Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

Bad analogy. According to the myth the knowledge of Good and Evil is passed down due to the actions of Adam and Eve. A child can know that something is wrong.

A better one would be a where a mother told her kid something that he could not understand and then he did it anyway, resulting in harm to that child. The parent would be in the wrong Worse yet in this case the parent would have to have set something up that he could have easily avoided and did not. For example if the parent put a riding lawn mower in the middle of the house and a child could not understand the dangers of it. If that child started it and injured himself as a result the parent would be to blame, not the child. And if that parent punished that child for that paren't incompetence we would seem him as an evil monster. Sound familiar?

You say a better scenario, but the scene was that God gave Adam and Eve beautiful surroundings, perfect climate, He gave Adam a woman to make him happier. Plus other things. They both chose for themselves. They were competent in their decision. If they were not, you would have a case. They were both capable and competent in making a justified decision. Their consciences bothered them because the Bible says they realized they were naked after that. I thought about that. It's not an easy concept to realize, but in the Genesis account, they wanted to hide themselves from God after they ate. Very interesting and frankly, a wonderful account, even though they cast the world after that in a terrible condition. I appreciate knowing it and thinking about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought that you were complaining about "infinite". How his understanding different from knowledge in this context? He understood what Adam would do. He is still at fault.

It was not an incomprehensible test or too daunting for Adam and Eve to cope with successfully. If that were so, you would be right. Now I have a question for you. Do you think it's a bad thing that we die?

 

[nPeace]

It's interesting that sometimes controlled experiments with pharmaceutical drugs show that some people get better, while some die, seemingly as a result of taking the drug. Science surely is not perfect in application or assumption.

...and honest scientists admit it, but those who desperately cling to their new found faith - Darwinism, aka scientism, go

 

[Subduction Zone]

probability theory?
Who said that? You or I?
It was certainly not I. Keep wishing. Do you have your toes crossed as well? Try going, "Om..................... Om..................... Om" Repeat every 5 seconds.

Sorry, I misread your post.

Let me restate that then. Even if there is "probability" used in the theory of evolution it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that even with DNA matching there is a very tiny probability that a person is not the father based upon DNA only? The fact that the one person knows the other and that some mystery person from somewhere in the world would have had to fly in to knock up the mother trying to make her case allows courts to decide that beyond a reasonable doubt "you are the father!"

All that your arguments show is an inability to understand how science works or for that matter the concept of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". All you have is unreasonable doubt. That is why extremists are not allowed on juries. One side or the other knows that they will not respond correctly to the evidence given.

Now please, no more lies about me. When I make an error I do admit to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not an incomprehensible test or too daunting for Adam and Eve to cope with successfully. If that were so, you would be right. Now I have a question for you. Do you think it's a bad thing that we die?

Obviously that was not the case. They failed. And yes, it is a good thing that we die. Put it this way, if people did not die you would not be here.

 

[Jos]

Can God do things that aren't logically possible?
Logically possible to whom? Humans? No question - absolutely 1 to the infinite power.

Can God destroy Himself or make Himself not omnipotent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting that sometimes controlled experiments with pharmaceutical drugs show that some people get better, while some die, seemingly as a result of taking the drug. Science surely is not perfect in application or assumption.

Now it seems that you do not understand pharmaceutical testing. People do get sick. Sometimes new drugs are developed and tested. It is very rare, but even today some people do die from the use of new drugs. The purpose of testing is to see if the drug works and helps far more people than it harms. Would you rather have a world with no protection at all from diseases? Small pox use to ravage the countryside. The deaths of native peoples in the Americas was due more to new diseases that they could not handle than anything else.

You can't overreact and say "That person died therefore all drugs" or even "that particular drug is bad". One must look at the total good and total harm that a drug can do. Usually if there is any significant harm a drug is rejected or severely restricted in its use. If it has a chance of harming someone, such as chemotherapy and radiation, they are used only in rather extreme cases where the person was going to die without some sort of help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Adam and Eve were not incompetent or incapable of staying away from eating of that tree.

How do you know that? Eve fell for the first line given to her in the myth. She did not seem to be too bright. The same applies to Adam. That they failed so easily tells us that they probably were not capable of following God's orders. And tell me, who created the "Serpent" and allowed it into the Garden in the myth? Was that not God? Are you saying that God was too dumb to realize what would happen?

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, I misread your post.

Let me restate that then. Even if there is "probability" used in the theory of evolution it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that even with DNA matching there is a very tiny probability that a person is not the father based upon DNA only? The fact that the one person knows the other and that some mystery person from somewhere in the world would have had to fly in to knock up the mother trying to make her case allows courts to decide that beyond a reasonable doubt "you are the father!"

All that your arguments show is an inability to understand how science works or for that matter the concept of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". All you have is unreasonable doubt. That is why extremists are not allowed on juries. One side or the other knows that they will not respond correctly to the evidence given.

Now please, no more lies about me. When I make an error I do admit to it.

