God... Is Time.

[AVG-JOE]

If Momma's little bastards have a Father, His name is Time.

 

[RandomVariable]

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

random, you apparently forgot that Holly is a literalist......

Apparently. That's OK though. So am I.

 

[RandomVariable]

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

 

[Hollie]

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?


your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.

Exactly.

The bible is written by men, reflecting man's ignorance, fear, hate, and stupidity.

 

[BreezeWood]

And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

.
there is not a knowledge of Good vs Evil, there is one or the other ... chose correctly or perish. Remission to the Everlasting is not a gift it is the Triumph of one over the other.

the Spiritualist, the same as the time of Noah is being burned alive, the Almighty gives back to them what they take for themselves.

.

 

[RandomVariable]

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.

I'll give a full reply tomorrow. I was going to wait until tomorrow but I just went outside for my nightly talk with God. Tomorrow we can continue our conversation. I hope you have a nice night and are up for some fun back and forth tomorrow. Good is so amazingly awesome that darkness does become light. You have just got to meet him some day.

 

[RandomVariable]

And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

.
there is not a knowledge of Good vs Evil, there is one or the other ... chose correctly or perish. Remission to the Everlasting is not a gift it is the Triumph of one over the other.

the Spiritualist, the same as the time of Noah is being burned alive, the Almighty gives back to them what they take for themselves.

.

There is a third way. Have a nice night breezy.

 

[RandomVariable]

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.

I read your post and the thought of throwing names and even possibly pulling out one of my signature flames crossed my mind. I decided that it was late enough and there was enough stuff to reply to that I should wait until the morning coffee to put it together. Then I went out for my nightly talk with God. I walked into the backyard and there was God. No, I can not physically see him. He was immense, powerful and yet loving. Powerful enough to create a universe and yet caring enough to see how his deviate little creations are doing. Your post became as trivial as an ant chewing on my shoe, no offense meant. I am arguing with you not for my own benefit, OK, that too, but also so that you might know God, or someone who reads these posts might come to know God. Whatever grudge you are holding against God it is from your own lack of understanding.

And now:

1. You did not explain how evil existed in the Garden before Adam and Eve. You stated that because the apple contained the knowledge of good and evil there must have been evil in the Garden. That is a statement, not an explanation.
2. Again, not a Christian here, have my own religion, learn to read. How does not being omniscient dismantle authority? There is absolutely no correlation. And also again, why do you do that? What is your need to be antagonistic and just generally a nasty person?
3. We are still working on discovering these inconsistencies you are referring to. If you have a limited understanding of God you have a limited understanding of nature. God is the fundamental principle of nature. (And do not jump to the conclusion you just did.)

 

[Boss]

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold. Evil is the absence of Love.

 

[RandomVariable]

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold. Evil is the absence of Love.

Well one could say one who created creatures with lungs and lakes created drowning. And then is the one who created drowning evil? Is that not taking the facts literally?

 

[Boss]

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.

 

[Hollie]

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

1. I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
2. I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of why are for God, not I.
3. Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?

Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.

1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.

I read your post and the thought of throwing names and even possibly pulling out one of my signature flames crossed my mind. I decided that it was late enough and there was enough stuff to reply to that I should wait until the morning coffee to put it together. Then I went out for my nightly talk with God. I walked into the backyard and there was God. No, I can not physically see him. He was immense, powerful and yet loving. Powerful enough to create a universe and yet caring enough to see how his deviate little creations are doing. Your post became as trivial as an ant chewing on my shoe, no offense meant. I am arguing with you not for my own benefit, OK, that too, but also so that you might know God, or someone who reads these posts might come to know God. Whatever grudge you are holding against God it is from your own lack of understanding.

And now:

1. You did not explain how evil existed in the Garden before Adam and Eve. You stated that because the apple contained the knowledge of good and evil there must have been evil in the Garden. That is a statement, not an explanation.
2. Again, not a Christian here, have my own religion, learn to read. How does not being omniscient dismantle authority? There is absolutely no correlation. And also again, why do you do that? What is your need to be antagonistic and just generally a nasty person?
3. We are still working on discovering these inconsistencies you are referring to. If you have a limited understanding of God you have a limited understanding of nature. God is the fundamental principle of nature. (And do not jump to the conclusion you just did.)

The explanation for evil existing in the biblical garden of eden prior to the appearance of A&E is identified in the genesis fable. You simply need to read the bibles. I'm offering no explanation regarding why the fable is configured as-is.


