Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[cole grey]

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.

You are basically saying, incorrectly, along with the quoted idea of kwhilborn, that freewill must be complete. If i intervene in a child's television watching and only let them choose between the rated g movies, will you say there is no freewill? As far as i can tell, you are saying we can't build a staircase because someone might fall down it. What about building a staircase with safety bumpers that pop out when somebody's movement speed goes beyond a certain velocity? Ok, so we are curtailing the freedom to run up and down the stairs. So what? I won't cry about that. Under what circumstance is there not the logical idea of a world without natural disasters, or at least human suffering due to natural disasters? I understand this world's viewpoint requires many perspectives, but it isn't logic, but rather the logical PERCEPTION of our CURRENT world that you seem to be unable to imagine beyond. Are there no choices that always have positive results? It sounds like, as in Nietzsche, (i don't remember which book of his) you are simply pointing out that there are chains of events where one "positive" cause can, inadvertently somewhere down the line, create a negative effect. As i already mentioned, it is perhaps necessary to have a world where "bad notes" could be played, or perhaps people's excrement would still smell bad.
here is a question for you - is aspirin good, or is only morphine good? Do we need broken bones instead of minor headaches to show us what is good?

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.

in this imaginary world some physical possibilities would be removed. How is that any different from our world where some physical possibilities are removed? The possibility of writing a symphony is not removed, hence all cause and effect is not removed.

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.

i think you are arriving at this goig from the end to get to the start. The CONCEPT of evil necessitates at least the possibility of evil. A world without the concept of evil has no necessity for the possibility of evil. Unless we are talking about "complete freewill" which is non-existent anywhere on earth, this is not an impediment to freewill. Like i said before, our freewill would be different from the "safe world" freewill, and although i'm sure there would be many conversations between the emissaries of both worlds about which was more truly "freewill", the calling one false freewill is not required.

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?

that is perfectly fine to say, and yes, there would have to be a judge who was capable of knowing what evil was, or possibly just rules (or even brain chemistry studies in the far far future) that were created by people who knew what evil was who transmitted them to the judges of the "safe world". The judges don't even need to know what evil is, they simply enforce the rule. This of course requires a great deal of trust on society's part, but i'm sure trust would be a ridiculously easy thing to come by in this "safe world".

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.

i need an actual conceptual proof of what you are saying before i accept the sensibility of it. Maybe an example. Of course i don't disagree that ideas are limited to the world they arise in, but what is it about what i am saying above that sustains my point that you would specifically refute?

 

[Syne]

You are basically saying, incorrectly, along with the quoted idea of kwhilborn, that freewill must be complete. If i intervene in a child's television watching and only let them choose between the rated g movies, will you say there is no freewill?

What you are missing, incorrectly, is that allowing a physically stronger person to intervene over the free will of a weaker one is completely consistent with the rules of the world. Our physics says that force trumps will alone. Logic is all about consistency.

As far as i can tell, you are saying we can't build a staircase because someone might fall down it. What about building a staircase with safety bumpers that pop out when somebody's movement speed goes beyond a certain velocity? Ok, so we are curtailing the freedom to run up and down the stairs. So what? I won't cry about that.

First, how would we know that such precautions need be taken in the first place? Safety is not a concern to those who have never faced any peril. Second, in a causal world, no one person is the sole arbiter of whether something may a reasonable sacrifice.

Under what circumstance is there not the logical idea of a world without natural disasters, or at least human suffering due to natural disasters? I understand this world's viewpoint requires many perspectives, but it isn't logic, but rather the logical PERCEPTION of our CURRENT world that you seem to be unable to imagine beyond. Are there no choices that always have positive results? It sounds like, as in Nietzsche, (i don't remember which book of his) you are simply pointing out that there are chains of events where one "positive" cause can, inadvertently somewhere down the line, create a negative effect. As i already mentioned, it is perhaps necessary to have a world where "bad notes" could be played, or perhaps people's excrement would still smell bad.

"Bad notes and smells" are simply bad, in and of themselves. I am talking about unforeseen consequences. Say someone finds a childish delight in digging holes. There is nothing inherently bad about digging holes. So should people be incapable of digging holes simply because someone, preoccupied by something else, could come along and twist an ankle or break a leg? Would said person also be incapable of reacting to the holes with anything short of benevolent patience?

I suppose your hypothetical world would have people impervious to damage of any kind, including emotional?

here is a question for you - is aspirin good, or is only morphine good? Do we need broken bones instead of minor headaches to show us what is good?

What is good about a headache? See, as soon as you start to define degrees of good, you are already, simultaneously, defining degrees of bad. Even if you only say, ice cream is better than cookies, cookies will be considered bad in comparison to desiring ice cream. You would have to curtail the emotional freedom of desire and disappointment to make it otherwise.

in this imaginary world some physical possibilities would be removed. How is that any different from our world where some physical possibilities are removed? The possibility of writing a symphony is not removed, hence all cause and effect is not removed.

Again, you do not examine anything that could have unforeseen consequences.

i think you are arriving at this goig from the end to get to the start. The CONCEPT of evil necessitates at least the possibility of evil. A world without the concept of evil has no necessity for the possibility of evil.

Completely wrong. A world without the concept of evil is one in which any existing evil is simply undifferentiated from good. A world without the concept of evil cannot have the concept of good, as these two are defined in relation to each other. In such a world everyone would be completely oblivious to any judgment of value.

that is perfectly fine to say, and yes, there would have to be a judge who was capable of knowing what evil was, or possibly just rules (or even brain chemistry studies in the far far future) that were created by people who knew what evil was who transmitted them to the judges of the "safe world". The judges don't even need to know what evil is, they simply enforce the rule. This of course requires a great deal of trust on society's part, but i'm sure trust would be a ridiculously easy thing to come by in this "safe world".

Then your hypothetical world completely fails to be free of evil, as it exists within a reality that requires it. Or would you say that isolating a person in a padded room for their entire life is granting them a life free of evil? I guess if they never knew any better, they would not call it inhumane imprisonment, but can any free choice of theirs have any significant impact in any way? It certainly cannot affect their own situation.

Yes, mindless drones would be easy to rule; the only true choice coming from the ruler.

You seem to be using an endless regression to avoid admitting the necessity for the possibility for evil.

i need an actual conceptual proof of what you are saying before i accept the sensibility of it. Maybe an example. Of course i don't disagree that ideas are limited to the world they arise in, but what is it about what i am saying above that sustains my point that you would specifically refute?

I believe I have already covered this in this post.

 

[cole grey]

#1 what is bad about a committee for public safety that goes around filling up the holes the person in your example digs after they have moved on? Have we stopped anyone from exercising their free will? At some point, of course, society makes decisions that inconvenience some (drunk drivers for example) to protect others, but very few people cry out that logic dictates we do otherwise. Some state that the ethics of human dignity require us to allow anarchy, but those people don't pretend it is logic that dictates their request, but rather their particular bent of ethicism.

#2 i thought that i agreed that there must be a "bad" for there to be a "good" (not an "evil" though). That however is to allow for the concept and to avoid, from your post, "undifferentiated" experiences. Nothing you are saying is pointing out a need for negative experiences to ACTUALLY exist, as long as we allow that those people who aren't exposed to negative experiences, won't have an understanding of what "evil" is, although they can certainly sit around imagining a world where people hurt each other, just as we can imagine a world where people don't. So actually i won't firmly state that they can't arrive at the concept of "evil" the same way we could arrive at the concept of a world where people are safe from harm, or a world where people fly through the air. Your "possibility" of evil may just be an imaginary idea for the people of the "safe world", yet they could still conceptualize it. Let us say for example there are animals on this world which kill each other, very few are going to run out and say, "those animals are evil". But the people of this world can look at that and say, "i realize we can't kill each other due to x and y safeguards, but if we COULD, THAT would be evil."

#3 nowhere in my posts have i required that people with limited freewill are suffering an injustice, nor have you shown that in any way. FIRST, prove how OUR limited freewill is an injustice, and then i will gladly go along with you as you show how the people of "safe world" are unjustly limited.

 

[kwhilborn]

It would be possible to survive a period of time without encountering bad. Perhaps you are on a desert Island resort where all your wants and needs are fulfilled. This is proof that it is possible to live in a world without bad however briefly.

So it is 100% possible to live in a world without bad.

Without penalty of starvation or homelessness (bad stuff) many humans would not be as motivated to work. It was suggested Bach/Mozart could still compose, yet who would build the pianos?

A society without bad if possible would require less love and empathy. Even if we lived in caves surviving off the surroundings and engaging in sunbathing mainly, as play would not be possible as competition would involve losing (bad stuff). You would require no jealousy or loneliness (bad stuff). You would eat no meat as that might involve killing and humans might suffer through guilt or empathy at the death of each animal. The first injury would end this paradise, but let's pretend there is none. Nobody could ever die (bad stuff), and procreation might cause pain (bad stuff), jealousy (bad stuff) and overpopulation (bad stuff).

I suppose we could concede that a world without bad is possible for a time, but would it be much more than animalistic? I cannot see any drive or ambition in this society.

You could also have free will for a time as long as imaginings stayed pg.

A world without bad would be hell.

 

[Syne]

#1 what is bad about a committee for public safety that goes around filling up the holes the person in your example digs after they have moved on? Have we stopped anyone from exercising their free will? At some point, of course, society makes decisions that inconvenience some (drunk drivers for example) to protect others, but very few people cry out that logic dictates we do otherwise. Some state that the ethics of human dignity require us to allow anarchy, but those people don't pretend it is logic that dictates their request, but rather their particular bent of ethicism.

Yes, at some point we learn to protect ourselves and the public at large. But can you guess what prompts that learning? ...Having experienced the bad consequences.

Or do you just think such people would form committees and go about filling holes for absolutely no discernible reason? For one, perfectly safe people would never have any reason to recognize "safety". It would just be too completely ubiquitous, with absolutely no dichotomy. Safe from what? Something other than potentially bad experience?

