, and Adam to believe her. There's no suggestion that he would have chosen certain death. You're intimating that on your own; it's not in the text.

Please explain the ''tricking of Eve'' in the text.

Exactly! Neither did Cain.

Understand now?

Cain wasn't dead, and he had off-spring, and was more significant that Seth.
Why was he not mentioned (if he was Adams son).

Wait, I did answer your question. Go back and read it. But more importantly, you didn't ask me a yes or no question, so what is the "emphatic no" an answer to?

You showed me evolution within each kind. I asked for the evolution of one kind of animal to a different kind of animal, and you failed.
More importantly I decided to end this line of discussion with the ''emphatic no'' because I know you or anyone has never seen that.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syne,

Nope. Wrong emphasis.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -Genesis 1​

And the means of that making:

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" only illustrates the ease with which god created, not the means.

How do you know?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,
You're right, ''she had never seen that the tree was pleasant to the eyes before'', she had always seen it as something not to asociate with. Not that she had never
seen the tree before.

I don't buy that interpretation, but at this point I don't even remember why we're talking about this, so whatever.

If Cain was Adam's son, then he would have been his first born, which is very significant.
That being said, Cain had children, and was alive and well, so why was Cain (Adams first son allegedly) and his decendants not mentioned in the geneology?

I don't know how to make it any more clear, jan. The reason Cain is not mentioned in the geneology is because the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses. That line does not go through Cain, but Seth. Moses is Seth's descendant, not Cain's, therefore mentioning Cain in a geneology meant to show how Moses is a direct descendant of Adam would be pointless.

Also, we know from the Bible that Satan (the devil) had seeds on the earth..

Quote from Jesus..''Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.''

They don't mean "father" literally.

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”​

The author makes clear that "Father" in this context means something more like "exemplar" or "spiritual leader." If it were a reference to lineage, he would not have accepted that they were Abraham's descendants in one sentence, then deny it in the next.

also...

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
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.

Again, this is a reference not of paternity, but of leadership. Here Jesus is accusing Cain of being one of Satan's followers, not one of Satan's children.

Admittedly it gives the obvious impression that Cain was the result of A+E, but that's where it begins and ends.
Everything else leads to the conclusion that Cain was not Adam's son. Maybe the translators wanted to suppress the idea of ''the devils seeds'' roaming the earth.

There is no "everything else." This "evidence" you claim is just your misinterpretation of the text. Well, okay, it clearly isn't your misinterpretation--you didn't think this up on your own, clearly--but you get the point.

We know that Abel, born after Cain, had no off-spring, and was not present, had no use for being in a geneology table.

You aren't making any sense. If it really were just a geneology table about Adam, it would have named all of his offspring. Abel's death would not have precluded him from being named, especially since he gained renoun for being the world's first murder victim. But that's not what it is, is it? Think about it, jan. Adam had more children than just those three, so why is Seth the only one mentioned? It must have something to do with Seth, musn't it?

Cain, who was alive, with off-spring, being the significant first born, would have been mentioned in the family tree. So why is he not mentioned?

Because it's not a family tree! It's a text that links Adam to Moses. What's so hard to understand about that? Moses is not of Cain's line, he's of Seth's line, making Seth the relevant child. It's like if I wanted to tell you how my great grandson is related to my great grandfather. I wouldn't go to the bother of mentioning my great grandfather's brothers, or my 8 siblings; I'd simply say "Great grandpa Steven married Jane who gave birth to Grandpa Jack and other kids; Grandpa Jack married Mary who gave birth to Dad and other kids. Dad married Joan who gave birth to me and other kids; and so on, and so on.

Obviously God was not satisfied with Cain's offering, and He was satisfied with Abels, so there was obviously a discrepancy. Then again what would
the devil or his seed know about offering to God.

Well, the devil knew God was full of shit about the tree, so there goes that logic.

Please explain the ''tricking of Eve'' in the text.

The serpent lies to her, she believes him. She tells her husband, who believes her because she believes the serpent. Hence, tricked.

Cain wasn't dead, and he had off-spring, and was more significant that Seth.

Clearly he wasn't, because without Seth, there is no Moses.

Why was he not mentioned (if he was Adams son).

At this point, it's been explained to you several times. Either you don't want to understand it, or you're not capable of understanding it.

You showed me evolution within each kind. I asked for the evolution of one kind of animal to a different kind of animal, and you failed.

You're talking out of your ass. What do you mean by "different kind?" I showed you speciation, the transformation from one species to another. Hate to break it to you, but those are two different kinds of animals.

