Total Posts:176|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Set Man Up For Certain Failure

dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 12:30:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

Wow - absolutely profound! Never thought of this angle, but so true.

The LORD god mentioned as such in Genesis 2 seems to have a personality clash with God in genesis 1 anyhow. Also the accounts of the creation of mankind differ greatly. Genesis 1 says God created man AND woman on the 6th day and rested on the 7th. In Genesis 2 we get the control freak LORD god and his manipulative tendencies creating man. Could the God in Genesis 1 still be resting?
Genesis 2:3-4 seems to suggest God is resting, when the LORD god makes his presence known on earth.

"3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"

Or did Christ represent him as the 8th day and we are approaching the 9th? Not trying to derail your OP, just wanted to touch on these things.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 2:55:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I've asked several Christians how it was fair for God to judge Adam and Eve for doing something wrong when then had no knowledge of right and wrong in the first place. I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation. In fact, none of them would even admit it was unfair in the first place.

The whole story is ridiculous. God created everything, put them in that position, knowing full well how it would all go down because he's omnipotent, let it play out, then punished these unwitting creations for doing something they could not have known was bad. To top it all off, their disobedience doomed the rest of mankind by bringing sin into the world, which means the rest of us were, through no fault of our own, made unworthy of entering heaven by default. Yet we're supposed to worship God and consider him our savior for not sending us to the hell he himself created. Yeah, he sounds like a great guy.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:22:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:30:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

Wow - absolutely profound! Never thought of this angle, but so true.

The LORD god mentioned as such in Genesis 2 seems to have a personality clash with God in genesis 1 anyhow. Also the accounts of the creation of mankind differ greatly. Genesis 1 says God created man AND woman on the 6th day and rested on the 7th. In Genesis 2 we get the control freak LORD god and his manipulative tendencies creating man. Could the God in Genesis 1 still be resting?
Genesis 2:3-4 seems to suggest God is resting, when the LORD god makes his presence known on earth.

"3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"

Or did Christ represent him as the 8th day and we are approaching the 9th? Not trying to derail your OP, just wanted to touch on these things.

Yes, there are two distinct creation accounts in Genesis probably stemming from separate sources and/or traditions. That aspect is not really relevant to my post. I know you aren't deliberately setting out to derail this thread but I suggest it might be better to start another thread if you want to pursue such a discussion. Thank you.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:30:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

She couldn't know wrong because your god denied her that knowledge and then punished her for not having that knowledge.
Seriously, how stupid can people be?
What a loving god has to do just so he can slaughter his son at a later date.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:31:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

Did Eve know what was meant by "die"?
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:44:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 2:55:50 AM, Cryo wrote:
I've asked several Christians how it was fair for God to judge Adam and Eve for doing something wrong when then had no knowledge of right and wrong in the first place. I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation. In fact, none of them would even admit it was unfair in the first place.

The whole story is ridiculous. God created everything, put them in that position, knowing full well how it would all go down because he's omnipotent, let it play out, then punished these unwitting creations for doing something they could not have known was bad. To top it all off, their disobedience doomed the rest of mankind by bringing sin into the world, which means the rest of us were, through no fault of our own, made unworthy of entering heaven by default. Yet we're supposed to worship God and consider him our savior for not sending us to the hell he himself created. Yeah, he sounds like a great guy.

I think you meant omniscient.

And there I was thinking that I might have come up with something original. :-)
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 7:49:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.
Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong. The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.
Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.
Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are. The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.
The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledg
False premise... ,
then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.
Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.
The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 9:49:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 6:31:36 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

Did Eve know what was meant by "die"?
The Bible doesn't get into detail as to what had been explained to her about death, but I think it's safe to say she must have had an idea judging from her conversation with the serpent. I don't think the serpent would have placed so much emphasis on not dying if Eve didn't know it was not an ideal situation.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 9:56:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 9:49:46 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 6:31:36 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

Did Eve know what was meant by "die"?
The Bible doesn't get into detail as to what had been explained to her about death, but I think it's safe to say she must have had an idea judging from her conversation with the serpent. I don't think the serpent would have placed so much emphasis on not dying if Eve didn't know it was not an ideal situation.