#2 i thought that i agreed that there must be a "bad" for there to be a "good" (not an "evil" though). That however is to allow for the concept and to avoid, from your post, "undifferentiated" experiences. Nothing you are saying is pointing out a need for negative experiences to ACTUALLY exist, as long as we allow that those people who aren't exposed to negative experiences, won't have an understanding of what "evil" is, although they can certainly sit around imagining a world where people hurt each other, just as we can imagine a world where people don't. So actually i won't firmly state that they can't arrive at the concept of "evil" the same way we could arrive at the concept of a world where people are safe from harm, or a world where people fly through the air. Your "possibility" of evil may just be an imaginary idea for the people of the "safe world", yet they could still conceptualize it. Let us say for example there are animals on this world which kill each other, very few are going to run out and say, "those animals are evil". But the people of this world can look at that and say, "i realize we can't kill each other due to x and y safeguards, but if we COULD, THAT would be evil."

I just pointed out the need for negative experience in order to satisfy the logic of your #1 above. And evil is really only a higher degree of bad (they are synonyms). Again, how do you suppose any "safeguards" would come to exist in your hypothetical world? There is no imagination completely detached from experience. Imagination is an amalgam of disparate experiences, so no, there can be no concept of evil without any related experience. It is a false dilemma that us being able to imagine a "safe world" means people with no experience of evil could just as easily imagine it. We do have the related experience of safety and can extrapolate that to an absurd extreme. You have not provided any rationale for these "safe people" to come up with evil out of nowhere.

And no, your animal example does not work either. People would first have to know that they are capable of dying (a bad experience, whether as an end to the good of life or missing those who have passed). This is the only way they could extrapolate animal death to themselves. If they are not capable of dying then it is ridiculous to assume they would imagine killing each other.

#3 nowhere in my posts have i required that people with limited freewill are suffering an injustice, nor have you shown that in any way. FIRST, prove how OUR limited freewill is an injustice, and then i will gladly go along with you as you show how the people of "safe world" are unjustly limited.

This is a straw man, as I have not once said that the limitations of a causative world are any sort of injustice, nor have I accused you of doing so. What I did say is that removing all significant freedom is just that. If no choice can have any real impact then no choice has any meaning. Meaningless choices are not choices.

But this does highlight part of your problem. Everything must be equally good for there to be no bad, but there are no real choices among the equally good. One choice is equally as good as any other. It just absolutely does not matter in the least. Yes, no, maybe, or even no choice at all would be equally as good.

You rose-colored glasses lead only to a world without any meaning or value.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

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

No, you didn't. You said it ends with Moses and his children.

Also you said this is in ''every bible study guide ever written'', can you show a few examples?

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.

Genesis 5 opens with ''This is the book of the generations of Adam. Not Seth.

Abel no longer exists, so he is not of the generation, he is replaced by Seth.
Cain is omitted because he is not of the generation, it also appears not to be in Adam own image and likeness. All this is in the scripture, go look see.

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.

No. According the Bible, it omits everyone who is not in the generation of Adam.
That is the only conclusion one can draw, based on the texts themselves.

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

Your points are based on you accepting them as metaphors. My question asks; why do you accept them as metaphors (in the first place)

I mean, what's so hard to grasp about that? Father is clearly a metaphor for "spiritual leader" or something to that effect.

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.

''Father'' in Hebrew is abba, and it has many meanings. A metaphor is merely ''a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance,'' according to dictionary.com.

You're applying what ''father'' means to you, instead of what it meant through that particular language.

Here are just a few different meanings of ''father' (abba)'...

1) father of an individual

2) of God as father of his people

3) head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan

4) ancestor

a) grandfather, forefathers -- of person

b) of people

5) originator or patron of a class, profession, or art

6) of producer, generator (fig.)

7) of benevolence and protection (fig.)

8) term of respect and honour

9) ruler or chief (spec.)....

These are actual meanings of ''father'', not metaphors. So when Jesus says they do the works of their own father, he's speaking litarally.
Try not to attach your own present day sentiments to the scriptures if you want to develop your understanding of them.

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.

No, it means that they're claiming Abraham is their father, because Abraham is of God, and therefore known as ''father''. It's not a metaphor.

If this conversation is to go on, I need you to understand that there is alot more to the meanings behind the english translations, and to get a better picture we need to
focus on them.

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.​

That doesn't mean that Cain was Adams. All it says is he knew his wife, semi-colon, and Cain was born. Admitedly it gives the appearance of following on, but everything else suggests that Cain is not a part of Adams lineage.

Of course it means that Cain is Adam's "off-spring" (dude, spelling?).

No, it gives the appearance that Cain is Adam's ''off-spring''.

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?

Probably the intention of the modern translators is to conceal that she became pregnant by the serpent.

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

It explains the characteristics of their lineage, to which Jesus gives reference to the original personification of that characteristic.

As you clearly expressed that ''seeds'' relate to ''children/off-spring'' in post 46, this quote give a clear picture of what Jesus meant.

"He answered them, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the Kingdom; and the darnel weeds are the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil''...

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

No. The hebrew word ''rah'' represents ''evil'', a different word altogether.
''Poneros'' describes the essence or nature of the person, and if you care to read the definition, is tied to ''the devil''.

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.

Half-assed?
I think you have it arse over tit my defensive friend, it is the ''educated'' understanding of the bible that is ''half-assed''.

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.

You've just explained yourself, and saved me the trouble, thanks.

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?

Firstly, we are talking about the ''generations of Adam'', not the link to Moses.
Secondly, whatever names are given in this geneology represents the generation of Adam plus Eve as she was the ''mother'' of them all.
If Cain isn't on the list, he aint invited to the party. We know Abels not on the list because is ceased to exist, and we know that Seth was a replacement for Abel.
We don't know of any other children produced by A+E simply because there is no mention of any.

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?

Check out the meanings of the original words (or as close as possible) in the texts.
I don't think there is a word that describes ''spiritual leader'' (if such a position actually exists) in the hebrew language.

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

Because there is alot of significance in the First-Born Son in those times.

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?

No, I'm suggesting that A+E had one son between them after the death of their first son.

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.

Yet it cleary say's that Seth is part or the generation of Adam, a replacement first son. Funny that! Heh?

Whoops!

Slipping on shite you're spewing?

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.

Did she die upon ''eating the big banana''? I don't think so.
Now why would you allude to immortality, when no such concept was mentioned to Adam or Eve?

Clearly the reference to death is relative to the fact that they have everlasting life in the garden.

Please do explain?

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...

:roflmao:

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

I simply asked you a question, and you eventually gave me the answer even though you tried to bury with the shite you slipped on earlier.
We don't need to dialogue this anymore.

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.

You should get yourself some wellies.
Yes there are mounds of evidence of evolution, and yes we have seen evolution in action, just not the type you believe in, ''believe'' being the operative word.

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.

You irrational behaviour is a strong indicator that you should not be taken seriously.

Again with the "DE." You do realize that we've moved on from Darwin, don't you?...

Like that makes any difference in whole scheme of things.

jan.

 

[cole grey]

Yes, at some point we learn to protect ourselves and the public at large. But can you guess what prompts that learning? ...Having experienced the bad consequences.
Or do you just think such people would form committees and go about filling holes for absolutely no discernible reason? For one, perfectly safe people would never have any reason to recognize "safety". It would just be too completely ubiquitous, with absolutely no dichotomy. Safe from what? Something other than potentially bad experience?

this "safe world" is a thought experiment, so we can imagine a world that once had evil, and within which by some agency freewill has been limited slightly to prevent persons from acting out evil behaviors. The people of this world have forgotten what evil is. Are you seriously proposing that these people do not have freewill because they have only a somewhat more limited freewill than we do? I have already pointed out that advances have made it possible for those people to have a vastly INCREASED form of freewill in SOME areas. People are more free and more technologically empowered to do all sorts of good things we now don't have the freedom to do.

I just pointed out the need for negative experience in order to satisfy the logic of your #1 above. And evil is really only a higher degree of bad (they are synonyms). Again, how do you suppose any "safeguards" would come to exist in your hypothetical world? There is no imagination completely detached from experience. Imagination is an amalgam of disparate experiences, so no, there can be no concept of evil without any related experience. It is a false dilemma that us being able to imagine a "safe world" means people with no experience of evil could just as easily imagine it. We do have the related experience of safety and can extrapolate that to an absurd extreme. You have not provided any rationale for these "safe people" to come up with evil out of nowhere.

it is quite easy to extrapolate an evil experience from a mere inconvenience. Let's say there are toy cars a child is playing with on a small toy bridge and one car falls off and breaks. As the parent fixes the toy car with super glue or whatever, they think to themselves, "hey, perhaps there is some chance our vehicles could fall off of the magneto-highway, and wouldn't that be terrible if there was a person in the car when it fell. It hasn't happened yet, but we haven't had a tornado come tearing through our super safe tornado proof homes in a while, not since the magneto highway was built." It is quite simple for imagination to make the leap from inconvenience to disaster.

And no, your animal example does not work either. People would first have to know that they are capable of dying (a bad experience, whether as an end to the good of life or missing those who have passed). This is the only way they could extrapolate animal death to themselves. If they are not capable of dying then it is ridiculous to assume they would imagine killing each other.

in the past of "safe world" any number of bad things could have been happening. Also, they could have a toaster that stops working and extrapolate that people could stop working. There is no logical reason for insisting on the limits of their imaginations. We can assume that imagining a murderer hurting someone is a minor psychological discomfort resulting in a greater positive - this is YET another area we haven't even tapped, which is when bad things happen with a net positive gain, such getting as a measles shot (assuming there isn't something as simple to do as a painless injection or a measles chewable tablet).