More importantly I decided to end this line of discussion with the ''emphatic no'' because I know you or anyone has never seen that.

Nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know what a species is, apparently.


jan.[/QUOTE]

 

[Syne]

Syne,

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light" only illustrates the ease with which god created, not the means.

How do you know?

jan.

What part of the bolded text above do you not understand? The means is explicitly stated as being other than the spoken word alone.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

I don't buy that interpretation, but at this point I don't even remember why we're talking about this, so whatever.

How convenient.

I don't know how to make it any more clear, jan. The reason Cain is not mentioned in the geneology is because the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses. That line does not go through Cain, but Seth. Moses is Seth's descendant, not Cain's, therefore mentioning Cain in a geneology meant to show how Moses is a direct descendant of Adam would be pointless.

Where does it say the ''the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses''?

They don't mean "father" literally.

The word used is ''pat-er'', and the first definition is 1) generator or male ancestor, I believe this is what was meant by Jesus.

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​

???

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

They are descendants through Eve, not Adam.
Cain is a descendant of Eve, not Adam, which is why he is not mentioned in Adams geneology.

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

And what are they doing?.... '' Yet you are looking for a way to kill me'' [/QUOTE]

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

Here he explains that though they are descendants of Abrahm, he is not their ''father'', and this is clear by their actions.

The author makes clear that "Father" in this context means something more like "exemplar" or "spiritual leader." If it were a reference to lineage, he would not have accepted that they were Abraham's descendants in one sentence, then deny it in the next.

Yes. Their spiritual leader is the devil, which is why they take it upon themselves to murder and tell lies.

Again, this is a reference not of paternity, but of leadership. Here Jesus is accusing Cain of being one of Satan's followers, not one of Satan's children.

The word used to describe 'OF 'the WICKED one'' describing Cain's linage is.. ''poneros''...

poneros pon-ay-ros' from a derivative of 4192; hurtful, i.e. evil (properly, in effect or influence, and thus differing from 2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from 4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively, calamitous; also (passively) ill, i.e. diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, i.e. derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners:--bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked(-ness). See also 4191.

There is no "everything else." This "evidence" you claim is just your misinterpretation of the text. Well, okay, it clearly isn't your misinterpretation--you didn't think this up on your own, clearly--but you get the point.

Why does it matter to you that Cain is definately the product of A+E?

You aren't making any sense. If it really were just a geneology table about Adam, it would have named all of his offspring. Abel's death would not have precluded him from being named, especially since he gained renoun for being the world's first murder victim. But that's not what it is, is it? Think about it, jan. Adam had more children than just those three, so why is Seth the only one mentioned? It must have something to do with Seth, musn't it?

The mainstream idea is that A+E had 3 children, Cain, Abel, and Seth. We don't know that they had any more children together, we only know that Adam had many children.
It could be that only the off-spring of A+E are of the lineage God intended to produce, which again, explains why Cain is not mentioned.

The serpent lies to her, she believes him. She tells her husband, who believes her because she believes the serpent. Hence, tricked.

I gather that.
What was the lie?

You're talking out of your ass. What do you mean by "different kind?" I showed you speciation, the transformation from one species to another. Hate to break it to you, but those are two different kinds of animals.

They were both birds.
To answer my question you have to show a change from one type animal into a completely different kind of animal.

If you don't understand (selective) don't worry about responding, it just shows that you can't provide an answer (obviously).

Nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know what a species is, apparently.

The big-old educated man's irrationality cannot be contained anymore (not that it ever was to me).
I think it's time to stop this dialougue, as you are incapable of being rational.


jan.​

 

[Jan Ardena]

What part of the bolded text above do you not understand? The means is explicitly stated as being other than the spoken word alone.

Dude....

The first example states ... ''and God said''

The second example is God personally forming Adam after commanding (''and God said'') the creation of mankind.

As far as the Bible is concerened all these things come about because ''God said''. You now claim that God made all these things
in a different way.

My question is, How do you know?

Please answer the question, or say if you have no idea.

thanks in advance
jan.

 

[Balerion]

Where does it say the ''the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses''?

In every bible study guide ever written. The clue in the actual bible is that it only lists the child in any generation that leads to Moses, and the geneology ends with Moses and his children. Pretty simple stuff.

The word used is ''pat-er'', and the first definition is 1) generator or male ancestor, I believe this is what was meant by Jesus.

By that logic, there are no such things as metaphors. As I demonstrated, using the word in that context makes no sense, so obviously he does not mean it literally. But clearly you have no desire to admit that you're wrong, so I guess I'll have to accept this lame attempt at an answer as your version of a white flag.