Possibly. I don't know if you have read any of the "Death before the Fall" thread, (link below), but there, some theists are postulating that death was unknown before the fall.
http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 6:50:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong. He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 10:22:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 9:56:32 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/29/2016 9:49:46 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 6:31:36 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

Did Eve know what was meant by "die"?
The Bible doesn't get into detail as to what had been explained to her about death, but I think it's safe to say she must have had an idea judging from her conversation with the serpent. I don't think the serpent would have placed so much emphasis on not dying if Eve didn't know it was not an ideal situation.

Possibly. I don't know if you have read any of the "Death before the Fall" thread, (link below), but there, some theists are postulating that death was unknown before the fall.
http://www.debate.org...
I haven't read from that thread, but I think the concept of being commanded not to partake of certain fruit is what many need to get around, as opposed to distinguishing between knowledge through instruction, and knowledge through experience.

Sort of like a child seeing a bowl of fruit with apples, pears, bananas, and oranges. And the mother tells the child they may eat any of the fruit on that bowl except the oranges. That would be an unusual scenario for us to grasp. It's a matter of trusting the severity of the command by God to Adam and Eve.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 10:36:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 6:50:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong. He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

But does he stop banging the secretary? Or does he close his eyes to do it?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 11:01:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 10:36:08 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 6:50:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong. He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

But does he stop banging the secretary? Or does he close his eyes to do it?
I don't know.

But I can safely say life is full of "trust me....do not evers". I shouldn't really say the OP is absurd. It's just that I've seen it a number of times, and I think the problem is that the passages are equated to someone purchasing a household appliance, and the customer being told by the sales clerk not to touch the instruction manual. I think that's where a number of people are missing it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 11:56:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 7:49:06 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.
Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong.

I think there is ample reason, that is why their behavior altered after they ate of the fruit, the Bible literally states "and their eyes were opened".

The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.

Sure. But, so what? If you don't know what is "wrong" as well, it doesn't really matter.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are. The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.

Um... what? Sorry, man, this word salad doesn't pass for a rebuttal.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledg
False premise... ,

Axiomatic: that was the point of the Tree- it would grant knowledge after eating, else such a tree would serve no purpose, the eaters of said fruit would not gain anything.

then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.

Well, so far you have yet to offer a convincing rebuttal, so...

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.

Ipse dixit ad Hom, and you're done, thanks for playing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 11:58:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 7:49:06 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong.

Yeah, there is. If they already knew good from evil, right from wrong, then why bar them from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Do you really understand logic?

The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.

What? You are incoherent.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are.

Lol. I haven't reached any conclusion here, only presented support for my reasoning earlier. There is only one logically inept idiot on display and it isn't me. Are you still pretending that you understand logic?

The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.

Again, wtf? You make no sense whatsoever.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge ...

False premise... ,

It isn't false unless you can show it is false. Asserting it doesn't count.

... then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.

Nothing intelligible here. I have no idea what "inapable" means.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.

You have nothing cogent to say. I wonder why you even bother posting.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 12:04:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

Bear in mind, whenever you say "know its wrong", you are assuming something Eve didn't have the capacity for.

I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong.

-=buzzer=- No, no he doesn't He has been told he shouldn't, that is where it ends. "Know its wrong" comes from eating of the tree.

He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

That is not the knowledge of good and evil, though. That is the knowledge of consequences for actions. Bear in mind, there is no example here. There is no learning from a previous relationship, there is no guide lines. It is one person's proclamation, there is no "moral conundrum" for Adam and Eve, that would inherently suppose that there was such thing as knowing better; they didn't.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 12:35:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 6:50:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:25:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.

I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

Um, what? That's nowhere near my argument. I didn't say anything about "better". My point is that God set up Adam and Eve for failure since the test of obedience he devised was rigged. I thought I had made that clear.

I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong. He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

I've bolded the part you need to understand. Eve could not know what was wrong until she ate from the fruit. This is where your analogy fails and why Eve was caught in a losing dilemma.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

The analogy fails in every way. Henry knows right from wrong even if he has never experieced remorse. The latter is not the issue. As an adult, Henry would be fully aware of the consequences of infidelity. He goes into it with his eyes wide open that it is morally wrong, unlike Eve who had no such prior knowledge.

