The Garden of Eden

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Cyperium, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    Just a bit of imagination could cover that bit.
    but unfortunately it cover's the whole bit, we don't know in what way they knew God was right.
    they did'nt until after they ate of the tree, my children have burn themselves with matches, even though they were told not to touch.
    they had no knowledge or fear, of what would happen, only what I had told them.

    children do trust agreed, and sometime's sadly the trust the wrong people!(these people know right from wrong).

    because they have no fear of what could happen until they have had experience.
    so I sorry cyperium I cant agree with you still.
    though good debate.

    southstar: I quote, Are you implying that he had no conscience?
    of course as adam was the first man, before he ate of the tree he had no conscience.
    and your bible quote does not apply, as all those people came after adam had ate of the tree. and therefore would have a conscience
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    @ the preacher
    why so?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No freewill in heaven . .. . . . or maybe heaven is evil!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Katazia Black Mamba Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Laser Eyes,

    Clearly that isn’t what the bible says. Adam ate from the tree that gave the knowledge of good and evil, it is overwhelmingly obvious that that is where his knowledge came from, and hence acquired the same knowledge as God.

    An interesting story but without the knowledge of good and evil he would not have understood very much and certainly would have no ability to make value judgments requiring decisions to choose good instead of bad. If you want to insist that God taught Adam the difference between good and evil then you need to explain the purpose of the tree that gave such knowledge, if that wasn’t its intended purpose (I see you attempt to do that later in your post, but you didn’t succeed). You also need to explain Genesis 3:7 “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked….” This is the exact moment when Adam received the knowledge of good and evil. Why would Adam suddenly feel this way if God had already taught given him this knowledge as you claim? Your assertions are simply inconsistent with the bible.

    Bingo, now you understand the Adam and Eve paradox. And why Christianity is a fraud since the need for a savior is based on Adam knowing the difference between good and bad before he had obtained that knowledge.

    Read Genesis 3:7 again – clearly there was a moment when he didn’t know what was bad and the next when he did. He could not have known that death was a bad thing until AFTER he had eaten from the tree.

    Agreed, but when it is logically paradoxical by its own statements as in the Adam and Eve farce then it loses all credibility. The writers seriously screwed up because they were creating a myth rather than recording real events.

    Except that we can see that the Adam and Eve story is a paradox in which case God if he were to exist is a sadistic murderer who condemned all of humanity to pain, suffering and death.

    Yes indeed you do understand.

    Why? The Adam and Eve story is the first story in the bible where he interacts with people and we can see from that that he is a sadistic monster, why would we trust anything else he says in the rest of the bible?

    Not if God is the real evil, as it looks like he is, judging by the Adam and Eve paradox.

    You mean just like a 6 foot tall man can decide not to be 6 foot if he wishes. Omniscience is the claimed property of God. What you really mean is that God could choose not to act on the knowledge that he possesses. But if he is omniscient then he knows everything.

    Because the definition of omniscience says otherwise. God cannot be omniscient part of the time since that would defy the definition of omniscience.

    I don’t see your point. It is still up to God to choose what he does with the knowledge.

    Sure but then he wouldn’t be omniscient.

    But again God does know because that is what it means to be omniscient.

    It is highly questionable that I could feel any different if God chose not to know something or not. Your statement appears pointless.

    But yes it must. If the outcome of an event is known in advance then the event must have been predetermined. It is very simple inescapable logic. The real issue is what mechanism was at play to cause the event to be predetermined so that knowledge of this event would be available before it occurred. This is part of a longer argument that shows that omniscience is impossible.

    But that will be an illusion if all your actions have been predetermined. You wouldn’t know the difference.

    No, that is an attempt to predict an event, omniscience is perfect knowledge that an event will occur and you will be powerless to change it. Free will is only an illusion and hence cannot exist if omniscience exists. I.e. Free will and omniscience cannot coexist.

    Effective morality requires knowledge of good and bad, and without that knowledge it is unclear what inclinations Adam might have had. And I have already established from Genesis 3:7 that Adam did not have that knowledge before he ate from the tree.

    There are two types of “doing wrong”, the first is because of simple ignorance with no deliberate intention to do wrong (an accidental wrongful act), and the second is a deliberate choice to do wrong. The first can certainly occur if one does not have a clear moral sense or simply cannot tell the difference between good and bad which was the case for Adam and Eve. The second, deliberate choice is reprehensible and most likely worthy of corrective action.