This is a straw man, as I have not once said that the limitations of a causative world are any sort of injustice, nor have I accused you of doing so. What I did say is that removing all significant freedom is just that. If no choice can have any real impact then no choice has any meaning. Meaningless choices are not choices.

this is the key to the discussion, and i have never said we must remove all "significant" freedom. You still didn't answer whether aspirin is good or only morphine. You seem to be saying here that a world with doctors who cure headaches and give inoculations against old threats (as we do with polio) is a meaningless world. Perhaps these doctors simply cure the common cold or flu. I believe we would consider that a significant benefit. You still have not shown the logic behind WHY a human must be able to choose murder to make their choices "significant". AND i do believe that you show i was not making a straw man when you say my imagined limitations render the safe people's lives "meaningless".

But this does highlight part of your problem. Everything must be equally good for there to be no bad, but there are no real choices among the equally good. One choice is equally as good as any other. It just absolutely does not matter in the least. Yes, no, maybe, or even no choice at all would be equally as good.

this is quite incorrect, one choice may lead to a more pleasing symphony, which enraptures the audience, inspiring them to more fully engage in positive behavior, while another choice leads to a symphony which merely gives people an excuse to get out of the house and is forgotten tomorrow. The movies that are released each year now give us a prime example of that. They range from amazing to terrible, but even a movie that is a waste of time is just an inconvenience, not any kind of threat. I have already stated there should be bad notes and stinky smells, and a huge range of negatives in this "safe world".

You rose-colored glasses lead only to a world without any meaning or value.

no. it is simply a world with different values, and you personally need to label those different hypothetical values as non-values. You insist that if these people don't have YOUR choices, they have "meaningless" choices.

 

[cole grey]

Without penalty of starvation or homelessness (bad stuff) many humans would not be as motivated to work.

i have already pointed out that survival work is not something we should cling to as an ideal.

It was suggested Bach/Mozart could still compose, yet who would build the pianos?

somebody who loved building pianos could build the pianos. I am sure there are many people now engaged in coal mine work who would jump at the chance to work as a master craftsman. There are many vocations which people would pursue if they didn't have to worry about money. Perhaps it would be a world of basketball players or musicians or actors or writers or or or.

I suppose we could concede that a world without bad is possible for a time, but would it be much more than animalistic? I cannot see any drive or ambition in this society.

i am confused as to why you might perceive a drive to get up and work in a coal mine as better somehow than a drive to paint a picture.

A world without bad would be hell.

coal mine/paint picture which is more hellish?

 

[kwhilborn]

I think some people lack the common sense necessary to think this through. The quote I outlined several posts ago was well worded and should have ended this silly debate then and there. I am unclear of the arguments being put forth. I do not see anybody ever working in a coal mine in that scenario, nor do I see anyone building a piano. There could never be a master craftsman as that would imply a pecking order which would be bad and bring jealousies and such.

I think I will link that quote again. Please try to use your head before replying with posts that make zero sense.

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?

The only argument anyone can make is that for a society to function in the long term bad bust exist to at least a minimal extent. People must die or we would overpopulate, and living forever might be just as bad.

Despite the title this is hardly a religious argument because society needs bad to exist. Forget quoting the bibles (any of them).

Nothing anyone here is saying sounds intelligent (except those arguing bad is necessary for existence). Think before you respond maybe.

 

[cole grey]

People must die or we would overpopulate, and living forever might be just as bad.

logic does not dictate this, our current technology dictates this.

Nothing anyone here is saying sounds intelligent (except those arguing bad is necessary for existence). Think before you respond maybe.

I understand you are not exhibiting the capability to think through this for yourself, as you simply post some quote which is hardly proof of anything. A world where SOME cause and effect is abolished is not a world where ALL cause and effect are abolished. That does not FOLLOW logically. A person in a safe world can still kick a ball and CAUSE the ball to roll across the grass. Get it? I still CAUSE the ball to roll. I still CAUSE the drum to make a beat. I still CAUSE the baby to laugh.
Please show some respect. Don't be the type of person who points at something they don't understand and says, "that is stupid". That is clearly a case of having four fingers pointing back at yourself if you choose to do so.

P.S. Be aware that you are stepping on extremely shaky ground whenever you say,"the only argument anyone can make".

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,



No, you didn't. You said it ends with Moses and his children.

I obviously meant Noah, I've spent most of this conversation with BibleGateway.org open in a separate tab. My mistake for mixing the names.

Also you said this is in ''every bible study guide ever written'', can you show a few examples?

Leaving to others to do your homework for you again, eh?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ID=2&contentID=7325&commInfo=31&topic=Genesis

B. The descendants of Adam through Seth.

http://www.therocksandiego.org/media/site/docs/studyguides/2004-03-21-studyguide.pdf

Chapter 5 of Genesis is primarily a genealogy of the line from Adam to Noah

Genesis 5 opens with ''This is the book of the generations of Adam. Not Seth.

Obviously, because they're all Adam's descendants. But the reason Seth is important is because it's his line that begets Noah. That's the significance of Seth.

Abel no longer exists, so he is not of the generation, he is replaced by Seth.
Cain is omitted because he is not of the generation, it also appears not to be in Adam own image and likeness. All this is in the scripture, go look see.

No, "he is not of Adam's own image and likeness" is not at all in the scripture. Not anywhere. You're putting emphasis on that because you're reading it literally, as if the point of the verse is "Seth looks like Adam." By this token, you must also believe there is no further significance to God creating Adam in his own image than Adam bearing a physical resemblance to God. Clearly, more is meant by "image and likeness" than physical appearance. What this most likely means is that Seth is righteous like Adam, and if his name is supposed to be a nod to him taking over for Abel, fine, but it would only mean that Cain is not righteous like Adam, not that he wasn't his son.

No. According the Bible, it omits everyone who is not in the generation of Adam.
That is the only conclusion one can draw, based on the texts themselves.

Wrong again. Read:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.​

Every person mentioned by name had others sons and daughters, including Adam. If Cain's absence means that he isn't Adam's son, then what does that say of the "other sons and daughters" that are not mentioned by name in every generation?

Your points are based on you accepting them as metaphors. My question asks; why do you accept them as metaphors (in the first place)

No, my points tell you exactly why they should be accepted as metaphors. They wouldn't make sense any other way. Like I mentioned, if Jesus meant "father" in the literal sense of patriarch of a family, he would be contradicting himself because he already said he knew they were his descendants. In other words, his passage would have read "I know you're his descendants, but you're not his descendants." DOes that make sense to you?

''Father'' in Hebrew is abba, and it has many meanings. A metaphor is merely ''a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance,'' according to dictionary.com.

Exactly, he applied the term "father" not to mean "relation" but to mean "leader."

You're applying what ''father'' means to you, instead of what it meant through that particular language.

No, that's what you're doing. You took father to mean literally "parent," rather than simply representational of a spiritual leader. Remember the verse you quoted about "Your father Satan?" You took that as evidence that Satan had actual children. You keep saying the word has many meanings, yet in the course of this discussion you've only ever considered the one.

Here are just a few different meanings of ''father' (abba)'...

These are actual meanings of ''father'', not metaphors. So when Jesus says they do the works of their own father, he's speaking litarally.

No, those aren't necessarily dictionary definitions, they're examples of how the word is used. It isn't much different than what a usage definition of the English "father" would appear today. You'll note that it even includes specific and figurative examples, so your own example contradicts you.

And in any case, you're just trying to cloud the matter. What's important is that he is not using the word "father" in that context to mean biological relation.

Try not to attach your own present day sentiments to the scriptures if you want to develop your understanding of them.

Ha! This from the guy whose claims the text is trying to convey that Cain and Abel were twins with two different fathers! As if anyone in 3,000BC had any clue that such a thing was possible!

No, it means that they're claiming Abraham is their father, because Abraham is of God, and therefore known as ''father''. It's not a metaphor.

Of course it's a metaphor. "Father of a people" doesn't literally mean "Biological male parent of a people." It means leader, exemplar of a people.

That doesn't mean that Cain was Adams. All it says is he knew his wife, semi-colon, and Cain was born. Admitedly it gives the appearance of following on, but everything else suggests that Cain is not a part of Adams lineage.

Wrong again. It says "Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain." Their love-making isn't some incidental verse, it's how she became pregnant.

No, it gives the appearance that Cain is Adam's ''off-spring''.

No, it spells it out plainly. "They had sex, she got pregnant, there's a kid."

Probably the intention of the modern translators is to conceal that she became pregnant by the serpent.

Ah, here comes the obligatory conspiracy theory required for any of this bullshit to make sense.

"Well why doesn't it say they had sex, then?"

"Uh, there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth by mistranslating the original text."

"Oh. Obviously. Wait, then how do you know about it?"

"I..."

"And can't we look up the original Hebrew script ourselves, effectively rendering a mistranslation obsolete?"

"Er..." *runs away in shame*

It explains the characteristics of their lineage, to which Jesus gives reference to the original personification of that characteristic.

No, it explains the characteristics of those who follow the path of sin. You're insisting on a biological relationship that just isn't there.

As you clearly expressed that ''seeds'' relate to ''children/off-spring'' in post 46, this quote give a clear picture of what Jesus meant.

Seed does mean children. ("offspring is not hyphenated; at least learn the language if you're going to use it) But just as "children" does not always mean biological children, "seed" does not always mean biological children.

No. The hebrew word ''rah'' represents ''evil'', a different word altogether.
''Poneros'' describes the essence or nature of the person, and if you care to read the definition, is tied to ''the devil''.

Hey genius, the reason "poneros" is used instead of "rah" is because "poneros" is a Greek word, which is the primary language of the New Testament, where you found that verse. They mean the same thing. "Poneros" was a reference to evil, whether referring to an act or someone's character.

I think you have it arse over tit my defensive friend, it is the ''educated'' understanding of the bible that is ''half-assed''.

No, my "educated" understanding of these passages is correct, whereas yours has little effort put into it and no contextual awareness. But I suppose you'd have to apply the same kind of awareness to understand why you're wrong, and such an endeavor is clearly beyond your means.

Firstly, we are talking about the ''generations of Adam'', not the link to Moses.

No, it's the generations of Adam that link to Noah. That's the point of the geneology.

[quoteSecondly, whatever names are given in this geneology represents the generation of Adam plus Eve as she was the ''mother'' of them all.[/quote]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Eve is related to Seth, then she's also related to everyone who comes from Seth. She can't be related to Seth but not related to Seth's grandson.