They are descendants through Eve, not Adam.
Cain is a descendant of Eve, not Adam, which is why he is not mentioned in Adams geneology.

This is not true. I'm growing tired of repeating myself. Clearly logic is not a cure for your ignorance.

And what are they doing?.... '' Yet you are looking for a way to kill me''

[/quote]

And?

Here he explains that though they are descendants of Abrahm, he is not their ''father'', and this is clear by their actions.

Exactly, by "father" he means something akin to "spiritual leader," not actual father, nor the patriarch of a line.

Yes. Their spiritual leader is the devil, which is why they take it upon themselves to murder and tell lies.

Yes, exactly. Though I don't believe you quite understand that you're agreeing with me on this...

The word used to describe 'OF 'the WICKED one'' describing Cain's linage is.. ''poneros''...

poneros pon-ay-ros' from a derivative of 4192; hurtful, i.e. evil (properly, in effect or influence, and thus differing from 2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from 4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively, calamitous; also (passively) ill, i.e. diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, i.e. derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners:--bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked(-ness). See also 4191.

And the point is...?

Why does it matter to you that Cain is definately the product of A+E?

Why does it matter to you that he isn't? I'm simply correcting your half-assed misinterpretation of a fringe theory regarding Cain's parentage.

The mainstream idea is that A+E had 3 children, Cain, Abel, and Seth.

No, the mainstream idea is that they had many children, as evidenced by "Adam had other sons and daughters." There's nothing to suggest they were with anyone but Eve.

We don't know that they had any more children together, we only know that Adam had many children.

That's nonsense. There's no reason to believe he had them with anyone else.

It could be that only the off-spring of A+E are of the lineage God intended to produce, which again, explains why Cain is not mentioned.

Again, that doesn't make any sense. Think about it: why is only one of every generation named?

I gather that.
What was the lie?

That they will surely not die.

They were both birds.

Two birds of different species are different kinds of animals.

To answer my question you have to show a change from one type animal into a completely different kind of animal.

Yeah, I already showed you that. That you're not satisfied implies that you actually mean something like a bird turning into a crocodile, or somesuch nonsense. Sorry, that just doesn't exist, nor does the theory of evolution claim it to. What we do have are fossil records, DNA evidence, and deconstructed genomes that show us evidence of evolution over longer periods time and greater biological diversity.

If you don't understand (selective) don't worry about responding, it just shows that you can't provide an answer (obviously).

No, it's just that your terminology reflects your ignorance of this subject. Different species are "different kinds of animals." I guess my failing here is that I'm not able to read minds so that I could have gleaned what you were really trying to say.

The big-old educated man's irrationality cannot be contained anymore (not that it ever was to me).
I think it's time to stop this dialougue, as you are incapable of being rational.

Now that you've been shown the (many) errors in your "thinking," it's time to hit the road, eh? You don't even have a surface understanding of these issues, so it's not surprising you resort to tactics such as this when you're forced to rely on the strategic depth of knowledge that simply isn't there.

 

[Syne]

Dude....

The first example states ... ''and God said''

The second example is God personally forming Adam after commanding (''and God said'') the creation of mankind.

As far as the Bible is concerened all these things come about because ''God said''. You now claim that God made all these things
in a different way.

My question is, How do you know?

Please answer the question, or say if you have no idea.

I wonder how many times I am going to have to show you these verses until you actually manage to read what is there.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

"And God said" is all the effort god had to put into it, as I have already told you several times now. That does not mean that the spoken word was the only step in the creation. You keep completely ignoring "Let the earth bring forth" and "formed man of the dust of the ground". And you will probably only continue to do so, so until you can manage to engage these points your posts on the subject are only noise. They consist only of "nuh-uh, that isn't what I was taught".

 

[kwhilborn]

One Reason...
There can be no good without evil. A world where all is good would be as bad as any hell. There would be no competition, rewards, goals, dreams, ambition. A world like that could not exist.
Another Reason...
If you believe in god as would be necessary to think that "god hates babies" then spirituality would also be included in that belief. If you believed in spirituality then there is also some who believe that spirits are portions of god that exist simply to experience in our world. Experiences that would cause a spirit to grow may involve losing a child or being a dying child. That is a common belief known as reincarnation.

I hardly care about the beliefs of others, however there is very little about the creation of the Universe that makes sense if you think deeply enough. What caused the Big Bang? What was here before? Was there ever "nothing"?

I read an Edgar Cayce version of creation that I thought made some sense. In the beginning was "nothing", but this nothing was capable of thought. After many millions of years this nothingness/god learned to create matter. We are all small parts of god (with godlike creative abilities) with the express purpose of experiencing more than could be experienced in the nothingness.