Whether Henry suddenly develops a conscience after the fact is neither here nor there. He had the requisite knowledge of right and wrong to avoid an extra-marital affair. Eve was denied such knowledge. All she had was a directive with no basis for her to judge its moral worth. When given conflicting information from another source she had no ability to weigh up the two alternatives and make the correct moral decision. Therein lies the problem.

Btw, your example is not even based in reality. Few men feel remorse when cheating on their wives until they are caught out. :-)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 1:18:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
It's worse than that, I believe. Even if they knew it was wrong, it was still God's will. What variables determine the difference between an obedient Adam and Eve and a disobedient Adam and Eve? Any such (e.g. personal nature, cognitive decision-making processes, spiritual being) are defining variables of which Adam and Eve had zero control over or input on. Ignoring God's alleged infinite wisdom for a moment, He is necessarily responsible for the existence of the state of these variables (as the creator) and, as such, is wholly responsible for the outcome of these variables.

Even if one considers a "free will" defense, here, such a cognitive operability must also necessarily be created by God and if disobedience is included as a possible outcome by design, then disobedience is clearly an intended outcome of the creation. If one desires outcome X and does not desire outcome Y, one does not design a system that potentially produces either X or Y. In reconsidering God's infinite wisdom in this context, X would have to be disobedience while Y was obedience. Or else, God just made a mistake... one that Adam and Eve were punished for.

And even if this disobedience wasn't within His will, it's been shown that God has no qualms about killing everyone that is necessary to start over if the creation is displeasing (the Flood). God could have instantly vaporized them (or drowned them if He preferred) and tried again. The possibilities are endless.
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 2:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 1:18:18 PM, Chaosism wrote:
It's worse than that, I believe. Even if they knew it was wrong, it was still God's will. What variables determine the difference between an obedient Adam and Eve and a disobedient Adam and Eve? Any such (e.g. personal nature, cognitive decision-making processes, spiritual being) are defining variables of which Adam and Eve had zero control over or input on. Ignoring God's alleged infinite wisdom for a moment, He is necessarily responsible for the existence of the state of these variables (as the creator) and, as such, is wholly responsible for the outcome of these variables.

Even if one considers a "free will" defense, here, such a cognitive operability must also necessarily be created by God and if disobedience is included as a possible outcome by design, then disobedience is clearly an intended outcome of the creation. If one desires outcome X and does not desire outcome Y, one does not design a system that potentially produces either X or Y. In reconsidering God's infinite wisdom in this context, X would have to be disobedience while Y was obedience. Or else, God just made a mistake... one that Adam and Eve were punished for.

And even if this disobedience wasn't within His will, it's been shown that God has no qualms about killing everyone that is necessary to start over if the creation is displeasing (the Flood). God could have instantly vaporized them (or drowned them if He preferred) and tried again. The possibilities are endless.

You'll confuse the poor dears. I've tried to keep it simple but even then they struggle.

Roderick is finding it hard to understand that if you have no knowledge of right and wrong then you can't possibly determine if an action is wrong. If he can't grasp this then he will suffer apoplexy when he sees your post. :-)
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 2:49:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM, RoderickSpode
I doubt that you have children but if you do are those children innately obedient or is obedience something you've taught them?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:39:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 11:56:58 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 7/29/2016 7:49:06 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/29/2016 12:19:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.
Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong.

I think there is ample reason, that is why their behavior altered after they ate of the fruit, the Bible literally states "and their eyes were opened".

The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.

Sure. But, so what? If you don't know what is "wrong" as well, it doesn't really matter.
Wrong, you're arguing from post fall knowledge and claiming it had to be present pre fall.
You're asserting that pre fall you have to know right from wrong in order for both to be experienced. If there is no wrong possible, then you do not have to know there is wrong.
Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are. The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.