    In the Adam and Eve story Adam innocently ate the apple because he did not understand it was wrong, he could not have had any comprehension that disobedience was a bad thing since at that time he had not acquired the knowledge of good and evil, as we see from Genesis 3:7. But God in his apparent stupidity chose to believe that Adam had disobeyed him deliberately and proceeded to severely punish him. That is grossly unjust.

    How, when he couldn’t have understood them?

    Why not? If he was inherently sinful as has been suggested then he is clearly imperfect. If he is perfect then that implies perfect decisions. Jesus has also been described as perfect, so using your reasoning Jesus being perfect does not mean he will make perfect decisions.

    And the critical issue is whether he chose bad deliberately knowing it was bad, or was it an entirely innocent action out of ignorance?

    No, it is simply a direct contradiction.

    Agreed, but normal people do not produce children who are classified as perfect, unlike Adam, in which case your analogy does not apply to Adam.

    But it was a choice out of ignorance as to whether the choice was good or bad. Punishment for a non-deliberate act is unjust.

    Clearly it wasn’t just a symbol, see Genesis 3:7 again which shows it gave Adam the knowledge of good and evil. It also seems true that God used it to test Adam, but the test was very unfair since Adam could never understand that he should not disobey until he actually disobeyed and ate the fruit – it’s a catch-22 and Adam was in a no-win situation.

    No – he did not understand morality or that it was wrong to disobey at that time.

    Naturally since he had no knowledge of good and evil and was equally incapable of appreciating good as he was of appreciating bad.

    Yes indeed, but to be effective one must understand the differences between good and bad.

    Yes we are but that is a different issue and outside of the Adam and Eve myth.

    Except that he would not be able to understand them without appropriate knowledge of good and evil.

    We know because we have the knowledge of good and evil unlike Adam.

    Or that God is really the true evil force in the universe. Or that God simply does not exist and that evil is the temporary inevitable result of a new and rapidly evolving self-aware species.

    Kat
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2004
  8. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    It's as plain as the nose on your face.
    try to join the letters to make word's, and then sentence's, and then paragraph's etc etc.....as I have said before, It's a wonder that you have enough braincell's to walk.
     
  9. Laser Eyes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    92
    Katazia,
    I think we need to discuss the basic things first and see if we can agree on those things before going on to minor points.

    Let's deal first with Adam's condition before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam did not need to eat from any tree to gain a sense of right and wrong He had an inbuilt sense of morality just as we do. The Bible tells us that God's law is written on our hearts. (Jeremiah 31:33) When God created Adam he placed within him a moral code of right and wrong. The reason we know that certain conduct such as serious crimes are wrong is because God has written his moral laws on our heart. Even people who grow up isolated from others know that certain conduct is wrong. They know this not because they learned it but because God's moral laws are inbuilt within us.

    Adam knew it was wrong to disobey God before he ate from the tree. As you correctly point out it would be grossly unjust to punish Adam with death unless Adam fully understood that he was obliged to obey God and what death would mean for him. If you accept that God is a just and reasonable God then it must follow that Adam understood what death would mean for him and he understood his obligation to obey God's command.

    How did Adam learn about death? Well before Eve was created God and Adam were together in Eden. Adam and God communicated and God taught Adam like a father teaches a son. God could have personally imparted to Adam the meaning of death. In addition, unlike Adam the animals did not enjoy everlasting life. They grew old and died. Adam saw what death meant from watching animals die. The Bible doesn't say how long Adam was alive before Eve was created but it may have been years.

    Now let's deal with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was just another tree like any other in the garden. It possessed no special characteristics. It was not magical. Eating from it would give Adam no special knowledge. It was just another fruit tree. God needed to test Adam's obedience and he chose to use a tree for that purpose. He could have picked anything. God could have told Adam not to swim in a particular pool or not to do something else. The tree was a symbol of Adam's acceptance of God's authority. God called it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it represented God's right to determine what was right and wrong conduct. That is a right God reserves to himself. The name fit the purpose.