I do not by into any religion or the bible, but I do look at what is common among all religions.
a) Belief - All religions require you to believe something will come if you wish to bring it into your life.
b) Pray - All religions ask you to make your intentions clear to the universe/god if you wish to manifest it.
c) Be Thankful - Most religions ask you to hold this attitude, and be grateful.
I don't know why every religion in the world has these common ideas, but maybe there is something that works in it. I think that as small parts of god we can consciously choose and attract experiences into our lives based on thought. This is what the law of attraction is all about, but that is my belief. I will further say I believe history can change to suit the present, but again that is not a popular belief.

(Law of attraction clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTg3sB-wyNw

Some also believe spirits carry Karma and a killer in one life may be a victim in another. I do not advocate this belief, but it is a common belief.

 

[cole grey]

there can be good without evil - although there can be no intellectual concept of "good" without "bad", there is no necessity for the spectrum to reach all the way to "evil". It also doesn't make sense to say, then a hangnail could be evil, because there is no reason to assume that a culture that has no need to create a word for evil, wouldn't just call the worst thing that could possibly happen a "bad" thing.
Secondly, although there can be no intellectual conceptualization of good without bad, there is in no way any restraint against the idea of a world that has nothing bad in it, as long as we don't allow for an intellectual concept of "bad" to exist in that world. So, to us who have a concept of good and bad, that world would be all good, while to the people in it, who have no idea of "bad", they would simply exist without the problem of bad or the concept of it.
Basically all that is said by the "necessity" of evil, is that we can't get rid of a concept we have already created, although even that is not necessarily true over long periods of time, and if there were such a world where all "bad" bad things were ameliorated to the point where we no longer needed the word, we could probably lose the words "good" and "evil" and be none the worse for it. There is no reason why can't have gradations of good be the only descriptive terms we use, besides the fact that our current world requires words for evil as well.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Cole grey,
Forget hangnail. Would people ever die in your world. I suppose a world without procreation or death might better fit your fantasy scenario. How much of Free will and imagination would survive in a world lobotomized into thinking only good thoughts. If you had no fear of starving your family then why would you even bother getting up for work in the morning.

Here is a good article about this topic.

Clifford Longley London Tablet

But what then is the point of maintenance, or research into aircraft safety? We are postulating a world where, every time some unforeseen misfortune overtakes an aircraft in flight, a miracle is performed automatically to put it right. And we have to say the same about every other form of human activity. In every single case, God stubs out our cigarettes before they can cause a fire, stops our ladders from slipping when they are not erected correctly, guarantees that no matter how fast we drive, we are always within our stopping distance (a kind of divine ABS braking system.) We can certainly throw away our breathalyzers, for God has agreed to ensure that no drunken driver ever kills a child again.
It is, in short, a world where the law of cause and effect has been abolished, and where our every mistake (or sin for that matter) immediately and invariably sends out a supernatural 911 call for a team of invisible angels to come and put it right.
Actually it is worse than that. The principle of cause and effect is the fundamental reason why we find the world rational: do this, and that follows; do it over and over again, and we have a scientific law by which means we can begin to make sense of the world. Furthermore there is an extraordinary (and surely divinely arranged) association between the rationality of the world, and tile rationality of our minds. If the world was irrational, because of the constant interference in its workings by miracle-working angels, our minds would surely be irrational too. Would we even exist?

 

[Syne]

It is only the conception of good that cannot exist without that of evil. In other words, if there is no conception of one then there is no awareness of any differentiation between the two, and hence neither are known to exist. In the context of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, good and evil would have already existed for such knowledge to be attainable. There is no implication that evil was introduced at the fall, only that there was a dawning in awareness of it.

Kwhilborn makes a good point about free will. The whole spectrum of consequences had to exist to grant free choices any significance at all. Any reality in which meaningful choices exist must include a spectrum of consequences which can be good, bad, and possibly evil in light of the ability to make value judgments.

One can hypothetically exist without the other, barring any free will, or even just a natural causality.

 

[cole grey]

of course the prime point your quoted author makes is that we would have to think differently than we do to live in a world that is different than ours. It is kind of stupid to ask people who have no need for aircraft safety to suffer our struggles. Does the fact that war is a key driver of technological advance make war a good thing? No it does not.

I am confused as to why people couldn't strive to love each other more each day in a world that had no physical obstacles. Bach would certainly still have written music in that world. Beethoven wouldn't have written a piece of music (a prayer to joy) about the often obscure and spit upon feeling of joy, but about the most prevalent emotion of humanity, and there is no reason to think it would be less beautiful. There would be no sympathy cards, only father's day and mother's day and birthday cards. There is NO logical reason why this should be labeled negatively.