Um... what? Sorry, man, this word salad doesn't pass for a rebuttal.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledg
False premise... ,

Axiomatic: that was the point of the Tree- it would grant knowledge after eating, else such a tree would serve no purpose, the eaters of said fruit would not gain anything.
Right, they gained the ability to "act evil". They lost the ability to make only right choices.(do only good things). Eating the fruit resulted in them "knowing good and evil" but not knowing how to process evil itself. That's why they felt shame in their nakedness. There's a grammatical way of looking at the phrase "became as Gods knowing "good and evil". It could be argued the specific order of the words good and evil was that it simply adds knowing evil while already knowing only good. Knowing they were naked and thinking something was wrong with it, I.E. feeling shame of their nakedness, resulted in them acting out because of this shame by covering themselves. (This was their first evil act on their own without being deceived) Eve was deceived which resulted in her eating the apple because prior to eating the fruit Eve was unaware of there being an evil thing known a deception. This establishes they only knew good and could only do good prior to eating the fruit. God doesn't tell them that eating the fruit results in them knowing good and evil he tells them if they eat of it they will surely die.
then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
He merely tells them if they eat of it they will surely die. They still don't know of evil yet.
However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.
No moral judgement was made. God simply telling them not to eat of it because they will surely die could have simply meant to Adam and Eve that that particular tree had bad fruit that wasn't consumable.
Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.

Well, so far you have yet to offer a convincing rebuttal, so...

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.

Ipse dixit ad Hom, and you're done, thanks for playing.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.
Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong.

I think there is ample reason, that is why their behavior altered after they ate of the fruit, the Bible literally states "and their eyes were opened".

The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.

Sure. But, so what? If you don't know what is "wrong" as well, it doesn't really matter.
Wrong, you're arguing from post fall knowledge and claiming it had to be present pre fall. You're asserting that pre fall you have to know right from wrong in order for both to be experienced. If there is no wrong possible, then you do not have to know there is wrong.

There is wrong possible, though. Adam and Eve couldn't tell you which was which before eating the fruit, though.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are. The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.

Um... what? Sorry, man, this word salad doesn't pass for a rebuttal.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledg
False premise... ,

Axiomatic: that was the point of the Tree- it would grant knowledge after eating, else such a tree would serve no purpose, the eaters of said fruit would not gain anything.

Right, they gained the ability to "act evil".

They already had that. Disobeying God directly could be construed as Evil, and that is exactly what they did. Clearly, they didn't "gain" that ability.

They lost the ability to make only right choices.(do only good things). Eating the fruit resulted in them "knowing good and evil" but not knowing how to process evil itself. That's why they felt shame in their nakedness. There's a grammatical way of looking at the phrase "became as Gods knowing "good and evil". It could be argued the specific order of the words good and evil was that it simply adds knowing evil while already knowing only good. Knowing they were naked and thinking something was wrong with it, I.E. feeling shame of their nakedness, resulted in them acting out because of this shame by covering themselves. (This was their first evil act on their own without being deceived) Eve was deceived which resulted in her eating the apple because prior to eating the fruit Eve was unaware of there being an evil thing known as deception.

That is the point of the OP! You literally just conceded that Eve would not know what a lie is, she would be unaware of it when presented to her, all after vehemently claiming the OP is illogical.

This establishes they only knew good and could only do good prior to eating the fruit. God doesn't tell them that eating the fruit results in them knowing good and evil he tells them if they eat of it they will surely die.

Hence the setup.

then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
He merely tells them if they eat of it they will surely die. They still don't know of evil yet.
However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.
No moral judgement was made. God simply telling them not to eat of it because they will surely die could have simply meant to Adam and Eve that that particular tree had bad fruit that wasn't consumable.

And then deception was employed, something they had no idea as to how to reconcile, and... they were therefore set up for failure. x2 concessions in one post. Love it.

Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.

Well, so far you have yet to offer a convincing rebuttal, so...

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.

Ipse dixit ad Hom, and you're done, thanks for playing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 7:18:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 6:23:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.
Non sequitur......theres no logic in claiming they didnt therefore know right from wrong.

I think there is ample reason, that is why their behavior altered after they ate of the fruit, the Bible literally states "and their eyes were opened".

The conclusion based on verse is they didnt have the wisdom of knowing good and evil as God does. Actually the conclusion of them only knowing what was right, prior to eating the fruit, follows logically.