    Now let's deal with what happened to Adam when he ate from the tree. There were serious immediate consequences for him. When Adam ate from the tree he rejected God's authority and chose to determine for himself what he could and couldn't do. Adam decided to be his own god. Adam damaged himself when he disobeyed God. Eating from the tree did not provide any new knowlege to Adam but a whole new mental condition existed after Adam sinned. He would have had intense feelings of guilt and shame. He had done the wrong thing and he knew it. Just like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Adam and Eve had lost their innocence. That is what is meant in Genesis 3:7 when it says, "the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked". Young children have innocent minds and don't know they are naked. They have no concept of shame, no embarrassment. Adam and Eve now had guilty minds, just like we can see a criminal today display a consciousness of guilt.

    This is the most important thing that we can discuss. If you start off with a belief that God is an evil monster it will taint every other Biblical question you discuss. Can you tell me why you think God is "a sadistic murderer", "a sadistic monster" and "the real evil"?

    Omniscience is just a word in the dictionary that we have given a certain meaning. Who are we to say what the nature of an omniscient God should be? You have said that an omniscient God knows all things that will happen in the future and he must have this knowledge and can not choose not to know something. I have said that God can choose to know anything that will happen in the future or not at his discretion which is actually more powerful than your definition of omniscience. So if God is more powerful than your definition of omniscient then how would you define him? Super-omniscient perhaps?

    It was not inevitable that Jesus would remain obedient to God. Jesus had free will just like Adam did. However from their long association God was no doubt supremely confident that Jesus would remain loyal to God. In Matthew 4:1-11 we are told that Satan tempted Jesus to be disloyal to God and bow down to Satan. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin then Satan was just wasting his time which is not likely. Satan knew that Jesus had free will and it was at least theoretically possible that Jesus could sin. But unlike Adam, Jesus rejected Satan's attempt to lead him into disloyalty to God.

    This time I think you need to make a choice. Either there is a God or there is not. Which is it?
     
  10. Katazia Black Mamba Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Laser Eyes,

    The apologetics approach you are taking presents some fundamental problems. The action of rationalizing the bible, i.e. making something inherently irrational appear rational, makes it difficult to see what was intended literally or what is symbolic. It also tends to miss the big picture. For example the Adam and Eve story in any respect cannot be seriously believed as factual. We know the earth was not created in 6 days and we know that all life, including man evolved from simpler forms. We also know that a sense of morality (knowledge of good and evil) is obtained as we grow from childhood to adulthood via education, parents, environment, and real world experiences. We learn directly what works and what does not and that leads us to develop rational morality that largely we all understand. Genetics also plays a variable role for many people; with some having a propensity for altruistic deeds while others tend towards more selfish actions.

    What you are doing is taking the framework of the A&E myth, and selectivity rationalizing the awkward parts, and hence changing the story to suit your fantasies. Since you have no factual basis only your imagination then you can construct any interpretation you desire and irrationally call it truth. Taking the A&E myth as literal and exploring its transparent paradoxes is fun but really the entire story is an imaginative fantasy and discussing what imaginary characters said and when and what they meant can only be a game since all of it is fantasy.

    Of probably more interest is the origination of the A&E myth and this link certainly shows where it probably came from, especially the tree of life concept and the Christ concept where there is a filter to a godly father figure.

    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-August/008063.html

    But the A&E myth as portrayed by Christianity mentions two trees; the other one that we haven’t discussed is the one that gives immortality. But both trees are introduced at the same time as if they are considered with equal weight as special trees. This is again inconsistent with your rationalization that the tree of knowledge was not special but only there as a test for Adam, and that eating the fruit did not endow any type of special knowledge. What then could we say about the tree of life? Earlier myths showed that early man believe that eating special fruits of the gods would indeed endow them with special abilities. In the Christian variation this became knowledge of good and evil and immortality. From the context of the original myth these actions and the result were intended to be literal. But could we treat the tree of life as symbolic? It wasn’t banned so it wasn’t a test. One would assume that if Adam ate from it then he would achieve immortality, i.e. that the fruit gave him that property. But I can also see how the tree of life can be interpreted as symbolic provided one sees most of the A&E story as symbolic and not literal.

    But if the A&E story is simply plagiarized from other earlier myths as it certainly appears then what is the justification for a savior and the basis of Christianity? The specific idea is that Adam sinned (disobeyed God) and because of that he and all of mankind were condemned to death and that set the scene and justification for the need of a savior, and voila in walks Jesus. In essence the literal story of A&E has to be factual to justify Christianity.