If Cain isn't on the list, he aint invited to the party. We know Abels not on the list because is ceased to exist, and we know that Seth was a replacement for Abel.
We don't know of any other children produced by A+E simply because there is no mention of any.

This is nonsense, for all the reasons I've already explained. No one but the link between Noah and Adam is listed in any generation, so of course Cain isn't mentioned. Just as none of Jared's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name, just as Methusela's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name, just as Kenan's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name. No one who isn't a direct link between Adam and Noah is mentioned by name.

Check out the meanings of the original words (or as close as possible) in the texts.
I don't think there is a word that describes ''spiritual leader'' (if such a position actually exists) in the hebrew language.

Which is probably why they were left to use words like "Father" as a substitute.

Because there is alot of significance in the First-Born Son in those times.

You realize that you're now saying that Seth was the firstborn, don't you?

No, I'm suggesting that A+E had one son between them after the death of their first son.

No, you're suggesting that only those of Adam and Eve's blood are mentioned by name. That's what you said:

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?

So according to you, only the one child of each generation is named because only that one child in each generation has the blood of both A+E. This is, as I explained earlier, impossible, because if Seth is of Adam and Eve's blood, then so is everyone Seth fathers.

Of course, we needn't worry about this absurd theory, because you've since changed it to be because the firstborn has special significance, even though that implies that Seth is the firstborn, when we know he isn't, and you have already admitted he isn't.

Yet it cleary say's that Seth is part or the generation of Adam, a replacement first son. Funny that! Heh?

How is it funny? Being a part of the generation of Adam simply means he's Adam's son. By your logic, the failure to mention Eve as his mother implies that she wasn't.

Did she die upon ''eating the big banana''? I don't think so.

God never said she would. Life was eternal prior to the fall, as is made clear in the text. By eating of the tree, she sentenced herself (and mankind) to death. Everyone dies now, don't they?

Now why would you allude to immortality, when no such concept was mentioned to Adam or Eve?

The concept isn't specifically mentioned to Adam and Eve because such a state is inherent to them. It is, however, mentioned to the reader.

Please do explain?

..seriously? Life is eternal in the garden, because they eat of the tree of life. God even puts guards with flaming swords up so they couldn't sneak back in and eat from it.

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.​

:roflmao:

You laugh, but that's what your argument amounts to. Half-assed, ill-considered drivel.

I simply asked you a question, and you eventually gave me the answer even though you tried to bury with the shite you slipped on earlier.
We don't need to dialogue this anymore.

I gave you the answer right from the jump. To the question you asked. You later pushed the goalposts back. That's either dishonesty or utter ignorance.

Yes there are mounds of evidence of evolution, and yes we have seen evolution in action, just not the type you believe in, ''believe'' being the operative word.[/qutoe]

See? How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say there's no evidence for speciation? I just showed you there was. You're trying to invent this "other" evolution, but really all you're talking about is the same thing, just over longer periods of time. And yes, we have plenty of evidence for it.

You irrational behaviour is a strong indicator that you should not be taken seriously.

What irrational behavior? I'm going to need you to qualify that statement, or I'm going to report you for flaming.

Like that makes any difference in whole scheme of things.

jan.

Of course it does. The fact that you aren't aware of these differences proves my point about your ignorance.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ cole grey
Actually I was trying to be polite when I said "Nothing anyone here is saying sounds intelligent". I meant Nothing you say here. How does our current technology dictate that living forever wouldn't be bad as you state above? How would technology affect this. Technology would not exist, as nobody would work. No balls would exist because missing a shot would be bad. Losing a game would be bad. Nobody would build balls as a hobby so even building ball work would be bad.

If you had read what I wrote I did say a good only world could exist for a few hours or days, but it would not be functional.

P.S. Be aware that you are stepping on extremely shaky ground whenever you say,"the only argument anyone can make (is that for a society to function in the long term bad bust exist to at least a minimal extent)".

I meant "The only INTELLIGENT argument anyone can make".

 

[Syne]

this "safe world" is a thought experiment, so we can imagine a world that once had evil, and within which by some agency freewill has been limited slightly to prevent persons from acting out evil behaviors. The people of this world have forgotten what evil is. Are you seriously proposing that these people do not have freewill because they have only a somewhat more limited freewill than we do? I have already pointed out that advances have made it possible for those people to have a vastly INCREASED form of freewill in SOME areas. People are more free and more technologically empowered to do all sorts of good things we now don't have the freedom to do.

First, enough with all the ad hoc addenda. No condition you add will change anything. You are now only obfuscating the fact that this world relies heavily on another that definitely does include evil. Second, any "agency" that intervenes in an otherwise closed system to interrupt natural causation is effectively making that system arbitrary. Free will cannot exist in an arbitrary system, as any choice can be capriciously voided at any time, without warning. Free will is basically defined as having the ability to do otherwise. In this world of yours, people would not be able to do otherwise than good. In essence, all choices would have the same outcome.

it is quite easy to extrapolate an evil experience from a mere inconvenience. Let's say there are toy cars a child is playing with on a small toy bridge and one car falls off and breaks. As the parent fixes the toy car with super glue or whatever, they think to themselves, "hey, perhaps there is some chance our vehicles could fall off of the magneto-highway, and wouldn't that be terrible if there was a person in the car when it fell. It hasn't happened yet, but we haven't had a tornado come tearing through our super safe tornado proof homes in a while, not since the magneto highway was built." It is quite simple for imagination to make the leap from inconvenience to disaster.

Really? A toy car breaks? And these emotionally stunted children do not find that the least bit bad? Now you are just adding in prior bad experience because I told you that they could not imagine such otherwise. Even your "hasn't happened yet" relies on some potentially bad experience having been known to happen. AGAIN (since you have yet to answer), why would they build "super safe tornado proof homes"? You are just doing a vicious regress to avoid admitting your reasoning is fatally flawed. Get a grip.

in the past of "safe world" any number of bad things could have been happening. Also, they could have a toaster that stops working and extrapolate that people could stop working. There is no logical reason for insisting on the limits of their imaginations. We can assume that imagining a murderer hurting someone is a minor psychological discomfort resulting in a greater positive - this is YET another area we haven't even tapped, which is when bad things happen with a net positive gain, such getting as a measles shot (assuming there isn't something as simple to do as a painless injection or a measles chewable tablet).

If bad things were know to have happened then you have refuted your own argument that the concept of evil would not exist. And it is completely ridiculous to assume people who do not know anything about death could extrapolate it from a mechanical failure. This is like people extrapolating they might go supernova because they observe a star to, that they must actually have low batteries because they are feeling tired, that they could wilt like a flower, or any other ridiculous notion. If so, they must be awfully disappointed all the time since they cannot fly like a bird or run as fast as a cheetah.

But you have missed another simple aspect of your argument. Once extrapolated (assuming ANY real understanding) this would lead to all these irrational fears. Even in our world, very few are so insane as to fear these idiocies.

"Psychological discomfort"? "Measles shots"? Your world is sounding more and more like ours every minute. Can you not see how hopelessly muddled your argument has become attempting to justify your confirmation bias? You will simply argue until your "safe world" is indistinguishable from our own, at which point you will be forced to admit the existence of evil. Save us all some time, and skip ahead.

this is the key to the discussion, and i have never said we must remove all "significant" freedom. You still didn't answer whether aspirin is good or only morphine. You seem to be saying here that a world with doctors who cure headaches and give inoculations against old threats (as we do with polio) is a meaningless world. Perhaps these doctors simply cure the common cold or flu. I believe we would consider that a significant benefit. You still have not shown the logic behind WHY a human must be able to choose murder to make their choices "significant".

At relieving pain, morphine is better, but as soon as you introduce any notion of better, you have simultaneously introduced the notion of worse. Compared to better, worse is bad (for instance, when you need morphine aspirin is no good). Are you really this dense? "Old threats"? So now your "safe world" actually has threats, which if not prevented, could lead to misfortune? What exactly are these doctors staving off other than death, pain, and current bad experience?

Even without the ability to accomplish murder, the desire alone is evil. And if pain exists, people will inevitably figure out how to avoid it, even to the extent of putting others at risk.

I have never said anything about a human being able to choose murder, so this is only another of your straw man arguments.

this is quite incorrect, one choice may lead to a more pleasing symphony, which enraptures the audience, inspiring them to more fully engage in positive behavior, while another choice leads to a symphony which merely gives people an excuse to get out of the house and is forgotten tomorrow. The movies that are released each year now give us a prime example of that. They range from amazing to terrible, but even a movie that is a waste of time is just an inconvenience, not any kind of threat. I have already stated there should be bad notes and stinky smells, and a huge range of negatives in this "safe world".
no. it is simply a world with different values, and you personally need to label those different hypothetical values as non-values. You insist that if these people don't have YOUR choices, they have "meaningless" choices.

Again, compared to better, worse is bad. It is a waste of time to go to a worse symphony when you could have been doing something better. You are only equivocating when you say "inconvenient" instead of "bad", and it is a false dilemma to assume that a threat must exist to make something bad.

You have proven yourself intellectually dishonest.

 

[cole grey]

Free will is basically defined as having the ability to do otherwise. In this world of yours, people would not be able to do otherwise than good. In essence, all choices would have the same outcome.

free will is clearly not the ability to do otherwise than x y and z. Freewill is the ability to choose between some option and some other option, not all options. We on earth clearly do not have complete freewill, and you have not once answered my point about that. Please restate your definition of freewill to make sense in a world where all options are not available (like ours). i do not have the freewill option to nuke jamaica, so why do you draw your particular line other than your personal worldview?

Really? A toy car breaks? And these emotionally stunted children do not find that the least bit bad? Now you are just adding in prior bad experience because I told you that they could not imagine such otherwise. Even your "hasn't happened yet" relies on some potentially bad experience having been known to happen. AGAIN (since you have yet to answer), why would they build "super safe tornado proof homes"? You are just doing a vicious regress to avoid admitting your reasoning is fatally flawed. Get a grip.