I am confused as to why you need to get up for work when instead you can get up for play in the morning. Does your life become valid only as an expression of struggle? i understand in this world the struggle is part of the equation, that doesn't make us better or more valid than people who don't worry about the things we worry about. Would we be bemoaning the loss of work for snakebite medics on an island where there are no poisonous snakes, because it makes us one step less capable to handle adversity?

If i have the freedom to choose whether i want to play in the sun or sleep in the shade today, paint a picture or write a symphony, i guess i should pity myself for not having the ability to murder my family in cold blood instead? I am not truly free unless i have powerful internal demons to fight? if we want to talk about the meaninglessness of ethics in a world where everyone does good things for each other, that is fine, but let's not pretend LOGIC demands evil. Perhaps causality demands a world with such "evils" as wrong notes, or discordant sounds, to allow for a symphony to be created, i will give you that little.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syne,

I wonder how many times I am going to have to show you these verses until you actually manage to read what is there.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -Genesis 1

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. -Genesis 2​

"And God said" is all the effort god had to put into it, as I have already told you several times now. That does not mean that the spoken word was the only step in the creation. You keep completely ignoring "Let the earth bring forth" and "formed man of the dust of the ground". And you will probably only continue to do so, so until you can manage to engage these points your posts on the subject are only noise. They consist only of "nuh-uh, that isn't what I was taught".

You say that ''And God said'' is all the effort God put into it as though it would have occurred regardless of His command.

My point is ''And God said'' is the reason why everything came into being, IOW, He is the original cause.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

,Balerion,

In every bible study guide ever written. The clue in the actual bible is that it only lists the child in any generation that leads to Moses, and the geneology ends with Moses and his children. Pretty simple stuff.

In genesis 5 the tree goes as far as Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah.

What is interesting is the author made a point of stating that after 130 years, Adam ''begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:''
And then proceeds to omit Cain from the list of descendants.

By that logic, there are no such things as metaphors. As I demonstrated, using the word in that context makes no sense, so obviously he does not mean it literally. But clearly you have no desire to admit that you're wrong, so I guess I'll have to accept this lame attempt at an answer as your version of a white flag.

Firstly, why do accept that it is a metaphor?

Secondly, you cannot show that I am wrong in anyway, but I have shown that you are completely wrong on a number of issues.

This is not true. I'm growing tired of repeating myself. Clearly logic is not a cure for your ignorance.

So because you say ''it's not true'', it means it's not actually true? I don't think so.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then change the record, because you have not produced anything that shows Cain to be the son of Adam.

You have, in your defence, produced this...
''And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.''
But doesn't mean that Cain is Adams off-spring, only that he had sex with her. In the next verse it claims that ''...again Eve bared Able'', meaning that they could
have been twins with different fathers.

And

What do you mean ''and''?
He's showing who they really are by their actions. They are murderes and liars.

Exactly, by "father" he means something akin to "spiritual leader," not actual father, nor the patriarch of a line.

Did you not read the word that was actually used to describe their character?
Look it up for yourself.

Yes, exactly. Though I don't believe you quite understand that you're agreeing with me on this...

I suppose it depends on how you define ''spiritual'' as in ''spiritual leader''.
But needless to say, poneros, the actual word that was used to describe these people had nothing to do with ''spiritual leadership'', and
you can check it out for yourself. Also, Adam, Noah, Abraham, the line through which Jesus represents, do not possess any of the qualities described by Jesus.
But, Cain did, and his father is described as a murderer and liar from the start.

And the point is...?

Read above.

Why does it matter to you that he isn't? I'm simply correcting your half-assed misinterpretation of a fringe theory regarding Cain's parentage.

It doesn't matter to me, I'm just using the bible to show the mainstream idea isn't correct, and with a little study, one can see this.
You seem to reject everything with zeal, to the point where you're acting like a mardy kid.

No, the mainstream idea is that they had many children, as evidenced by "Adam had other sons and daughters." There's nothing to suggest they were with anyone but Eve.

Actually there is. It only says that Adam had other sons and daughters, plus they are not included in the family tree of Adam and Eve.
That says heaps.

That's nonsense. There's no reason to believe he had them with anyone else.

Of course it's not nonsense (kneejerk reaction perhaps?), God said to Adam he may take any of the friut except that one tree (tree is figurative for nation).
Adam was a king, and as such could have as many children with as many different women that he could take care of.