    However the Catholic Study Bible asserts:

    All of Genesis 1-11 treats the creation of the world and the first events of human existence without any historical concreteness. ... Genesis 1-11 is almost entirely based on the myth genre.


    Adam and Eve's story can be no more historically true than the creation of the universe in six days, according to Genesis, or in the year 4004 B.C., according to James Ussher's Genesis-based calculation in 1650 A.D. Augustine put the age of the world at less than 6,000 years. If Adam and Eve are themselves fictional characters in a mythical allegory, the events of their lives -- including their fall from grace -- are equally fictional. Thus, there cannot be a hereditary original sin because there never was, in reality, a "fall" by any human person on which to predicate such a punishment. The reality of sin in the human condition does not authenticate the fanciful myth of disobedience to an explicit command personally delivered by God to the first humans. http://users.owt.com/stoffels/genesis.htm

    How do you rationalize and justify the need for a savior and Christianity when the A&E story is a myth?

    Your question can’t be serious, is it? I see no reason to believe that things such as gods exist, or need to exist.

    Kat
     
  11. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    You didn't answer my question.

    What evidence do you have that ONLY the offspring of A&E had conscience?
     
  12. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    First the part of imagination:
    You say it covers the whole bit, why so? Even though he didn't know right from wrong, all that's left doesn't have to be imagination (the tendency to stop where there are still a way out are making you think so).

    We have belief, we have logic (which you trust so much - though it was by logic they were deceived), we have insight, we have feelings (other feelings that is), we could still have the feeling that God is superior to us and know that His word is above all.

    Though Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, they weren't children, I took children as a obvious example of how humans would be if they didn't know right from wrong, a grown up that doesn't know right from wrong could still have the other abilities fully developed.

    They didn't have a sense of right and wrong, good or evil, but still they could do right or wrong, good or evil. They still could by faith in God choose to trust Him.

    Next, the way they knew God was right:
    No one can tell by a person if that person is good or evil deep down. Not even by eating from the tree of Knowledge. We know by the persons actions against us and against others. We can also get to know a person by discussing with him. Your children surely realised you were right after they had burnt themselves. Though they wouldn't play with matches if you didn't tell them not to. You are mistaken if you think your children doesn't know what they are doing (every child does more or less). Those that really doesn't know what they are doing, would do equally bad as good things. Though your child/-ren maybe (this is all speculations, I know nothing about your children so don't take this the wrong way) was acting through such a innocent thing as curiousity, they were still deceived through it. They should have trusted you.

    We have a clue from the Bible though. Adam knew that none of the animals that God presented before him, would do as a helper to him. Thus Adam had a common-sense. Adam knew something, he wasn't only acting through irrationality, he still had a understanding of how things were, allthough he didn't have a sense of good and evil. He wasn't blind. If they didn't eat the apple of Knowledge, they would still see the world as it is. Though their eyes opened so that they saw a flawed world. Is that really the world - as it is?

    God made everything perfect (though God is good alone). By our own actions we became imperfect simply because our eyes were opened to deceit and evil. Evil would have no method against us if we trusted God. Evil wouldn't be evil if it didn't have a method to carry out it's evil.

    To all this comes that Lucifer were (or still is) God's finest angel, but no one is good except God, and that little bit of impurity that Lucifer had, deceived him into going against God. It would have no power over Lucifer if Lucifer didn't choose to follow it.

    If they trust the wrong person, then I still think that they have a feeling that they did something wrong. I still think they feel as if they are letting you down. I can only take from my own experiance that when I have trusted the wrong people when I was a child, I had a feeling that I was disobeying my parents or other people that I trusted - though I still choose to trust the wrong people. I didn't choose to trust my own feelings but rather choose to overcome them. Note that this wasn't at all about fear of what could happen, but it was more like a feeling of breaking someones trust. A sadness.

    I don't know what Adam and Eve felt when they broke the word of God. But I guess that it was similiar to that.
     
  13. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    If A&E knew good from evil,(conscience) before they had eaten,of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
    then what was the point of the tree, in the first place.
    so therefore they could not of had a conscience, before they ate of the tree could they. even your christian brother, Cyperium understands that.


