God... Is Time.

[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?

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?

Why is a question for God, not I.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

 

[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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.

 

[Hollie]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Now you just way over their heads.

 

[Hollie]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult.

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.

is this your defense of the claim that God created evil?.......it doesn't change the fact that an angel acting wrong or a human acting wrong still is not God creating evil......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.

lol.....so tell us then, dear atheist, what is it Genesis tells us about disobedience?......do you find somewhere in its text the contention that God created a thing called evil and stuck it in Adam's pocket?.....oh wait.....no pockets......

 

[Hollie]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.

is this your defense of the claim that God created evil?.......it doesn't change the fact that an angel acting wrong or a human acting wrong still is not God creating evil......

So revise your theology once again, this time that your gawds are the creators of nice things. Its those other, not nice gawds who created evil.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult.

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.

Admit defeat and repent.

 

[Hollie]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.

lol.....so tell us then, dear atheist, what is it Genesis tells us about disobedience?......do you find somewhere in its text the contention that God created a thing called evil and stuck it in Adam's pocket?.....oh wait.....no pockets......

You're not comprehending your own genesis fable.

You need to further define which other parts of the fable you reject. Maybe outline blocks of the text you dismiss and highlight those few elements that are literal.

An exercise in pick and choose religionism.

 

[Hollie]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult.

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.

Admit defeat and repent.

The gawds have told me you misrepresented them.

There will be holy hell to pay.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.

lol.....so tell us then, dear atheist, what is it Genesis tells us about disobedience?......do you find somewhere in its text the contention that God created a thing called evil and stuck it in Adam's pocket?.....oh wait.....no pockets......

You're not comprehending your own genesis fable.

You need to further define which other parts of the fable you reject. Maybe outline blocks of the text you dismiss and highlight those few elements that are literal.

An exercise in pick and choose religionism.

why are you afraid to answer the question, Hollie?...

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.

is this your defense of the claim that God created evil?.......it doesn't change the fact that an angel acting wrong or a human acting wrong still is not God creating evil......

So revise your theology once again, this time that your gawds are the creators of nice things. Its those other, not nice gawds who created evil.

no revision.....it has never been a facet of Christian theology that God created evil.....that's always been an atheist's claim......

 

[Hollie]

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

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.

lol.....so tell us then, dear atheist, what is it Genesis tells us about disobedience?......do you find somewhere in its text the contention that God created a thing called evil and stuck it in Adam's pocket?.....oh wait.....no pockets......

You're not comprehending your own genesis fable.

You need to further define which other parts of the fable you reject. Maybe outline blocks of the text you dismiss and highlight those few elements that are literal.

An exercise in pick and choose religionism.

why are you afraid to answer the question, Hollie?...

I did answer.

Are you going to outline for us the component pieces of the bibles that are to be read as literal vs. the other kinda' true but not really true sections?

I can assist you with understanding your bibles, but you need to be as open to the concept of fat, naked babies playing harps as you are to a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well now we're becoming bogged down in theological debate and that was specifically not the point of my OP, and what I had hoped to avoid. Adam and Eve may be completely symbolic and simply an easy way to tell the creation story... it depends on your faith and what you believe, I suppose.

I'm not here to argue as an advocate of The Bible as interpreted by Christians. But I find it amazing how many self-proclaimed theological expert Atheists make such simple mistranslations and misconceptions with the book.

 

[Hollie]

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

evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......

The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.

is this your defense of the claim that God created evil?.......it doesn't change the fact that an angel acting wrong or a human acting wrong still is not God creating evil......

So revise your theology once again, this time that your gawds are the creators of nice things. Its those other, not nice gawds who created evil.

no revision.....it has never been a facet of Christian theology that God created evil.....that's always been an atheist's claim......

Your gawds creating evil is a function of the genesis fable. As you wrote earlier, you pick and choose those parts of Genesis and the bibles that you arbitrarily accept vs. the parts you arbitrarily reject. Classic pick and choose religionism.

I suppose the nice gawds vs. those not so nice gawds who were involved with Genesis you will need to segregate into groups.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult.

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.

Admit defeat and repent.

The gawds have told me you misrepresented them.

There will be holy hell to pay.

All kidding aside there are places you should not play. You are in one of them.

 

[Hollie]

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.

1. We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...
   
2. I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
3. We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to.

If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?

Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult.

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.

Admit defeat and repent.

The gawds have told me you misrepresented them.

There will be holy hell to pay.

All kidding aside there are places you should not play. You are in one of them.

I have an entitlement, from the gawds.