In an IMAGINARY world, there are a hundred circumstances within which a society could CONCEIVABLY do something. I think you should take a chill pill, and realize we are talking about a hypothetical world, not this world. And i have already stated that there could be minor negatives in this hypothetical world. I am sure there could have been a tornado at an abandoned site which demonstrated the destructive power of a tornado. It is called a thought experiment for a reason, it isn't bound by what we see here now, or there is no point in even hypothesizing about any of this. Who cries about a thought experiment being fantastic?. Einstein didn't say, "i can't possibly be in a vehicle traveling at the speed of light because the vehicle would overheat", so get over it.

If bad things were know to have happened then you have refuted your own argument that the concept of evil would not exist. And it is completely ridiculous to assume people who do not know anything about death could extrapolate it from a mechanical failure. This is like people extrapolating they might go supernova because they observe a star to, that they must actually have low batteries because they are feeling tired, that they could wilt like a flower, or any other ridiculous notion. If so, they must be awfully disappointed all the time since they cannot fly like a bird or run as fast as a cheetah.

i don't find using an imaginative idea ridiculous, since we aren't talking about history or science, but a FANTASY. Relax. I know i am disappointed that i can't do any number of things. Is that experiencing "evil"?

But you have missed another simple aspect of your argument. Once extrapolated (assuming ANY real understanding) this would lead to all these irrational fears. Even in our world, very few are so insane as to fear these idiocies. why would these people fear the things they have put safeguards in place to prevent?

Perhaps putting in place things that aren't necessary is part of their world (it certainly is part of ours). How can you ridicule the POSSIBILITY of something if it already exists?

"Psychological discomfort"? "Measles shots"? Your world is sounding more and more like ours every minute. Can you not see how hopelessly muddled your argument has become attempting to justify your confirmation bias? You will simply argue until your "safe world" is indistinguishable from our own, at which point you will be forced to admit the existence of evil. Save us all some time, and skip ahead.

i am merely pointing out that there are gradations of negatives, not all of which should be called "evil".

At relieving pain, morphine is better, but as soon as you introduce any notion of better, you have simultaneously introduced the notion of worse. Compared to better, worse is bad (for instance, when you need morphine aspirin is no good). Are you really this dense? "Old threats"? So now your "safe world" actually has threats, which if not prevented, could lead to misfortune? What exactly are these doctors staving off other than death, pain, and current bad experience?

Chocolate ice cream isn't "bad", although i prefer vanilla. Do you actually disagree with the sensibility of that statement? *DO NOT PASS without answering this question about chocolate and vanilla ice cream*

Again, compared to better, worse is bad. It is a waste of time to go to a worse symphony when you could have been doing something better. You are only equivocating when you say "inconvenient" instead of "bad", and it is a false dilemma to assume that a threat must exist to make something bad.

please think about my preference for vanilla ice cream, whether or not you can say that i think chocolate ice cream is "bad", and then restate this if you still can. *DO NOT PASS without answering this question about chocolate and vanilla ice cream*

You have proven yourself intellectually dishonest.

I love it when people trot that phrase out to describe something they don't like. How is discussing any of this intellectually dishonest? Do you even know what the phrase implies? If we were talking about history or something similar you could point at these very imaginative ideas and say that, but not when talking about a fantasy world. Your personalization of this discussion is just bringing in unnecessary static.

 

[cole grey]

@ cole grey
Actually I was trying to be polite when I said "Nothing anyone here is saying sounds intelligent". I meant Nothing you say here. How does our current technology dictate that living forever wouldn't be bad as you state above? How would technology affect this. Technology would not exist, as nobody would work.

i am not offended by your lack of understanding, believe me. I am confused however as to why you ask how our current technology and the problem we have with possible overpopulation is affected by some world which doesn't exist and has no tech. Clearly our tech exists, and our tech dictates the problem with overpopulation, not logic. People living forever may or may not be a problem, depending on who you ask - there are millions and millions who think living forever is the greatest possible idea.

Also your idea that nobody would work is clearly false. People that lived forever would certainly find time to invent things and build them.

No balls would exist because missing a shot would be bad. Losing a game would be bad. Nobody would build balls as a hobby so even building ball work would be bad.

this does not follow. If playing a game and losing is more fun than not playing, then losing is not "bad", it is merely less good than winning. Children build balls out of anything they can find, so i think your idea that nobody would build balls to play with is not sensible.

If you had read what I wrote I did say a good only world could exist for a few hours or days, but it would not be functional.

you can SAY whatever you want, and when you provide proof for why you think the way you do i will be glad to read it. I haven't seen it yet.

I meant "The only INTELLIGENT argument anyone can make".

And I guess you think that is qualitatively different thing to say. oh yes, sorry sir, i forgot that you have been given the job of making the decision on what is an intelligent fantasy and what is unintelligent. haha, i love it. Such a waste of time to say this to anyone. You will probably realize the futility of using that phrase in a discussion, particularly if you are actually intending to learn anything from your conversations, rather than just reinforcing the tired old cognitive horse you ride around on. Old Bessie, what a great horse, i wouldn't change a thing about her. Ride on good sirrah!

EDIT - here's a hint, don't just tell me what you think, you have to tell me WHY, otherwise you aren't even discussing you are merely arguing. Don't just say, "people wouldn't work, because they wouldn't want to", because i can give many examples of people working when they don't need the money, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Syne]

free will is clearly not the ability to do otherwise than x y and z. Freewill is the ability to choose between some option and some other option, not all options. We on earth clearly do not have complete freewill, and you have not once answered my point about that. Please restate your definition of freewill to make sense in a world where all options are not available (like ours). i do not have the freewill option to nuke jamaica, so why do you draw your particular line other than your personal worldview?

Free will is the ability to do otherwise than a single action in any given situation. Actions are dependent upon achieving an intended result, which must be distinguishable from other results. As such, if all actions attain only one result then there is no extant ability to do otherwise. Again, it is a straw man to argue that I have even hinted at free will necessitating "all options". I have already, clearly stated that free will, in a causative world, necessitates being limited by both the will of others and the physics. It is commonly called attentional bias when someone manages to miss clearly stated arguments, as you have.

In an IMAGINARY world, there are a hundred circumstances within which a society could CONCEIVABLY do something. I think you should take a chill pill, and realize we are talking about a hypothetical world, not this world. And i have already stated that there could be minor negatives in this hypothetical world. I am sure there could have been a tornado at an abandoned site which demonstrated the destructive power of a tornado. It is called a thought experiment for a reason, it isn't bound by what we see here now, or there is no point in even hypothesizing about any of this. Who cries about a thought experiment being fantastic?. Einstein didn't say, "i can't possibly be in a vehicle traveling at the speed of light because the vehicle would overheat", so get over it.

So now this world is magical, with tornadoes knowing to avoid inhabited homes? Thought experiments require a consistent logic. No, it does not have to be logic as it pertains to our world, but it does have to be self-consistent. This means that if tornadoes know to avoid inhabited homes there must be some reason that can be examined within the consistency of the thought experiment. If the people of this world can control the weather to this extent, then there would never be a need for "super safe tornado proof homes". This would answer my question of why they would build such things in the first place. They would not, but then this is only a further vicious regress, as the question them becomes why they keep tornadoes away from inhabited homes. There is never any doing away with potential misfortune.

Now if some superior being, aware of such things, continually intervened, then when it comes to the actions of humans, they could take no action that could inadvertently cause even indirect harm, as tornadoes are inadvertent. All actions in a causative world have the potential to cause harm, no matter how far removed. So the regress here would require either no free will or no consistent causation. Since inconsistent causation bars the possibility to intend distinguishable results, either means there is no free will.

i don't find using an imaginative idea ridiculous, since we aren't talking about history or science, but a FANTASY. Relax. I know i am disappointed that i can't do any number of things. Is that experiencing "evil"?

Well, if it is only fantasy then to hell with logic, right? Even though you have tried to argue the logic yourself. If people in this severely limited world can extrapolate in ways people do not in ours, the onus is on you to explain how or why they would. Why are we not afraid of going supernova? Because people do not extrapolate things they have absolutely no reason to connect, like a machine breaking down implying the possible death of immortal people. It is not only ridiculous, but unless you can explain otherwise, it bears out no self-consistent logic.

Perhaps putting in place things that aren't necessary is part of their world (it certainly is part of ours). How can you ridicule the POSSIBILITY of something if it already exists?

So now you are claiming the supposed self-consistent logic is not consistent with anything. "It just is" is not a valid argument. You seem to be verifying that this hypothetical world of yours completely capricious. In such a world, choices cannot be made because the result of intention cannot be predicted. Choice is then meaningless. But keep it up. You are only further making my point.

i am merely pointing out that there are gradations of negatives, not all of which should be called "evil".

What is called evil is subjective and hence relative. Evil is just the worst. Even if you limit the scope, there is always a worst. Or does your capricious world also negate the logic of a simple gradient? And what something "should be called" relative to our world does not apply to this thought experiment, as you have pointed out.

At relieving pain, morphine is better, but as soon as you introduce any notion of better, you have simultaneously introduced the notion of worse. Compared to better, worse is bad (for instance, when you need morphine aspirin is no good). Are you really this dense? "Old threats"? So now your "safe world" actually has threats, which if not prevented, could lead to misfortune? What exactly are these doctors staving off other than death, pain, and current bad experience?

Chocolate ice cream isn't "bad", although i prefer vanilla. Do you actually disagree with the sensibility of that statement? *DO NOT PASS without answering this question about chocolate and vanilla ice cream*

Again, compared to better, worse is bad. It is a waste of time to go to a worse symphony when you could have been doing something better. You are only equivocating when you say "inconvenient" instead of "bad", and it is a false dilemma to assume that a threat must exist to make something bad.

please think about my preference for vanilla ice cream, whether or not you can say that i think chocolate ice cream is "bad", and then restate this if you still can. *DO NOT PASS without answering this question about chocolate and vanilla ice cream*

This is a red herring, as you keep moving the goalposts of what "bad" can exist in this world of yours. You have gone from having no bad to having pain and possibly death. So make up your mind how big the gradient scale is already. I made the example of ice cream flavors when you were claiming no bad existed. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is just outright dishonest. You have changed the conditions since then and are now falsely appealing to ridicule.

