Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Jollybear]

I mean seriously, just how is it possible that you have survived this long with an intellect that would make most squid look like Rhodes scholars?

Day after day, you go into excruciating detail to describe just what an absolute failure as a rational being you are, blissfully unaware of how ridiculous everything that comes out of your keyboard sounds. And then you point at these steaming piles of intellectual manure and say, "See? How do you respond to THAT, huh??" as if any other response other than hysterical laughter would be appropriate.

I just picture you standing there all proud of what you have produced, acting like you've just authored the special theory of relativity, when in fact it's just another milestone on your road to present yourself as the most intellectually stunted human that has ever lived.

Yeah, I know. Rule 1 or whatever. Go ahead, moderate it. I'll come back later and write a real response, if I can muster up the intestinal fortitude to face with a straight face and good intentions another round of gibberish that would in any other context be ascribed to the random typing of a retarded chimp.

That was buetifully poetic

I know you mentioned rule 1, dont worry, i wont report it. For the record, i have never reported any past posts you made to me or any other. Just so your aware. Any warnings a mod gave you, was not due to me reporting. Just so you know. Perhaps it dont matter, but, just so you know anyway.

Actually, Jesus never mentions Adam and Eve by name. The only time that He ever said ANYTHING that could be in reference to Adam and Eve is reported in Matthew 19:4and Mark 10:8 when Jesus is answering a question about divorce. In the Greek text, He called them "the male" and "the female," and in English the sentence is usually translated "He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female," or, "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Jesus is basically just saying that human beings come in two sexes, so they are intended to be together--He's certainly not asserting that Adam and Eve were real people.

I would like to address this.

We know from these passages jesus is referring to adam and eve from THE BEGINNING. How do we know this? Because he directly quotes parts in genesis related to adam and eve. Lets go over it.

"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ (genesis 5:2) 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’(genesis 2:24) So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Ill just quote the two verses in genesis to show the verbatum quote.

Gen 5:1-2 "1This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Manki

Gen 2:24-25 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

 

[Vaderecta]

That was buetifully poetic

FYI he said this: I mean seriously, just how is it possible that you have survived this long with an intellect that would make most squid look like Rhodes scholars?

He or she is not worth the time right now. They need to grow up. I know you might feel like you can educate them and maybe in a few years this Axe Elf is going to grow up but it is going to take some time. Ad Hominems are worthless arguments.

 

[nPeace]

Good question. I agree that Adam and Eve were unable to discern between good and evil until after they are the forbidden fruit. It wasn't called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for nothing, after all! Because they didn't have this knowledge until after they ate the fruit, I don't believe they can be said to have sinned.

I believe it was for disobedience (which Adam did not perceive as sinful). If a mother tells a two-year-old child not to touch the hot stove top and the child does anyway -- I mean, the bright glowing red color is so enticing! -- is the child actually being sinful or just disobedient? I don't believe the child has the capability to understand that its a sin to not "honor thy father and thy mother" but he does know what "Don't touch!" means. God told Adam not to eat the fruit of one tree and He also told him what the consequences would be if he disobeyed. When Adam disobeyed, the consequences were real and they were just.

Can you please explain how it is Adam and Eve were unable to discern between good and evil until after they are the forbidden fruit, and how you determine that after eating they could then discern?
From the account, God gave them instructions with the expectation that they understood that he was telling them what was good.
Eve acknowledged that she understood those instructions.
If Eve did not discern good and bad, how was she deceived?

Apparently, you seem to believe Adam was like a child, unable to understand what his disobeying would mean. Am I understanding you correctly? Yet the Bible says 1. Adam blamed the woman (Genesis 3:12), and. 2. Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

Adam understood that his maker had given him what was good. He saw this firsthand. In fact, when he was given a companion like himself, he became the first poet (He didn't rhyme too well, but I am sure he wasn't too concerned about that). Genesis 2:23

What is your opinion... do you think Adam understood what it meant to go contrary to his maker's instructions? Did Adam have a law written on his heart? I believe he did. Romans 2:12-15

 

[Jollybear]

FYI he said this: I mean seriously, just how is it possible that you have survived this long with an intellect that would make most squid look like Rhodes scholars?