    Cyperium.
    Kat say’s it best in her post a few above this and this is part of it
    I quote

    The action of rationalizing the bible, i.e. making something inherently irrational appear rational, makes it difficult to see what was intended literally or what is symbolic. It also tends to miss the big picture. For example the Adam and Eve story in any respect cannot be seriously believed as factual. We know the earth was not created in 6 days and we know that all life, including man evolved from simpler forms. We also know that a sense of morality (knowledge of good and evil) is obtained as we grow from childhood to adulthood via education, parents, environment, and real world experiences. We learn directly what works and what does not and that leads us to develop rational morality that largely we all understand. Genetics also plays a variable role for many people; with some having a propensity for altruistic deeds while others tend towards more selfish actions.

    What you are doing is taking the framework of the A&E myth, and selectivity rationalizing the awkward parts, and hence changing the story to suit your fantasies. Since you have no factual basis only your imagination then you can construct any interpretation you desire and irrationally call it truth. Taking the A&E myth as literal and exploring its transparent paradoxes is fun but really the entire story is an imaginative fantasy and discussing what imaginary characters said and when and what they meant can only be a game since all of it is fantasy.

    So though I like the debate, we will never agree.
    all power to you, for your belief’s.
     
  14. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    You are mistaking me. I didn't make any assertion, I just asked you a question.

    Do you have any evidence that they were not given a conscience at creation from the Biblical text, or are you just making a guess from the name of the tree?

    I know you are just making an inference, but some evidence from the text is required, don't you think?
     
  15. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    firstly you should read through the post's on this thread

    Genesis, chapter 2

    16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
    17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Adam had no understanding of good or evil, or why it was wrong, and what dying was as no one had died before. therefore would not know fear, of god or anything else.) if he had a conscience then what was the point of the tree, in the first place.

    Genesis, chapter 3

    1: Now the serpent was more subtle (why had this creature eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was it wiser the man . “NO”) than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
    2: And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
    3: but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"(as she had never seen death, either she also would not understand the problem.)4: But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.

    it's quite simple to understand.
    is'nt it.

    anyway as the book is pure fantasy, it's pointless for me to use text to prove my point is'nt it

    SO HERE'S ME BEING POINTLESS.
    BYE MR AMOEBAMAN(southstar).
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2004
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I can't believe this is still going on. And that Southstar is still saying that the bible doesn't say what it says. Egads. The abilities of some not to see.

    The bible clearly says that when A&E ate from the tree their eyes were opened. That they were granted the knowledge of good and evil. I'm not going to quote any because they've been quoted ad nauseum already. And are passed off as nothing by those who wish to not see what it says.

    I think this is a very interesting trend. A&E is the creation story of the bible. It is imperative that it is true (obviously from the desperate attempts to back it up by some) else all else falls apart. We've got a winner with this argument. Too bad doublethink is so easily achieved. It shows the inherent uselessness of debating faith with logic. Faith transcends logic. It even transcends literacy. It transcends time, comprehension, and knowledge. It transcends good and evil. Nothing can beat faith, because faith allows nothing but faith to exist. It is pride embodied. Pure and simple. Amazing, the psychology at work here. Amazing and sad.
     
  17. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    I can't believe this is still going on. And that Southstar is still saying that the bible doesn't say what it says.
    neither can I, hence why I've renamed him amoebaman.
     
  18. greywolf The Hellbound Hellhound. AWOOO Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    i,ve been loosly following this thread for a few days now and im just curiouse as to how many christians actualy belive this is how mankind started?
     
  19. the preacher fur is loose 666 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    start a poll and seem, it may be interesting flat earth society, and all that.
     
  20. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Dear Cyperium,

    The Greek Philosophical view of Religion sees God as Omnipotent, which forces away Free Will and locks in a Pre-Determined Future. It is almost like the Greeks conceived of a God which their next generation of Philosophers could easily poke holes in. They created a Religion easy for their own Atheists to disprove.

    The Revealed Religion of the Semites, though, is not of the Greek persuasion. We can suppose that God created a COMPLETE Universe, with all the psychological types. Souls would be free to either approach God or retreat from Him -- to obey or rebel. It was not up to God -- it was always our choice. Still is.
     
  21. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    the preacher:
    I won't irrationally call this truth, cause it is my belief and allthough I believe that in some aspects it is true, it's still my belief and not truth.