You call that a probability?
That's compared to my asking someone to make me some ginger tea, and they pinch a grain of ginger, drop it in some water, and call it ginger tea.
1. You are grabbing at straws.
2. The statementS you are making are utterly false and found nowhere but in your mind. That's called wishful thinking.

How much longer are you going to keep up this facade?
It's a boring going-no-where ride, with you trying to support your claims without anything to back up your position.

How about you back up your assertions with something credible, otherwise this see-saw has come to a halt.

 

[nPeace]

Can God destroy Himself or make Himself not omnipotent?

Can an immortal self destruct? Can the beginning and end cease to be?

 

[Jos]

Can an immortal self destruct? Can the beginning and end cease to be?

I guess not. God can't stop being Himself... doesn't that mean that He's a slave to His nature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You call that a probability?
That's compared to my asking someone to make me some ginger tea, and they pinch a grain of ginger, drop it in some water, and call it ginger tea.
1. You are grabbing at straws.
2. The statementS you are making are utterly false and found nowhere but in your mind. That's called wishful thinking.

How much longer are you going to keep up this facade?
It's a boring going-no-where ride, with you trying to support your claims without anything to back up your position.

How about you back up your assertions with something credible, otherwise this see-saw has come to a halt.

No, that was an analogy. If you did not understand the proper thing to do was to ask questions.

And what false statements did I make? Once again by making a claim such as that you put the burden of proof upon yourself. You know that you can't support your claim as usual.

You can keep making false claims up about me. Or you could try to learn. I know what the Christian thing to do would be.

 

[YoursTrue]

How about an apology for your gross error.

Where was his gross error? So far what I've seen from you is a bunch of insulting rather than any type of factual reasoning, even based on the topics at hand.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is usually the Christians that claim their God is omniscient. When that becomes a problem they try to redefine omniscience. One could play the Christian game of pick and choose and find verses that show there are limits to God's knowledge, but you asked for a verse of passage that shows he is omniscient in the classical sense. Here you go:
Psalm 147 4-5 tells you that God's knowledge is infinite.

Not every translation says that, but in this case I don't think that is important. What is important, considering that God's knowledge is infinite does not mean He can choose not to know something in advance. In other words, He can choose not to foresee some things. Although He did say what would happen IF they disobeyed Him.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought that you were complaining about "infinite". How his understanding different from knowledge in this context? He understood what Adam would do. He is still at fault.

Ok, why is God at fault? Because He created them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where was his gross error? So far what I've seen from you is a bunch of insulting rather than any type of factual reasoning, even based on the topics at hand.

That is only because you too keep yourself blind from the fact that the God of the Old Testament is an immoral monster. It is called cognitive dissonance. When a person does such acts you would have no problem calling him out for what he did, but when a person's make believe friend does the same acts they are defended. People that believe in the God of the Old Testament cannot face this conundrum.

Tell me who would be fault here: I have a four year old son let's say. I put a riding lawn mower in the middle of the living room with an electric start with the keys in it. I tell my four year old not to sit on it. I also allow creepy Uncle Bob (who I know has trouble with kids) in my house when I am away. He urges little Timmy to get on the mower and to start it up. Timmy starts the mower and gets hurt. Who is ultimately at fault here? Is it rational to punish Timmy severely, and not only Timmy but any kids that he may have to boot?

 

[nPeace]

I guess not. God can't stop being Himself... doesn't that mean that He's a slave to His nature?

Cool. A happy slave. That doesn't sound too bad.
If you were put in prison (doesn't sound very confined,but...), given a wife, a mansion with all you could wish for, the best free food delivered to you, and the privilege to invite guest, and have gatherings...
would you complain?

The Bible describes Jehovah as the happy God.
1 Timothy 1:11 . . .according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.
Why is he happy?
I can imagine why, but I don't think I would do justice, in trying to explain.
However, perhaps you can see if you can come up with an answer. What is true happiness, and how does one acquire true happiness?
Your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not every translation says that, but in this case I don't think that is important. What is important, considering that God's knowledge is infinite does not mean He can choose not to know something in advance. In other words, He can choose not to foresee some things. Although He did say what would happen IF they disobeyed Him.

So God is willingly ignorant. That is a rather extreme claim that needs more than hand waving. And don't forget, God lied. He specifically said "On that day you will did". Did they die that day? No excuses, no silly claims that cannot be defended. Did they die or did they keep living?

 

[nPeace]

No, that was an analogy. If you did not understand the proper thing to do was to ask questions.

And what false statements did I make? Once again by making a claim such as that you put the burden of proof upon yourself. You know that you can't support your claim as usual.

You can keep making false claims up about me. Or you could try to learn. I know what the Christian thing to do would be.

You keep saying the theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
False statement.
Prove me wrong. Don't just repeat it, or say I am wrong. Prove it.

 

[nPeace]

Where was his gross error? So far what I've seen from you is a bunch of insulting rather than any type of factual reasoning, even based on the topics at hand.

Trust me when I say, you'll be wasting your time, but that's just my opinion.