He or she is not worth the time right now. They need to grow up. I know you might feel like you can educate them and maybe in a few years this Axe Elf is going to grow up but it is going to take some time. Ad Hominems are worthless arguments.

I totally agree ad hominums are worthless arguments. And i dont welcome or agree with him calling me these things, but, i know he cant help it, so, i just decide to give a nonchalant response. Just for the heck if it.

 

[nPeace]

These are great questions.

No, not villains at all IMO. Won't answer all at this time, might get too lengthy. Certainly much will be personal viewpoints but a great possible interaction of thoughts.

I think God knew that it was going to happen.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I think the potential is that God knew all along and had already made provision for the fall.

your view?

Hi Ken, I was planning on creating a thread on the "foundation" of the world, but for now, I would not mind hearing what you believe the "foundation" of the world is.

 

[Axe Elf]

Ad Hominems are worthless arguments.

I totally agree ad hominums are worthless arguments.

It's not intended to be an argument, it's catharsis. I mean seriously, have you read his posts? It's clear that any rational argument is worthless, so naked ridicule is the only appropriate response.

 

[Vaderecta]

It's not intended to be an argument, it's catharsis. I mean seriously, have you read his posts? It's clear that any rational argument is worthless, so naked ridicule is the only appropriate response.

If you are ever inspired to ridicule others to prove your point you are showing a weakness in the way you see yourself and not them.

If you need to talk let me know.

 

[Jollybear]

It's not intended to be an argument, it's catharsis. I mean seriously, have you read his posts? It's clear that any rational argument is worthless, so naked ridicule is the only appropriate response.

You cannot claim "rationality" for yourself whilst spewing off irrational ad hominums. It dont work that way. Rationality is not a claim, but a demonstrated action, which your action has defied it.

If you find it deficult to address the reasonable arguments i made, also, how then can you claim rationality?

However, ill give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you take a deep breath, think it through, then respond, usually then some rationality comes forth. But even then, IF YOUR wrong, no matter what you do, rationality cannot stand by you.

Also, vaderecta thinks you need to grow up. Im not gonna talk for him, but it appears he dont agree with your approach at a minimum.

 

[Axe Elf]

If you are ever inspired to ridicule others to prove your point you are showing a weakness in the way you see yourself and not them.

Yeah.... um, no.

Amateur psychology aside, this is about a severe deficiency in his ability to reason--not only unrecognized on his part, but actively flaunted--and nothing more.

And like I said, I'm not ridiculing him to prove my point--my point has already been proven (he just doesn't know it). I'm ridiculing him because at this juncture, it's the only rational response--and let's face it, it feels awfully good.

 

[Jollybear]

Yeah.... um, no.

Amateur psychology aside, this is about a severe deficiency in his ability to reason--not only unrecognized on his part, but actively flaunted--and nothing more.

And like I said, I'm not ridiculing him to prove my point--my point has already been proven (he just doesn't know it). I'm ridiculing him because at this juncture, it's the only rational response--and let's face it, it feels awfully good.

You havent proven your point YET because i still have pending questions you have not answered yet.

 

[Vaderecta]

Yeah.... um, no.

Amateur psychology aside, this is about a severe deficiency in his ability to reason--not only unrecognized on his part, but actively flaunted--and nothing more.

And like I said, I'm not ridiculing him to prove my point--my point has already been proven (he just doesn't know it). I'm ridiculing him because at this juncture, it's the only rational response--and let's face it, it feels awfully good.

That is not a good response, and I don't take sides. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere really. It is showing sides of you both of you would probably want to work on. My offer to talk is always open though for both of you. Try to get along.

 

[Axe Elf]

You cannot claim "rationality" for yourself whilst spewing off irrational ad hominums.

Watch me.

Rationality is not a claim, but a demonstrated action

If a tree is rational in a forest, and no one wants to hear it, is it still rational? You wouldn't recognize a rational argument if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

If you find it deficult to address the reasonable arguments i made, also, how then can you claim rationality?