Sure. But, so what? If you don't know what is "wrong" as well, it doesn't really matter.
Wrong, you're arguing from post fall knowledge and claiming it had to be present pre fall. You're asserting that pre fall you have to know right from wrong in order for both to be experienced. If there is no wrong possible, then you do not have to know there is wrong.

There is wrong possible, though. Adam and Eve couldn't tell you which was which before eating the fruit, though.
Actually no depending on what you claim wrong means. If wrong is doing evil things, which in this case is the only possible meaning, then they did not know of evil and they couldn't do wrong. The problem here is the order of the words....knowing "good and evil". This can mean the following ,grammatically speaking, if "and" meant in addition to. They knew only good, bit the fruit, they then knew good "and evil". Eve was deceived because she didn't know that doing something was wrong or evil. God didn't specify that eating the fruit was wrong or an evil act or disobeying him. God merely said if you eat of the fruit you will surely die.
Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

Once again non sequitur and wrong like the logically inept idiot you are. The verses clearly shows that being ashamed of your body , their first act after knowing good and evil, resulted in clothing themselves after eating the fruit that made them as gods knowing good and evil. Therefore covering their bodies.,or being ashamed of them, was the first act of wrong that showed a lack of wisdom as to how to interpret good and evil.

Um... what? Sorry, man, this word salad doesn't pass for a rebuttal.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledg
False premise... ,

Axiomatic: that was the point of the Tree- it would grant knowledge after eating, else such a tree would serve no purpose, the eaters of said fruit would not gain anything.

Right, they gained the ability to "act evil".

They already had that. Disobeying God directly could be construed as Evil, and that is exactly what they did. Clearly, they didn't "gain" that ability.
You're putting knowledge before the fruit. Disobeying God is evil. They didn't know of evil until after eating the fruit. The verse never has God saying eating the fruit is disobeying him and it was wrong or evil he merely says do not eat the fruit or you will surely die. They had no concept that disobeying was evil before eating the fruit, therefore they couldn't know it was evil or wrong to eat the fruit. God only tells them do not or you will surely die. There is no basis for claiming they knew wrong or evil before eating the fruit. It contradicts the verse and the story to claim they knew disobeying was wrong or evil. That knowledge only came after eating the fruit. Hence God asks, in a round about way, "who told you thou was naked (the covering of their bodies was their first evil or wrong act). God never says eating the fruit, or disobeying me is wrong or evil. Hence they didn't know what disobeying was just like they didn't know that they could be deceived and and deceiving was wrong. You're adding to the bible by claiming they knew eating the fruit was evil, wrong, or disobeying God.
You're looking at it from your point of view not Adam and Eves.
They lost the ability to make only right choices.(do only good things). Eating the fruit resulted in them "knowing good and evil" but not knowing how to process evil itself. That's why they felt shame in their nakedness. There's a grammatical way of looking at the phrase "became as Gods knowing "good and evil". It could be argued the specific order of the words good and evil was that it simply adds knowing evil while already knowing only good. Knowing they were naked and thinking something was wrong with it, I.E. feeling shame of their nakedness, resulted in them acting out because of this shame by covering themselves. (This was their first evil act on their own without being deceived) Eve was deceived which resulted in her eating the apple because prior to eating the fruit Eve was unaware of there being an evil thing known as deception.

That is the point of the OP! You literally just conceded that Eve would not know what a lie is, she would be unaware of it when presented to her, all after vehemently claiming the OP is illogical.

This establishes they only knew good and could only do good prior to eating the fruit. God doesn't tell them that eating the fruit results in them knowing good and evil he tells them if they eat of it they will surely die.

Hence the setup.

then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
He merely tells them if they eat of it they will surely die. They still don't know of evil yet.
However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.
No moral judgement was made. God simply telling them not to eat of it because they will surely die could have simply meant to Adam and Eve that that particular tree had bad fruit that wasn't consumable.

And then deception was employed, something they had no idea as to how to reconcile, and... they were therefore set up for failure. x2 concessions in one post. Love it.

Inapable, lmfao. Gotta love you logically inept dofusses acting like you know what is a proper deduction.

Well, so far you have yet to offer a convincing rebuttal, so...