If pain and the possibility for death exist then so does evil, unless you now suddenly claim that people have no sense of self-preservation. People will do just about anything to avoid what they sense as pain, including harming one another.

I love it when people trot that phrase out to describe something they don't like. How is discussing any of this intellectually dishonest? Do you even know what the phrase implies? If we were talking about history or something similar you could point at these very imaginative ideas and say that, but not when talking about a fantasy world. Your personalization of this discussion is just bringing in unnecessary static.

It is intellectually dishonest of you to commit any of the numerous fallacies you have. Especially when you do not address half my arguments. If you knew what the phrase implied then you would know that it is the biased who continually change the conditions of their argument in a vain attempt to refute another. You have claimed to be making logical arguments, so it is highly hypocritical of you to claim your argument cannot be held to logic.

I make personal observations since you avoid and misrepresent so much of my argument. Quit whining and decide on the conditions for your supposed "thought experiment" and explain how your assertions are logically consistent within these precise conditions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Leaving to others to do your homework for you again, eh?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ID=2&contentID=7325&commInfo=31&topic=Genesis

It's a good thing that you're wrong (as usual), because you haven't answered the question...

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

http://www.therocksandiego.org/media/site/docs/studyguides/2004-03-21-studyguide.pdf

What am I supposed to do with this link?

Obviously, because they're all Adam's descendants. But the reason Seth is important is because it's his line that begets Noah. That's the significance of Seth.

You've yet to show why this is so.
As far as anybody can SEE, Cain isn't there because he isn't a part of ''THE GENERATION OF ADAM''. Do you get it yet?

No, "he is not of Adam's own image and likeness" is not at all in the scripture.

You're right! But it begs the question as why it had to be mentioned that Seth WAS in Adams own image and likeness, and then go on
to omit Cain (the supposed first born) from ADAM'S GENERATIONS.

Not anywhere. You're putting emphasis on that because you're reading it literally, as if the point of the verse is "Seth looks like Adam." By this token, you must also believe there is no further significance to God creating Adam in his own image than Adam bearing a physical resemblance to God. Clearly, more is meant by "image and likeness" than physical appearance. What this most likely means is that Seth is righteous like Adam, and if his name is supposed to be a nod to him taking over for Abel, fine, but it would only mean that Cain is not righteous like Adam, not that he wasn't his son.

The hebrew word for image is tselem meaning...

a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)

b) image, likeness (of resemblance)

c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)

I'm going with (b) are you wit me?

Cain was not of Adam's linage, or likeness, which is why a replacement (Seth) was born. Get over it.

Wrong again. Read:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.​

Every person mentioned by name had others sons and daughters, including Adam. If Cain's absence means that he isn't Adam's son, then what does that say of the "other sons and daughters" that are not mentioned by name in every generation?

They are mentioned, just not by name. We know that the sons and daughters of the first borns are part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.
But I see no mention of Cain and his descendants, meaning he ISN'T a part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.

No, my points tell you exactly why they should be accepted as metaphors. They wouldn't make sense any other way. Like I mentioned, if Jesus meant "father" in the literal sense of patriarch of a family, he would be contradicting himself because he already said he knew they were his descendants. In other words, his passage would have read "I know you're his descendants, but you're not his descendants." DOes that make sense to you?

He's saying they are his descendants, because they are. But they're claiming that Abraham is their father (abba), meaning they see themsleves as people of God (like Abraham). There is an account that the descendants of Cain (Kenites) connected themselves to the tribe of Judah (Jew), so Jesus reminded them of who their ''own father'' was, plus, why they were his seeds.

This isn't my opinion, it's all in the Bible.

No, that's what you're doing. You took father to mean literally "parent," rather than simply representational of a spiritual leader. Remember the verse you quoted about "Your father Satan?" You took that as evidence that Satan had actual children. You keep saying the word has many meanings, yet in the course of this discussion you've only ever considered the one.

In genesis 5 it state all the OFFSPRING, although not by name, to Adam. Right?
Does this mean that Adam is NOT the ''abba'' (per definition)? Of course not.
In the same breath, those to whom Jesus was talking to, are the off spring of their ''own'' father (abba)

Ha! This from the guy whose claims the text is trying to convey that Cain and Abel were twins with two different fathers! As if anyone in 3,000BC had any clue that such a thing was possible!

Huh!!!

Of course it's a metaphor. "Father of a people" doesn't literally mean "Biological male parent of a people." It means leader, exemplar of a people.

For the last time: ''ABBA'' DOES NOT JUST MEAN ''FATHER'' IN THE BIOLOGICAL SENSE, IT MEANS ALL THE THINGS IN THE LIST I GAVE YOU, AND MORE. CAPISCE?

Wrong again. It says "Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain." Their love-making isn't some incidental verse, it's how she became pregnant.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

No, it spells it out plainly. "They had sex, she got pregnant, there's a kid."

Doesn't mean the kid was Adams.

Ah, here comes the obligatory conspiracy theory required for any of this bullshit to make sense.

You're the one talking about ''conspiracy''.

No, it explains the characteristics of those who follow the path of sin. You're insisting on a biological relationship that just isn't there.

If he'd of meant ''sin'', he would have said sin.
He didn't say... ''let him without satan as his daddy cast the first stone..''. Did he?

Seed does mean children. ("offspring is not hyphenated; at least learn the language if you're going to use it) But just as "children" does not always mean biological children, "seed" does not always mean biological children.

But in this case it doesn mean OFF-SPRING. Right?

Hey genius, the reason "poneros" is used instead of "rah" is because "poneros" is a Greek word, which is the primary language of the New Testament, where you found that verse. They mean the same thing. "Poneros" was a reference to evil, whether referring to an act or someone's character.

Like Jesus spoke greek.
I would say as the people he spoke with were ''Jews'', his choice language would have be hebrew, or possibly aramaic. Not greek, italian, or english.

No, my "educated" understanding of these passages is correct, whereas yours has little effort put into it and no contextual awareness. But I suppose you'd have to apply the same kind of awareness to understand why you're wrong, and such an endeavor is clearly beyond your means.

Your ''educated'' understanding is dumb, as it relies purely on what other people say, arresting the development of your own spiritual expression and understanding.

Secondly, whatever names are given in this geneology represents the generation of Adam plus Eve as she was the ''mother'' of them all.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Eve is related to Seth, then she's also related to everyone who comes from Seth. She can't be related to Seth but not related to Seth's grandson.

Okay. Maybe using the ''plus'' was a little complex for you. Let's go with Adam AND Eve.
But really you should have understood what I meant when I said ''as she was the mother of them all''.
Naughty Balerion!

This is nonsense, for all the reasons I've already explained. No one but the link between Noah and Adam is listed in any generation, so of course Cain isn't mentioned. Just as none of Jared's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name, just as Methusela's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name, just as Kenan's brothers and sisters aren't mentioned by name. No one who isn't a direct link between Adam and Noah is mentioned by name.

By that logic, it should have mentioned ...and Adam begat sons and daughters.
But there is no mention, at all, of Adam having any other children.

Which is probably why they were left to use words like "Father" as a substitute.

Or more likely they didn't have ''spiritual leaders'' (whatever that is).

You realize that you're now saying that Seth was the firstborn, don't you?

No, I'm suggesting that he was the replacement/substitute, firstborn. Hence his name ''Seth''

No, you're suggesting that only those of Adam and Eve's blood are mentioned by name. That's what you said:

No. I've told you what I'm suggesting, so anything else is your own interpretation.

So according to you, only the one child of each generation is named because only that one child in each generation has the blood of both A+E. This is, as I explained earlier, impossible, because if Seth is of Adam and Eve's blood, then so is everyone Seth fathers.

No. According to me, the firsborn of every generation from the bloodline of A+E, is named.

Of course, we needn't worry about this absurd theory, because you've since changed it to be because the firstborn has special significance, even though that implies that Seth is the firstborn, when we know he isn't, and you have already admitted he isn't.

I've made no changes, the evidence of what I saying is in the Bible itself. It's not my fault that you lack the intelligence to work it out for yourself.

How is it funny? Being a part of the generation of Adam simply means he's Adam's son.
By your logic, the failure to mention Eve as his mother implies that she wasn't.

It already said (previously) that Adam called his wif ''Eve'' because she was the mother of all (including Cain). So we already know who the mother is. But as this is the generations of Adam, we are being told who are desecendant of Adam, through Eve. Dude, in case you haven't noticed, Cain, nor his descendants, aren't there.
Just thought I'd let you know.

God never said she would. Life was eternal prior to the fall, as is made clear in the text. By eating of the tree, she sentenced herself (and mankind) to death. Everyone dies now, don't they?

You mean the narrator said? But there is no mention of God telling Adam or Eve about anything to do with immortality, plus they must have had some understanding of what death is. So how was it that the serpent tricked her.

The concept isn't specifically mentioned to Adam and Eve because such a state is inherent to them. It is, however, mentioned to the reader.

So Eve could not have been tricked. As far as she is concerned she partook, and didn't die.
Plus, the concept ISN'T mentioned to them, period, unless you can show otherwise.

What irrational behavior? I'm going to need you to qualify that statement, or I'm going to report you for flaming.

Calling people ''idiots'' because they don't agree with your belief?
And you want to report me for flaming?


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

It's a good thing that you're wrong (as usual), because you haven't answered the question...

I told you I meant Noah, not Moses.

What am I supposed to do with this link?

Read it. You can read, can't you?

You've yet to show why this is so.

Of course I have. You, like a petulant child, have simply refused to acknowledge it.

As far as anybody can SEE, Cain isn't there because he isn't a part of ''THE GENERATION OF ADAM''. Do you get it yet?