Who said I found it difficult? I defeated your positions quickly and effortlessly. Now I'm just expressing frustration at your dimwitted inability to recognize defeat and ridicule of your quixotic insistence that your position is still defensible.

However, ill give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you take a deep breath, think it through, then respond

There's a nonzero chance that might happen at some point, but for tonight, you're just going to be an object of ridicule.

But even then, IF YOUR wrong, no matter what you do, rationality cannot stand by you.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about that. It's not even a remote possibility.

Also, vaderecta thinks you need to grow up. Im not gonna talk for him, but it appears he dont agree with your approach at a minimum.

He's entitled to his opinion, so long as it's not irrational.

 

[Axe Elf]

You havent proven your point YET because i still have pending questions you have not answered yet.

Questioning the law of gravity as you leap from the Eiffel tower will not prevent you from plummeting to your death.

Your position is no longer tenable, no matter how much you protest.

 

[Axe Elf]

That is not a good response

Opinions vary.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere really.

You are correct in that regard, and I don't believe I have portrayed it in any other way.

My offer to talk is always open though for both of you.

We're talking, aren't we?

 

[Vaderecta]

Opinions vary.

You are correct in that regard, and I don't believe I have portrayed it in any other way.

We're talking, aren't we?

I think you caught my vibe.

 

[Jollybear]

Watch me.



If a tree is rational in a forest, and no one wants to hear it, is it still rational? You wouldn't recognize a rational argument if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.



Who said I found it difficult? I defeated your positions quickly and effortlessly. Now I'm just expressing frustration at your dimwitted inability to recognize defeat and ridicule of your quixotic insistence that your position is still defensible.



There's a nonzero chance that might happen at some point, but for tonight, you're just going to be an object of ridicule.



Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about that. It's not even a remote possibility.



He's entitled to his opinion, so long as it's not irrational.

So are you entitled to your irrationality ad homs?

Is vaderecta irrational in saying you need to grow up? Is he irrational in saying you should not use ad homs? Is he irrational in saying "that is not a good response"?

 

[Vaderecta]

So are you entitled to your irrationality ad homs?

Is vaderecta irrational in saying you need to grow up? Is he irrational in saying you should not use ad homs? Is he irrational in saying "that is not a good response"?

Reply to your own post.

 

[Jollybear]

Reply to your own post.

Im just responding to his statement to me about you.

"He's entitled to his opinion, so long as it's not irrational."

So, im trying to get him to be consistent, thats also a hallmark of rationality, which he says he lives up to, but its not showing.

I get what your trying to do too, its put out the fire here and what im doing is throwing logs on it.

I gauss my log throwing is due to really wanting to understand him and get him to be accountable.

 

[Vaderecta]

Im just responding to his statement to me about you.

"He's entitled to his opinion, so long as it's not irrational."

So, im trying to get him to be consistent, thats also a hallmark of rationality, which he says he lives up to, but its not showing.

I get what your trying to do too, its put out the fire here and what im doing is throwing logs on it.

I gauss my log throwing is due to really wanting to understand him and get him to be accountable.

I get you might be emotional. We are typing words on a forum on the internet. No immediate threats are present. Relax. We are all people typing words. Think about the words you want to use and not about how you think people should be or how they are acting. Remember all these random people typing are people. Not bots yet I hope. (RF is pretty good about that) This is some random person you might be sharing lunch with. They may have even made your lunch. Who knows?

 

[Jollybear]

I get you might be emotional. We are typing words on a forum on the internet. No immediate threats are present. Relax. We are all people typing words. Think about the words you want to use and not about how you think people should be or how they are acting. Remember all these random people typing are people. Not bots yet I hope. (RF is pretty good about that) This is some random person you might be sharing lunch with. They may have even made your lunch. Who knows?

This is true, nomatter how little i understand someone, or see them being unaccountable, i cannot control that, i can just control me how i respond to it or accept it and let it go. Very true.