16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.
Remember the foundations of the Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

2. Omniscience is one attribute that humans have assigned to the gawds they have configured. Omniscient gods allowing free will is a blatant contradiction only apologists defend by ignoring the contradiction. What is the purpose of an "all knowing" god(s) who has been stripped of the "all knowing" attribute?
If your gods are all knowing, then my act of free will reduces his “powers” in some way. Good for my case of reason and knowledge – bad for you case of superstition and conjecture.


You're making your gods really quite impotent.

3. The inconsistencies of the various human configured gawds are really quite blatant. Apologists choose to ignore those inconsistencies because to address them would imply questioning their faith.

Your partisan gawds as some claimed "fundamental principle of nature" is pure speculation, unsubstantiated assertion and uttetly unsupportable.

 

[Boss]

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold. Evil is the absence of Love.

Well one could say one who created creatures with lungs and lakes created drowning. And then is the one who created drowning evil? Is that not taking the facts literally?

Well we can get into a host of philosophical questions here.. Why would a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God create such flawed and fucked up creatures who need redemption and can't resist temptation? Why not just create us perfect?

 

[Hollie]

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?


your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.

I wasn't aware that you were given authority to speak on behalf of christiandom as the authenticity of genesis as a literal or metaphorical rendering of creation. Is your authority self-assigned or do you have a Certificate of Authenticity as a registered Babbler of Meaningless Pontification?

Is your pith and vinegar reaction to my comments a result of you feeling slighted regarding proselytizing for your own religion of magical spirit realms?

 

[Boss]

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.

I wasn't aware that you were given authority to speak on behalf of christiandom as the authenticity of genesis as a literal or metaphorical rendering of creation. Is your authority self-assigned or do you have a Certificate of Authenticity as a registered Babbler of Meaningless Pontification?

Is your pith and vinegar reaction to my comments a result of you feeling slighted regarding proselytizing for your own religion of magical spirit realms?

I never claimed to speak for christiandom. The Bible is the most read, most widely-distributed and printed book in human history... as such, I have studied it because I believe in broadening my intelligence. Nowhere in Genesis does it state God's creation of A&E was the original creation of man. In fact, if Cain was cast out of the garden for killing Abel and ended up married in Nod, there had to be other humans unless Cain married a monkey or something.

 

[Hollie]

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.

I wasn't aware that you were given authority to speak on behalf of christiandom as the authenticity of genesis as a literal or metaphorical rendering of creation. Is your authority self-assigned or do you have a Certificate of Authenticity as a registered Babbler of Meaningless Pontification?

Is your pith and vinegar reaction to my comments a result of you feeling slighted regarding proselytizing for your own religion of magical spirit realms?

I never claimed to speak for christiandom. The Bible is the most read, most widely-distributed and printed book in human history... as such, I have studied it because I believe in broadening my intelligence. Nowhere in Genesis does it state God's creation of A&E was the original creation of man. In fact, if Cain was cast out of the garden for killing Abel and ended up married in Nod, there had to be other humans unless Cain married a monkey or something.

Your rewriting of the bibles might be a good starting point for your new-fangled religion of magical spirit realms.

 

[edthecynic]

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold. Evil is the absence of Love.

If evil exists then God created it as everything was created by God and only God can create.

 

[edthecynic]

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold. Evil is the absence of Love.

Well one could say one who created creatures with lungs and lakes created drowning. And then is the one who created drowning evil? Is that not taking the facts literally?

Well we can get into a host of philosophical questions here.. Why would a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God create such flawed and fucked up creatures who need redemption and can't resist temptation? Why not just create us perfect?

Because your God is as powerless to create perfection as it is powerless to stop you from lying.

 

[edthecynic]

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.

I wasn't aware that you were given authority to speak on behalf of christiandom as the authenticity of genesis as a literal or metaphorical rendering of creation. Is your authority self-assigned or do you have a Certificate of Authenticity as a registered Babbler of Meaningless Pontification?

Is your pith and vinegar reaction to my comments a result of you feeling slighted regarding proselytizing for your own religion of magical spirit realms?

I never claimed to speak for christiandom. The Bible is the most read, most widely-distributed and printed book in human history... as such, I have studied it because I believe in broadening my intelligence. Nowhere in Genesis does it state God's creation of A&E was the original creation of man. In fact, if Cain was cast out of the garden for killing Abel and ended up married in Nod, there had to be other humans unless Cain married a monkey or something.

You do know that they lived many hundreds of years back then, so it could have been many hundreds of years before Cain married one of his sisters who had moved to Nod hundreds of years earlier.