No, as far as you can see. Don't act like you're in the majority on this one. The reason Cain isn't mentioned is the same reason Enosh's brother isn't mentioned, the same reason Kenan's brother isn't mentioned, the same reason Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methusela, and Lamech are the only members of their generation mentioned: Noah is not a descendent of Cain, just as he isn't a descendant of Enosh's brothers, or Kenan's, or Mahalalel's, or Jared's, or Enoch's, or Methusela's, or Lamech's. What don't you understand about that? It's a very simple process. You aren't your uncle's descendent, are you?

You're right! But it begs the question as why it had to be mentioned that Seth WAS in Adams own image and likeness, and then go on
to omit Cain (the supposed first born) from ADAM'S GENERATIONS.

As I've explained a dozen times, Cain is omitted because Noah is not his descendent. You are refusing to acknowledge this because it blows your whole theory to bits, but that's the truth. As for why it says Seth was in his own image and likeness, I explained that already as well: It clearly refers to the fact that Seth represents humanity's return to the covenant with God. Remember, Abel is dead and Cain is now cursed, so Seth is like a do-over, and it's his line that produces Noah. In fact, the NT links Adam directly to Jesus through Seth's line.

The hebrew word for image is tselem meaning...



I'm going with (b) are you wit me?

Cain was not of Adam's linage, or likeness, which is why a replacement (Seth) was born. Get over it.

That makes no sense. So then Adam physically resembled God? That's your story?

:roflmao:

Obviously "image" refers to more than a physical appearance. Just as throughout the bible there are references, both literal and figurative, to a person's character, this is what is meant by "image and likeness." Seth was good and holy like Adam, rather than sinful like Cain.

They are mentioned, just not by name.

So is Cain. "He had other sons and daughters," remember?

We know that the sons and daughters of the first borns are part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.

Again, that would mean Seth is the firstborn, which he is not.

But I see no mention of Cain and his descendants, meaning he ISN'T a part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.

I don't know what you think you mean by "generations of Adam," but now it appears you're drawing a distinction between that and actual biological parentage. On that, we agree. Those who are not of the lineage of Noah are not mentioned by name, but they are still the sons and daughters of each member mentioned. This includes Cain and Abel.

He's saying they are his descendants, because they are. But they're claiming that Abraham is their father (abba), meaning they see themsleves as people of God (like Abraham). There is an account that the descendants of Cain (Kenites) connected themselves to the tribe of Judah (Jew), so Jesus reminded them of who their ''own father'' was, plus, why they were his seeds.

This is gibberish you clearly don't even understand yourself. They can't be the descendants of Abraham and Cain, because Abraham is not of Cain's line.

Seriously, it's like talking to a 2-year-old.

In genesis 5 it state all the OFFSPRING, although not by name, to Adam. Right?
Does this mean that Adam is NOT the ''abba'' (per definition)? Of course not.
In the same breath, those to whom Jesus was talking to, are the off spring of their ''own'' father (abba)

More gibberish. You make no sense at all. If Adam is their "father" in that context, then they do not have a different father.

Huh!!!

Trust me, I know you're lost. You haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about.

For the last time: ''ABBA'' DOES NOT JUST MEAN ''FATHER'' IN THE BIOLOGICAL SENSE, IT MEANS ALL THE THINGS IN THE LIST I GAVE YOU, AND MORE. CAPISCE?

Yeah, because lying louder makes all the difference, right? Let's try this again: You are only using "father" in the sense of biological parent. That's the only way you're presenting it.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Oh, right, because in your ridiculous world, "Lord" refers to Satan.

All hail Lord Satan!

Doesn't mean the kid was Adams.

Of course it does. They had sex, she conceived. It's his kid.

You're the one talking about ''conspiracy''.

I'm sorry, did you already forget what you wrote, or are you just lying in hopes that I'll forget? Let's review:

Probably the intention of the modern translators is to conceal that she became pregnant by the serpent.

I know you don't know a whole lot about a whole lot, so I'll explain: when two or more people cover up a fact and substitute it with a lie, that's a conspiracy.

If he'd of meant ''sin'', he would have said sin.
He didn't say... ''let him without satan as his daddy cast the first stone..''. Did he?

Clearly you've never read the bible, which was written by multiple authors often times hundreds of years after the alleged events. Allegory, poetry, metaphor, and style are all employed within.

But in this case it doesn mean OFF-SPRING. Right?

No, it doesn't mean "offspring." (why do you keep hyphenating it?) It's a farming metaphor. Read:

"He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the Kingdom; and the darnel weeds are the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil''​

In this context, "seed" refers to people who have chosen the path of God, while "darnel weeds" are those who have chosen Satan's path.

Like Jesus spoke greek.

I literally just spat water all over my screen. Thanks for that. How do you not see the point here?

I would say as the people he spoke with were ''Jews'', his choice language would have be hebrew, or possibly aramaic. Not greek, italian, or english.

It was Aramaic, but that's not the point, obviously. The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, so citing the lack of a Hebrew word in the New Testament text is idiotic. "Poneros" is not a contrast of "rah," it's essentially the same word just in a different language.

Your ''educated'' understanding is dumb, as it relies purely on what other people say, arresting the development of your own spiritual expression and understanding.

This is rich. Are you saying it into a mirror? Or wait, I mean, mirr-or. Because you probably hyphenate that, too.

Okay. Maybe using the ''plus'' was a little complex for you. Let's go with Adam AND Eve.
But really you should have understood what I meant when I said ''as she was the mother of them all''.
Naughty Balerion!

You're not making any sense. I know you meant Adam and Eve, but you also said that the people mentioned in the geneology were different from the people not mentioned in that the people mentioned were of Adam and Eve's bloodline. This is physically impossible; if Kenan is Adam and Eve's blood, then so are Kenan's brothers and sisters.

By that logic, it should have mentioned ...and Adam begat sons and daughters.
But there is no mention, at all, of Adam having any other children.

Wow. Read much?

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters​

I mean, wow.

Or more likely they didn't have ''spiritual leaders'' (whatever that is).

Clearly they did. The reverence of Abraham is a perfect example of someone later generations tried to emulate and whose ethics they tried to live by.

I mean, you've met priests with the title of Father, no?

No, I'm suggesting that he was the replacement/substitute, firstborn. Hence his name ''Seth''

You can't be a replacement firstborn. You either are a firstborn or you aren't.

No. According to me, the firsborn of every generation from the bloodline of A+E, is named.

Yes, but your logic for believing that Cain is not Adam's son is that he is not mentioned by name in the geneology. When I asked "Why is only one child of every generation named," you replied that "Erm, because they have the blood of both A+E?" This insinuates that the ones not mentioned by name did not have the blood of both Adam and Eve, which, as I've said, is impossible.

Also, Seth is not the firstborn.

I've made no changes, the evidence of what I saying is in the Bible itself. It's not my fault that you lack the intelligence to work it out for yourself.

That's adorable. A man with the spelling and grammar of a 5 year old is calling me ignorant.

It already said (previously) that Adam called his wif ''Eve'' because she was the mother of all (including Cain). So we already know who the mother is. But as this is the generations of Adam, we are being told who are desecendant of Adam, through Eve. Dude, in case you haven't noticed, Cain, nor his descendants, aren't there.
Just thought I'd let you know.

Wow. Unreal. I mean, I can't actually force myself to believe that you're really this ignorant. No one is. This is a willful blindness, it has to be.

By your logic, no one who isn't mentioned by name is a descendant of Adam. Yet if Methusela is, then so are his sons and daughters! But wait! They aren't mentioned by name, either! Oh, shit, there goes your entire argument down the drain.

You mean the narrator said? But there is no mention of God telling Adam or Eve about anything to do with immortality, plus they must have had some understanding of what death is. So how was it that the serpent tricked her.

I can't make it any more clear than I already have, jan. There's also no mention of God telling Adam and Eve that they have legs, but it's presumed that they were aware of this.

So Eve could not have been tricked. As far as she is concerned she partook, and didn't die.
Plus, the concept ISN'T mentioned to them, period, unless you can show otherwise.

This is nonsense. The garden provided immortality through the tree of life. God cut them off from it, so now they would not live forever. In other words, they would die. And they did die.

Calling people ''idiots'' because they don't agree with your belief?

I never called you an idiot. But I do admit I have absolutely no respect for you. I don't know if it's because you're not very smart, or because you're incredibly stubborn, but you refuse to acknowledge the most blatantly obvious truths, and don't seem to grasp simple concepts. Not to mention all the flip-flopping you've done. You humiliate yourself with every poorly-spelled post, and you contribute nothing but an unwillingness to learn. And you call me irrational without basis in an attempt to distract and discredit. Well, nobody reading along with this buys it, so you're only fooling yourself, and I'm not even convinced you believe your own BS.

For the record, the people I refer to as idiots are those who cook up ridiculous theories based on their own misunderstandings, and only show an interest in proselytizing their stupid theories rather than trying to learn something new about the subject they refuse to quit talking about. If your first reaction to that was "He's talking about me," then maybe your subconscious is trying to tell you something.

 

[Syne]

English does not seem to be Jan's native language, but he seems to be reading an English Bible. I cannot think of any other explanation for his outlandish claims about what it means. Well, assuming he does not have a learning disability that is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

I told you I meant Noah, not Moses.

I was aware of that failure, but that's not what I'm refering to.

Read it. You can read, can't you?

It's suppose to show the significance of Seth being important in the birth of Noah (or something like that),
As it obviously doesn't, I'm thinking there's something more that you want me to see.

Of course I have. You, like a petulant child, have simply refused to acknowledge it.

You think because you're educated that you are right without question, then act like some mardy little kid, when it doesn't work out for you.
You're education is not equipt to deal with these types of topics, and I'm merely calling you out on it.