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.

The only conclusion is you arent capable of comprehending this so you should give up.

Ipse dixit ad Hom, and you're done, thanks for playing.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 7:28:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/30/2016 7:18:55 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You're putting knowledge before the fruit. Disobeying God is evil. They didn't know of evil until after eating the fruit. The verse never has God saying eating the fruit is disobeying him and it was wrong or evil he merely says do not eat the fruit or you will surely die. They had no concept that disobeying was evil before eating the fruit, therefore they couldn't know it was evil or wrong to eat the fruit. God only tells them do not or you will surely die. There is no basis for claiming they knew wrong or evil before eating the fruit. It contradicts the verse and the story to claim they knew disobeying was wrong or evil. That knowledge only came after eating the fruit. Hence God asks, in a round about way, "who told you thou was naked (the covering of their bodies was their first evil or wrong act). God never says eating the fruit, or disobeying me is wrong or evil. Hence they didn't know what disobeying was just like they didn't know that they could be deceived and and deceiving was wrong. You're adding to the bible by claiming they knew eating the fruit was evil, wrong, or disobeying God.
You're looking at it from your point of view not Adam and Eves.
Precisely, they didn't know how to obey or disobey and didn't understand what consequences were and most assuredly didn't know what dying meant. Your god might just as well have spoken to them in Martian. But he decided to punish his entire creation because they didn't understand Martian.
Now that is STUPID.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 9:49:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:04:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In Genesis it is explained by God that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The clear implication is that Adam and Eve had no inherent ability, as created, to distinguish the two. They were occluded and could not know right from wrong unless they ate from that particular fruit.

Confirmation of this is presented in the fact that they both ran around naked in the garden up until they ate from the fruit. They were not aware of their own nakedness and did not appreciate that it was not a good thing to expose their genitalia to each other and to God. It was only after eating the fruit that they covered up.

The problem is this. If they could not differentiate right from wrong prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? It is a Catch-22. Certainly God admonished them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, they had no way to know that it was wrong to disobey. They were trusting and listened to the snake. That is no fault of their own since they were incapable of forming a moral judgement.

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that God set up man for failure. It was a rigged test. Man could only understand the nature of disobedience if he was aware of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. However, he could only gain that awareness by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God has diddled us.
I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely absurd (although you are giving Chloe a run for her money).

Eve knew full well it was wrong.

Genesis 3New International Version (NIV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


No, that passage only shows that Eve had a memory. Nothing in the passage tells us that she knew it was wrong to disobey God.

It works something like this:

"I was told that if I have sex with other women other than my wife, it will have a negative on my marriage. I'll get a second opinion (my secretary is pleasing to my eye). I'll get the opinion of the president of the the American Swingers Association."

Do you know the difference between right and wrong when you invite those opinions? That is the issue you are ignoring.

Eve was negotiating on what she knew was wrong, deceiving herself into thinking the serpent's opinion might override God's command.

How did she know it was wrong? She hadn't eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet. It's a Catch-22.
I know what you're getting at. I think it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be. But think of it this way.

By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

Bear in mind, whenever you say "know its wrong", you are assuming something Eve didn't have the capacity for.

I'm not assuming anything that I'm aware of. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean?
I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong.

-=buzzer=- No, no he doesn't He has been told he shouldn't, that is where it ends. "Know its wrong" comes from eating of the tree.

I'm talking about Henry in that paragraph. Henry wasn't in the Garden of Eden.
He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

That is not the knowledge of good and evil, though. That is the knowledge of consequences for actions. Bear in mind, there is no example here. There is no learning from a previous relationship, there is no guide lines. It is one person's proclamation, there is no "moral conundrum" for Adam and Eve, that would inherently suppose that there was such thing as knowing better; they didn't.
I didn't say it was the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't get that until after eating the fruit. That does not mean that they didn't know it was wrong to disobey God. A child doesn't understand every "do not that" that their parents tell them. That doesn't mean the child doesn't know it's wrong.

Observe how silly this is.

Adam and Eve are commanded not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden. But if they don't know what God means by that (do not do it), don't you think they would have done it without any coercing from the serpent?