Again, that doesn't make any sense. Think about it: why is only one of every generation named?

Erm, because they have the blood of both A+E?

That they will surely not die.

Why is that a lie?
She partook, and didn't die.

Two birds of different species are different kinds of animals.

They're different species of the same ''kind' (bird).

Yeah, I already showed you that. That you're not satisfied implies that you actually mean something like a bird turning into a crocodile, or somesuch nonsense. Sorry, that just doesn't exist, nor does the theory of evolution claim it to.

Of course it doesn't exist.
DE claims that one kind of animal changes into another, over time, and as you have quite rightly pointed out, that can not be classed as a scientific fact without
having observed it.

What we do have are fossil records, DNA evidence, and deconstructed genomes that show us evidence of evolution over longer periods time and greater biological diversity.

If that was the case then there would be no argument, and as much as you want to bury your head in the sand and claim no such argument exists, it does.
Furthermore, the explanation for which DE is alternative to, is better.

No, it's just that your terminology reflects your ignorance of this subject. Different species are "different kinds of animals." I guess my failing here is that I'm not able to read minds so that I could have gleaned what you were really trying to say.

Your failing here is your delusion of granduer.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

In genesis 5 the tree goes as far as Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah.

That's what I said. It lists Noah and his sons.

What is interesting is the author made a point of stating that after 130 years, Adam ''begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:''

So? Was Abel not of his own likeness and after his image? Were his other sons not of his own likeness and image? One more time, the reason Seth is made such a big deal of is because it's his line that leads to Noah.

And then proceeds to omit Cain from the list of descendants.

Again, it omits everyone who doesn't link directly to Noah. Are you seriously incapable of understanding that? I need you to tell me that you understand that the only child in any generation listed by name is the one who is of Noah's line. I need you to say that, because I'm starting to think you're not capable of understanding this very simple concept.

Firstly, why do accept that it is a metaphor?

Dude, can you not read? I've already explained this. Here's some highlights:

They don't mean "father" literally.

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”​

The author makes clear that "Father" in this context means something more like "exemplar" or "spiritual leader." If it were a reference to lineage, he would not have accepted that they were Abraham's descendants in one sentence, then deny it in the next.

I mean, what's so hard to grasp about that? Father is clearly a metaphor for "spiritual leader" or something to that effect. It doesn't mean biological father, it's a reference to an historical figure whose example they follow. The crowd claims that Abraham is their "father," but if they really meant "father" even as in "first of our line," then Jesus would not have said "Yes, I am aware that you are his descendants, but he's not your father," because that would be a contradiction. Do you understand, jan? If this conversation is going to go on, I need you to tell me you understand this concept.

Secondly, you cannot show that I am wrong in anyway, but I have shown that you are completely wrong on a number of issues.

Wow. Just...wow. You're clearly not cut out for this.

So because you say ''it's not true'', it means it's not actually true? I don't think so.

Obviously not. I've shown you why it's not true.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then change the record, because you have not produced anything that shows Cain to be the son of Adam.

Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.​

Except that, obviously.

You have, in your defence, produced this...
''And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.''
But doesn't mean that Cain is Adams off-spring, only that he had sex with her. In the next verse it claims that ''...again Eve bared Able'', meaning that they could
have been twins with different fathers.

Of course it means that Cain is Adam's "off-spring" (dude, spelling?). The verse isn't intended to confuse, and it isn't intended to be a riddle for us to figure out. It's painfully simple. It says "They banged, now here's some kids." If the intention was to show that Eve was pregnant by the serpent, it would have said that Eve had sex with the serpent. You take the fact that she ate fruit to mean that she had sex with the serpent, but Adam also ate the fruit, so are you suggesting that Adam had sex with the serpent, too? You see how this stupid little idea of yours (again, I'm aware that you are incapable of coming up with this on your own, so when I say "idea of yours," I simply mean the idea you are presenting now; I don't credit you with authorship of a single original thought) completely falls apart when examined in the slightest? Yet you seem to be immune to these inspections, either because you aren't intellectually capable of critical thought, or, as Syne suggested, you simply put up the "Nuh-uh!" wall like a petulant child because these explanations don't jibe with this silly little idea you've clung to. At this point, I'm beyond hoping that rational argument can dissuade you (responses such as "What makes you think it's a metaphor?" to a post that spends several dozen words explaining exactly what makes it a metaphor tend to sour me on a person's intellect), but I'm giving this one last shot just so I can say I tried my best.

What do you mean ''and''?
He's showing who they really are by their actions. They are murderes and liars.

I agree with that. The "and?" means "What's your point?" Your comments here don't address anything I've said.