No, as far as you can see. Don't act like you're in the majority on this one. The reason Cain isn't mentioned is the same reason Enosh's brother isn't mentioned, the same reason Kenan's brother isn't mentioned, the same reason Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methusela, and Lamech are the only members of their generation mentioned: Noah is not a descendent of Cain, just as he isn't a descendant of Enosh's brothers, or Kenan's, or Mahalalel's, or Jared's, or Enoch's, or Methusela's, or Lamech's. What don't you understand about that? It's a very simple process. You aren't your uncle's descendent, are you?

Then show me where ''The Generations of Adam'' are written purely for the introduction of Noah. It surely doesn't make any special mention of it in any of the scriptures
we've been focusing on. All it say's is: The Generations of Adam. All I, or anyone who can read, can see, is Seth. Not Cain.

Unless you can focus on it's importance, don't bother to respond, because we're just going round in circles.

As I've explained a dozen times, Cain is omitted because Noah is not his descendent.

What does that have to do with THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM?

Don't respond unless you can take it to the next level.

You are refusing to acknowledge this because it blows your whole theory to bits, but that's the truth. As for why it says Seth was in his own image and likeness, I explained that already as well: It clearly refers to the fact that Seth represents humanity's return to the covenant with God. Remember, Abel is dead and Cain is now cursed, so Seth is like a do-over, and it's his line that produces Noah. In fact, the NT links Adam directly to Jesus through Seth's line.

You're talking nonsense (as usual)

That makes no sense. So then Adam physically resembled God? That's your story?

:roflmao:

1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You see, unlike you, I'm using the Bible, as an explanation of itself, mixed in with the possible languages, and customs.
You should try it sometimes, save you the embarrasment of being defeated with ease, by someone you regard as inferior.

Also the term ''physical'' was not used by me, or used in the the hebrew meaning of image.

Obviously "image" refers to more than a physical appearance. Just as throughout the bible there are references, both literal and figurative, to a person's character, this is what is meant by "image and likeness." Seth was good and holy like Adam, rather than sinful like Cain.

Dude, don't try and do ''spirituality'', it's so not you

.So is Cain. "He had other sons and daughters," remember?

Dude, neither Cain, nor his descendants are part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.

Again, that would mean Seth is the firstborn, which he is not.

Seth is obviously an exception, hence the meaning of his name, as without a firstborn, there is no THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.
So he is a, wait for it, substitute first born.

I don't know what you think you mean by "generations of Adam," but now it appears you're drawing a distinction between that and actual biological parentage. On that, we agree. Those who are not of the lineage of Noah are not mentioned by name, but they are still the sons and daughters of each member mentioned. This includes Cain and Abel

.

I mean, he isn't part of THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM because he isn't Adam's son.
You keep coming up with this nonsense idea that he isn't there because Noah isn't descended from him.
So for the last time, show me the significance of this particular, selected generation of Adam, and show where the ''other'' children of Adam were
omitted because they didn't lead to the birth of Noah.

Show this to me then I will carry on with the dialogue, otherwise I don't see the point as your case is hopeless.

This is gibberish you clearly don't even understand yourself. They can't be the descendants of Abraham and Cain, because Abraham is not of Cain's line.

Seriously, it's like talking to a 2-year-old.

They are connected through eve

More gibberish. You make no sense at all. If Adam is their "father" in that context, then they do not have a different father.

Who doesn't have a ''different father''?

Trust me, I know you're lost. You haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about.

I know you'd like to think so, because the only tactic you have left is to obfuscate, but regarding my response, I was
surprised at the stupidity of your response, and it's lack of relevance.

But seriously! Trust you? That would be like trusting a chimp who is trained to drive a car to pick my kids up from school and drive them home.
It's not going to happen, you're too shallow.

Oh, right, because in your ridiculous world, "Lord" refers to Satan.

All hail Lord Satan!

As a title, some do.

But here we have another clue that Cain is not the son of Adam.
Why would Eve commment on the birth of Cain, but not Adam?
Could it be that Cain was not in the image of Adam, whereas Abel was?
This of course, could explain why so much is made of the image of Seth.

I'm sorry, did you already forget what you wrote, or are you just lying in hopes that I'll forget? Let's review:
I know you don't know a whole lot about a whole lot, so I'll explain: when two or more people cover up a fact and substitute it with a lie, that's a conspiracy.

Okay, let's get a def.

1.
the act of conspiring.

2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Now as I said, I didn't bring up THE WORD conspiracy, what to speak of ''conspiracy theory''.

Omitting something from people is not necessarily a bad thing. It can also be done to protect, which is why I didn't
have a point of view.

Gosh, you must like getting kicked in the teeth!

Clearly you've never read the bible, which was written by multiple authors often times hundreds of years after the alleged events. Allegory, poetry, metaphor, and style are all employed within.

And so is truth, but I guess you're not interested in that being proud of being a trained chimp.

No, it doesn't mean "offspring." (why do you keep hyphenating it?) It's a farming metaphor. Read:

Oh right! So it's a ''farming metaphor'' when it suits you, and also means ''children'' when it suits you.

"He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the Kingdom; and the darnel weeds are the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil''​

In this context, "seed" refers to people who have chosen the path of God, while "darnel weeds" are those who have chosen Satan's path.

Dude! Don't do spirituality, it's not you.

I literally just spat water all over my screen. Thanks for that. How do you not see the point here?

Hopefully it will go some way to cleaning up the shite you've been spewing.

It was Aramaic, but that's not the point, obviously. The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, so citing the lack of a Hebrew word in the New Testament text is idiotic. "Poneros" is not a contrast of "rah," it's essentially the same word just in a different language.

It is a greek translation.
I prefer to go as close to the source as possible, and while understand hebrew has undergone some changes, I still prefer to use it over greek or english when it comes
to honing in on specific meanings. That's just my choice.

You're not making any sense. I know you meant Adam and Eve, but you also said that the people mentioned in the geneology were different from the people not mentioned in that the people mentioned were of Adam and Eve's bloodline. This is physically impossible; if Kenan is Adam and Eve's blood, then so are Kenan's brothers and sisters.

I said those who are not mentioned in THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM, aren't invited to the big party, it states that Seth begat children, so they are all invited.

Wow. Read much?

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters​

I mean, wow.

If all Adam's children are mentioned, then where is Cain?

Clearly they did. The reverence of Abraham is a perfect example of someone later generations tried to emulate and whose ethics they tried to live by.

I mean, you've met priests with the title of Father, no?

Abraham is revered because of his character, not because of some appointed position from some educational institute.

You can't be a replacement firstborn. You either are a firstborn or you aren't.

You can be a replacement for the firstborn if the mission is produce offspring.
IOW, Seth is the first one born to produce offsping for Adam.

Yes, but your logic for believing that Cain is not Adam's son is that he is not mentioned by name in the geneology. When I asked "Why is only one child of every generation named," you replied that "Erm, because they have the blood of both A+E?" This insinuates that the ones not mentioned by name did not have the blood of both Adam and Eve, which, as I've said, is impossible.

No. I believe that Cain is not Adams son because he is not mentioned, period.
And insinuation that you propose, is stupid. How can someone not be a blood relation to their parents, not be be a blood relation because their name isn't written in a list, but is mentioned as a collective?

Also, Seth is not the firstborn.

He's a substitute, hence his name.
Plus, he is the first born child of Adam to produce offspring.

That's adorable. A man with the spelling and grammar of a 5 year old is calling me ignorant.

If the cap fits.

Wow. Unreal. I mean, I can't actually force myself to believe that you're really this ignorant. No one is. This is a willful blindness, it has to be.

By your logic, no one who isn't mentioned by name is a descendant of Adam. Yet if Methusela is, then so are his sons and daughters! But wait! They aren't mentioned by name, either! Oh, shit, there goes your entire argument down the drain.

I said;

It already said (previously) that Adam called his wif ''Eve'' because she was the mother of all (including Cain). So we already know who the mother is. But as this is the generations of Adam, we are being told who are desecendant of Adam, through Eve. Dude, in case you haven't noticed, Cain, nor his descendants, aren't there.
Just thought I'd let you know.

Please link the sized part of your dumb@ss response, to my quote?

I can't make it any more clear than I already have, jan. There's also no mention of God telling Adam and Eve that they have legs, but it's presumed that they were aware of this.

You're right you're incapable of making it more clear because you don't know what you're talking about.

This is nonsense. The garden provided immortality through the tree of life. God cut them off from it, so now they would not live forever. In other words, they would die. And they did die.

In order for Eve to have been tricked, the way you say, she would have had known that she was immortal, but would die instantly upon partaking of the fruit, bearing in mind she must some notion of death. As the thing we can ascertain is that she knew what death was. So how did the serpent ''trick'' her?

I never called you an idiot.

Not straight-out, no.

But I do admit I have absolutely no respect for you.

That's alright, I'm not here for your respect.

I don't know if it's because you're not very smart, or because you're incredibly stubborn, but you refuse to acknowledge the most blatantly obvious truths, and don't seem to grasp simple concepts.

Notice that for you ''respect'' is all about what you think that person can or can't do. It's a very low-level, animalistic kind of idea of reasons why we should respect.

Not to mention all the flip-flopping you've done.
You humiliate yourself with every poorly-spelled post, and you contribute nothing but an unwillingness to learn.

You're just proud, and cannot accept that you're reasoning has been inferior in this dialogue, because as far as you're concerned your supposed to know better than me on any subject because you are trained machine. Upon realising you limitations, you resort to attacking me, and trying to humiliate me without success.

You really don't know me, or the reason why I mis-spell, yet you feel so threatened that you have to use whatever you can to try win.

And you call me irrational without basis in an attempt to distract and discredit. Well, nobody reading along with this buys it, so you're only fooling yourself, and I'm not even convinced you believe your own BS.

I called you irrational, because folk who don't share your belief, you call them idiots.

For the record, the people I refer to as idiots are those who cook up ridiculous theories based on their own misunderstandings, and only show an interest in proselytizing their stupid theories rather than trying to learn something new about the subject they refuse to quit talking about. If your first reaction to that was "He's talking about me," then maybe your subconscious is trying to tell you something.

Translation: I call people who don't share my beliefs, idiots.

jan.