    I understand why it's hard to believe that the earth was created in 6 days but as others have said this may be a relative time, and also it was used so that the people at that time would have work on all days of the week and a break on sundays - when God rested. So it's more than just revealing the truth about how the earth was created, the truth were revealed in such a way that it had a meaningful lesson embedded in it. Cause every word in the Bible can be used as teaching and guidance and all sorts of things, it isn't just a matter of expressing what happened, it's also about giving lessons of how to live...it doesn't help us much to know how the earth was created, it's all going to end anyway, the Bible tries to teach us a way of life. The teachings are allways true, but the real truth behind the words can only be seen through the holy spirit, and can not be achieved using human understanding cause it wasn't made by human understanding. Besides even at that time they wouldn't have used a talking snake if they wanted the story to be easy to believe, they could have written it in another way. That they instead used a talking snake indicates that there are more to it than is seen by the naked eye.

    You've probably heard this before, but it doesn't take away it's credibility, God is above time, thus 7 days may be true in a way that we can't understand, but was used merely as a way to teach us a ... working schedual? Giving reasons why we should follow the rules that existed, it's much easier to follow a rule that you can understand.

    People yesterday isn't dumber than people today. Though people today constantly fails to understand that. But I must say that if I didn't know about dinosaurs and found a sceleton, I would also invent rather imaginative theories and speculate on the origin and what it would have looked like. They did the same then as we do now, they just didn't have enough tools. But the same people today could still find ways to link that to God, cause what matters is that God made everything, and thus there is a story that relate everything to God. They would still suspect that there is a path that links everything.

    I don't think that we can come to a agreement either, cause after all we have different belief-systems. Don't think though that I don't feel that what I believe in is the truth - I just can't tell anyone else that it is the truth, cause it's only by my own belief that I believe it's true. You say it's all a story, I say it's not. That we can agree on. But even though you believe that it's only a story, you should understand that there are important values teached in the Bible. But people see what they want to see, it's allways been that way, that doesn't mean that what they see isn't the truth though.


    Leo Volont:
    I can see what you mean about a predetermined future, and that it takes away free will. But God is above time, and past and future is...not easily understood by human from a godlike perspective. Thus free will could be achieved in a predetermined future, cause time may not be the way we think of it. Our soul may also be above time, so I'm not sure how it works but I still think that free will is an option

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (found pun afterwards, I like it when that happens)

    The real choice is whether we should choose or not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2004
  22. Laser Eyes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    92
    Katazia,

    Silly me thought you were someone actually trying to learn the truth about the world and have a serious discussion. Now I find out you actually have a completely closed mind on the subject. You refuse to accept even the possibility that God exists or that the history of the world recounted in the Bible might be true. So what was the point of the discussion? You could have just told me in the beginning: "I do not believe such a thing as God exists, the Bible is not God's word, Adam and Eve are mythical figures and nothing you say is going to make any difference to what I believe."

    I don't really mind that you made me spend my time and energy writing out all my above posts. The information is there for all to see and there might just be one open-minded person who starts thinking along the lines of "Could there really be something to this story?" And I don't blame you for your beliefs. I used to be a hardcore atheist for many years. I used to strongly believe that there was no such thing as a God, that man evolved from simple animals and that the Bible was just a book of fiction written by men.

    What is most interesting however is that you apparantly have a strong need to try and disprove the Adam and Eve story and also that you assert that God (who you don't believe exists) is "a sadistic murderer", "a sadistic monster" and "the real evil". If you absolutely believed that there was no such thing as a God and that the Adam and Eve story was pure fiction then you wouldn't feel the need to vilify God or denigrate the Adam and Eve story. I suspect that you use the notion of an evil God to convince yourself that there is no God. If God is evil then you don't have to deal with him. It is a simple way of avoiding the issue.
     
  23. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Still, as soon as you fix a pre-determined future with the premise that God is All Powerful, you automatically open yourself up to the Atheist Charge that God is responsible for all of the World's Evil. Why go there by guessing that there is some Higher Truth over Free Will?

    Besides, all the talk that Time is a 'Real' Dimension only emphasize that it is 'real' in the mathematical sense. As far as 'Real' meaning what can be seen and touched, the Past is gone, and the Future has not happened yet. The only thing that is Real, is the Moment. The Past may leave a trail of evidence, but the Future unknowable in every way, except in the sense that we know which direction we are going. As the Mariners say, "we are steering by our wake"
     

Share This Page