Did you not read the word that was actually used to describe their character?
Look it up for yourself.

You're going to have to explain to me how that word is of any consequence here.

I suppose it depends on how you define ''spiritual'' as in ''spiritual leader''.

Is the definition not obvious?

But needless to say, poneros, the actual word that was used to describe these people had nothing to do with ''spiritual leadership'', and
you can check it out for yourself. Also, Adam, Noah, Abraham, the line through which Jesus represents, do not possess any of the qualities described by Jesus.
But, Cain did, and his father is described as a murderer and liar from the start.

Again, I think this conversation is simply beyond you. The word "poneros," meaning "evil," is used to describe Cain's nature. That says nothing of his parentage, only his personality. Using your logic, everyone who is evil is literally of Satan's line, but the bible makes no such claim.

It doesn't matter to me, I'm just using the bible to show the mainstream idea isn't correct, and with a little study, one can see this.
You seem to reject everything with zeal, to the point where you're acting like a mardy kid.

No, you're using your uneducated misunderstanding of the bible to support your half-assed, barely-understood concept that Cain is literally Satan's son. The basis for this relies on a very poor reading of the text, and an absolute disregard for context. You have been shown through proper interpretation of the text that you are wrong, but you seem unwilling to even acknowledge it, or, more likely, since these ideas are just copy-pasted from other sources, you really aren't capable of acknowledging it.

I've never understood your desire to put your ignorance of simply concepts on display like this. It should be embarrassing to you.

Actually there is. It only says that Adam had other sons and daughters, plus they are not included in the family tree of Adam and Eve.
That says heaps.

No it doesn't, because the same is true in every generation prior to Moses. Are you really suggesting that only one child in each generation has a blood connection to both Adam and Eve?

Of course it's not nonsense (kneejerk reaction perhaps?), God said to Adam he may take any of the friut except that one tree (tree is figurative for nation).
Adam was a king, and as such could have as many children with as many different women that he could take care of.

This blows my mind. So "tree" is figurative for "nation," but the idea of "father" being figurative for "religious or spiritual leader/exemplar" doesn't even register?

Even if this were true (which it isn't) then why would only one child in each generation of children be listed by name?

Erm, because they have the blood of both A+E?

Again, just so we're clear: You're suggesting that only one child of each generation is a descendant of both Adam and Eve? Really?

By the way...by that logic, even Seth isn't Eve's child, because it never explicitly says that he is. It says Seth is Adam's son.

Whoops!

Why is that a lie?
She partook, and didn't die.

I'm sorry, is she alive today? I must have missed that. Where does she live? Do you know her Twitter handle? I'd love to give her a shout.

Clearly the reference to death is relative to the fact that they have everlasting life in the garden. That's why God even puts guards with flaming swords at the entrance, so they can't eat of the tree that gives them eternal life. Oh, wait, he must have meant nation there, right? They put guards with flaming swords at the border of a nation, so Adam couldn't eat it and have everlasting life...wait...

They're different species of the same ''kind' (bird).

So changing from a parakeet to a penguin wouldn't have impressed you? Tough crowd.

Of course it doesn't exist.
DE claims that one kind of animal changes into another, over time, and as you have quite rightly pointed out, that can not be classed as a scientific fact without
having observed it.

Whoops! While interpretation of religious texts clearly isn't your bag, you're heading out into deep waters here. There's mounds of evidence for evolution, and none for any other kind of mechanism. We have seen evolution in action, we have the fossil, DNA, and genome evidence for evolution over longer periods of time. Case closed.

If that was the case then there would be no argument, and as much as you want to bury your head in the sand and claim no such argument exists, it does.

There's a political argument, but not a scientific one. Just like there's a political argument about the reality of global climate change. Just because a few idiots stand up and disagree based on their religion or their ignorance doesn't mean there's a legitimate argument. The science behind evolution is strong. Meanwhile, all of the arguments against it have literally no science.

Furthermore, the explanation for which DE is alternative to, is better.

Again with the "DE." You do realize that we've moved on from Darwin, don't you? Of course not, that would require something like an education.

 

[Syne]

If i have the freedom to choose whether i want to play in the sun or sleep in the shade today, paint a picture or write a symphony, i guess i should pity myself for not having the ability to murder my family in cold blood instead? I am not truly free unless i have powerful internal demons to fight? if we want to talk about the meaninglessness of ethics in a world where everyone does good things for each other, that is fine, but let's not pretend LOGIC demands evil. Perhaps causality demands a world with such "evils" as wrong notes, or discordant sounds, to allow for a symphony to be created, i will give you that little.