By the way, I'm not exactly sure why, but it looks like comments are in your post that may or may not be for me. I can't tell.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 10:18:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 12:35:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2016 10:12:29 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:


By your rendition, it would have been better for Eve to have eaten the fruit so she would know that it was wrong. However, that would be like saying one should cheat on their spouse to know it's wrong.

Um, what? That's nowhere near my argument. I didn't say anything about "better". My point is that God set up Adam and Eve for failure since the test of obedience he devised was rigged. I thought I had made that clear.

Oh I know that's not your argument. That's my argument.

Your point is that Adam and Eve could not know right from wrong before eating the fruit. Basically God says "Don't do it", and they have no clue what he's talking about. Or "Don't do it" doesn't really mean don't-do-it. Therefore, in order for them to know it was wrong, they have to eat the fruit first, and then get that grand revelation "Oh...I wasn't supposed to do that". Therefore, by your rendition, it would be better for them to eat the fruit so they could understand God's "Do not do that".

Am I wrong?
I'll use a fictitious person named Henry. Henry was told as a boy by his parents never to cheat on his future spouse. That it will bring much pain. Henry had a good relationship with his parents, and always trusted their advise. Henry gets married, and remains faithful to his wife. Henry knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. Does Henry really know the pain and shame of betrayal? No. He doesn't. He has not experienced that pain. He might have an idea what it's like, but he doesn't really know. He just knows it's wrong. He sees that other women are beautiful. The idea of cheating might seem appealing. But he does not know the pain of betrayal until he experiences it.

I've bolded the part you need to understand. Eve could not know what was wrong until she ate from the fruit. This is where your analogy fails and why Eve was caught in a losing dilemma.

I'm sorry, but unless you can prove to me that when Eve made this comment:

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.""

she didn't know it was wrong for her to proceed to eat the fruit, your claim is meaningless.

Do you think you fully understand evil? I would say you know right from wrong relatively speaking. But if you claim to fully understand evil, your proclamation falls further into the pit of invalidity.

After a few years, Henry hires a beautiful secretary. He listens to the advice of a co-worker who says playing around is healthy, and people should experience having sex with other partners. He most certainly will not experience pain. Henry gives in, and has sex with his secretary who has contributed to the temptation. Now Henry knows the pain and shame of betrayal. Breaking a promise and commitment. Now he knows the shame of deceit by telling his wife he was out golfing with the boys when he was in a hotel room with his secretary.

In spite of Henry's new found insight, he wishes he never found out. He wishes he trusted his parents when they told him "do not cheat on your wife". Henry's eyes are now open.

The analogy fails in every way. Henry knows right from wrong even if he has never experieced remorse. The latter is not the issue. As an adult, Henry would be fully aware of the consequences of infidelity. He goes into it with his eyes wide open that it is morally wrong, unlike Eve who had no such prior knowledge.

I know Henry knows right from wrong. And no he would not be fully aware of the consequences. He might be aware of external consequences, but not internal. He can't until he experiences it. One can't explain heartbreak. They can give an idea what it's like. But someone who has never been broken hearted cannot know what it's truly like until they experience it.

Whether Henry suddenly develops a conscience after the fact is neither here nor there. He had the requisite knowledge of right and wrong to avoid an extra-marital affair. Eve was denied such knowledge. All she had was a directive with no basis for her to judge its moral worth. When given conflicting information from another source she had no ability to weigh up the two alternatives and make the correct moral decision. Therein lies the problem.

Yes, she was able to. She weighed the 2 alternatives (eat or don't eat) with her eyes. That's very clear in the passage.

Btw, why do you even make the comment "God set man up for certain failure", when you don't believe God exists? How can God set man up for failure if He doesn't exist?

Btw, your example is not even based in reality. Few men feel remorse when cheating on their wives until they are caught out. :-)
Few men feel remorse when cheating....

There are some men that have become callous to cheating. Like violence, gets easier every time. Some men don't love their wives at all, and so it stands for reason that they wouldn't have remorse. Some couples marry out of convenience, so the man and women may not have remorse. Some couples have open marriages, so they may not have remorse. But this is all irrelevant.

Do you have any stats supporting your specific claim by the way?