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You are assuming evil can only exist in the intent ("the ability to murder my family"), and that if no one ever intents bad things to happen they never will. The thing you seem to be neglecting to examine is the fact that we cannot predict the entire chain of consequences stemming from our simplest of actions. Perfect prediction does not allow for any real choice.

Causality is necessary to any significant free will, so logic does demand that if free will exists causality must as well.

Syne,

You say that ''And God said'' is all the effort God put into it as though it would have occurred regardless of His command.

My point is ''And God said'' is the reason why everything came into being, IOW, He is the original cause.

You need to learn the difference between cause and means.

cause
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.


means
1. the medium, method, or instrument used to obtain a result or achieve an end​

I can cause the creation of a piece of art by the means of applying one media to another.

Only you have inferred that things would have occurred without the command. I never implied any such thing. I have been very clear that I have been talking about the means.

 

[cole grey]

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You are assuming evil can only exist in the intent ("the ability to murder my family"), and that if no one ever intents bad things to happen they never will. The thing you seem to be neglecting to examine is the fact that we cannot predict the entire chain of consequences stemming from our simplest of actions. Perfect prediction does not allow for any real choice. Causality is necessary to any significant free will, so logic does demand that if free will exists causality must as well.

I am looking at it from a perfectly reasonable direction. i disagree with the poster's quote that having some choices removed removes causality.
I protest the need for "evil" to be one of the choices. In our world it is, but getting in my car and flying to another star is not one of the choices. Do we therefore say my freewill doesn't exist? We all have limited freewill. Limited freewill is the status quo. A more limited freewill would simply be different from ours to some degree. Perhaps in this imaginary world people can fly to another star in their toyota, so every day they have to choose whether they will hang out on earth or go to one of a million other places, so their freewill is increased. There is no logical reason to suggest evil is necessitated.

On a completely different note - I hadn't even gotten into the idea of intent yet. I am sure there is another perfectly reasoned attack against this insistence on the need for evil in a discussion of the idea of intent, and i just hadn't turned my attention to that yet... e.g. we could remove "evil" just by having a world where you had to have displayed a certain highly compassionate character to be allowed to live there. The word "evil" would no longer apply as all the bad things that happened would be accidents.

 

[Syne]

I am looking at it from a perfectly reasonable direction. i disagree with the poster's quote that having some choices removed removes causality.

But you are not talking about only removing the ability to make some choices. You are talking about systematically removing all choices that could possibly result in consequences people could call evil. Mind you, people have called a great many things evil throughout time, including natural disasters. Any choice, even a good one, that could possibly have deleterious effects, no matter how far removed, would be barred. For such choices to be barred, without postulating a continuous divine intervention and each choice unpredictably rippling into the future, all choice would have to be barred. And with continuous divine intervention you have the same result of no real choice at all.

I protest the need for "evil" to be one of the choices. In our world it is, but getting in my car and flying to another star is not one of the choices. Do we therefore say my freewill doesn't exist? We all have limited freewill. Limited freewill is the status quo. A more limited freewill would simply be different from ours to some degree. Perhaps in this imaginary world people can fly to another star in their toyota, so every day they have to choose whether they will hang out on earth or go to one of a million other places, so their freewill is increased. There is no logical reason to suggest evil is necessitated.

In our world, the limitations defined by physics and the free will of others are necessary. If we could make choices that were not consistent with physics then our world would be completely unpredictable, which is just as damning to free will as being too predictable. No choice would have any significance where the result of any choice was arbitrary and incapable of being somewhat anticipated. Likewise if we could make choices that usurped those of others in a capricious way, heedless of things like physics, free will would be meaningless, as who would arbitrarily decide which choices are granted.

On a completely different note - I hadn't even gotten into the idea of intent yet. I am sure there is another perfectly reasoned attack against this insistence on the need for evil in a discussion of the idea of intent, and i just hadn't turned my attention to that yet... e.g. we could remove "evil" just by having a world where you had to have displayed a certain highly compassionate character to be allowed to live there. The word "evil" would no longer apply as all the bad things that happened would be accidents.

Let me correct your inference on one thing. It is not evil that is necessary, it is the possibility for evil. A world could possibly exist where that possibility had not yet been tapped or exploited, but there is an eventual inevitability to the possibility, just as the tale of Eden seems to portray. Free will necessitates that possibility.

In what world would people prove or display "a certain highly compassionate character"? Would not that have to be a world where the possibility of not being highly compassionate were possible? How else would you ever discern them?


Choices can be limited, but only consistent with the causality of a world and not barring free will, which is the entire essence of choice.