| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 06:48:01 AM |
| Object: |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God =3D Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning. And he
knew, at the beginning, that if people did not accept that he would do
something so utterly ridiculous, he would have to cast them into hell
where they would weep and gnash their teeth in a lake of fire forever.
All this to please his own fragile ego, apparently.
This is the most ridiculous concept I have ever been asked to accept,
and I don't accept it. I cannot accept that an all knowing, all
perfect, all good God would be such a sadistic idiot. Apparently
Christians can.
God sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy his anger and human beings
for being exactly the way he created them to be and for being exactly
the way he knew they would be from the beginnning of time. And yet God
now threatens to torture people for eternity if they don't believe that
he is stupid enough to do something like this.
It constantly amazes me that Christians can pretend that this makes
some kind of sense.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath ! (Author unknown)
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
17 Apr 2005 09:20:10 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:30:53 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:35:07 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:56:32 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:04:46 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:54:48 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:33:17 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:05:55 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:57:59 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:00:32 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:43:26 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:33:02 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No.
Yes. I am in pain; ergo I suffer. You have nothing to refute
that with.
I don't have to, because I'm in pain also, and I do not suffer.
That's good for you. I, OTOH, suffer. So you can't refute that.
It's called "1st person ontology and subjective experience".
Since I'm not the one who suffers, why do I have to refute anything?
Because you claim that it is never the case that natural pain
will be natural suffering/always the case that natural pain and
natural suffering are different. I, however, gave you a
counterexample.
According to your experience, pain is suffering.
Yep.
According to my
experience, pain is not always suffering.
I reject your experience.
Why?
Because it's different from mine. And that's PRECISELY the key
wrt 1st-person ontology. We can see that someone has a broken bone,
but we can't feel that pain because it is that person's alone.
Similarly....
I agree that I can not feel your pain, but I disagree that you are
unable to take the pain without the feeling of suffering.
I disagree with your disagreement.
Pain is to
the body. Suffering is to the mind.
Nope. Pain and suffering are to both.
Pain is suffering only when
sin is involved.
Pain and suffering are the same. No sin is involved.
That does not explain why there are people who can take a lot of pain
without the feeling of suffering.
They do suffer; they just put it off.
The fact they can "put it off" shows they are not really in the state
of suffering.
Non sequitur.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Did that a long time ago.
You know, if you use too much imagination, you could find yourself
becoming a theist one day.
You didn't really just type that, did you?
What's your problem?
No problem at all; you just admitted that god is all in your
imagination.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you most certainly did. "If you use too much imagination"
-->if you daydream a lot or start living in a fantasy world "you could
find yourself becoming a theist one day" ---> you could start
believing that fantasy is true.
You are as usual misinterpreting what I say.
Nope. You are trying to weasel out of what you said. You realize
that I have the correct explanation and you just fucked yourself over.
I was only stating a fact that theists often have a lot of creative
imaginations than the atheists.
Yes--they imagine that there is a god.
You admitted that god is pure fantasy.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did.
That's your imagination.
Nope; it's your own words.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 03:43:07 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:18:24 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters.
And there are people in this world suffering because of
natural disasters; you admit that. Ergo, suffering is not always
caused by sin.
Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
Then sin caused the tsunami.
You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Either sin caused the
tsunami, in which case you're a complete whackjob, or sin did not
cause the tsunami, in which case suffering isn't tied to sin.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself.
Yes, you have.
I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural.
Sorry, but that's self-contradictory.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 11:34:56 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
news:tu0r51pc76rr7ifrft8qnv513iuuheig7e@4ax.com:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:18:24 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Either sin caused the
tsunami, in which case you're a complete whackjob, or sin did not
cause the tsunami, in which case suffering isn't tied to sin.
He's a complete whackjob.
--
DWA should be a felony.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 09:10:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:43:07 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:18:24 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters.
And there are people in this world suffering because of
natural disasters; you admit that. Ergo, suffering is not always
caused by sin.
Natural disaster is the external condition. Sin is the internal cause.
Both of them can affect the suffering, but sin is the determining
factor.
Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
Then sin caused the tsunami.
No, sin caused the suffering which is also aggravated by the tsunami.
You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Either sin caused the
tsunami, in which case you're a complete whackjob, or sin did not
cause the tsunami, in which case suffering isn't tied to sin.
Sin did not cause the tsunami, but it did cause the suffering after
the tsunami.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself.
Yes, you have.
I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural.
Sorry, but that's self-contradictory.
I think I have explained it before. What is the contradiction?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
14 Apr 2005 04:04:48 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:10:08 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:43:07 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:18:24 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters.
And there are people in this world suffering because of
natural disasters; you admit that. Ergo, suffering is not always
caused by sin.
Natural disaster is the external condition.
....which causes the suffering.
Sin is the internal cause.
Then sin caused the tsunamis.
You can't have it both ways, Eric. You have to pick one or the
other.
Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
Then sin caused the tsunami.
No,
Yes. You can't have it both ways.
sin caused the suffering which is also aggravated by the tsunami.
And if the suffering didn't exist before the tsunami?
You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Either sin caused the
tsunami, in which case you're a complete whackjob, or sin did not
cause the tsunami, in which case suffering isn't tied to sin.
Sin did not cause the tsunami,
Then natural disasters can cause suffering, which means that
sin isn't the only cause of suffering.
but it did cause the suffering after
the tsunami.
Prove it.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself.
Yes, you have.
I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural.
Sorry, but that's self-contradictory.
I think I have explained it before.
You tried and failed.
What is the contradiction?
Read what I have written.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
09 Apr 2005 08:17:31 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:09:42 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a
delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of
its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before they
ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit, they had
no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after they ate the
fruit, they became like God and were able to judge good and evil all
by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you loon,
she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible decision as
evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree.
Yes, it does.
All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
Gen 3:22 makes it clear that they had no sense of good and evil
prior to that. Are you saying that the bible is wrong?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
10 Apr 2005 05:23:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:17:31 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:09:42 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a
delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of
its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before they
ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit, they had
no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after they ate the
fruit, they became like God and were able to judge good and evil all
by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you loon,
she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible decision as
evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree.
Yes, it does.
Then you contradict with Gen 3:6.
All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
Gen 3:22 makes it clear that they had no sense of good and evil
prior to that. Are you saying that the bible is wrong?
You are not looking at the story in its full picture. You pick a
single verse and ignore the rest.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
10 Apr 2005 03:49:46 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:17:31 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:09:42 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a
delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of
its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before they
ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit, they had
no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after they ate the
fruit, they became like God and were able to judge good and evil all
by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you loon,
she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible decision as
evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree.
Yes, it does.
Then you contradict with Gen 3:6.
"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." (Genesis 3:6)
Nothing here about good or evil, just that the food was "pleasing to the
eye" and "desirable for gaining wisdom".
Try again.
All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
Gen 3:22 makes it clear that they had no sense of good and evil
prior to that. Are you saying that the bible is wrong?
You are not looking at the story in its full picture. You pick a
single verse and ignore the rest.
Projecting much?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
10 Apr 2005 08:32:33 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:17:31 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:09:42 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a
delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of
its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before they
ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit, they had
no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after they ate the
fruit, they became like God and were able to judge good and evil all
by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you loon,
she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible decision as
evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree.
Yes, it does.
Then you contradict with Gen 3:6.
Nope. You contradict Gen 3:22.
All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
Gen 3:22 makes it clear that they had no sense of good and evil
prior to that. Are you saying that the bible is wrong?
You are not looking at the story in its full picture.
Yes, I am. And in that story ONLY ADAM is told not to eat the
fruit because ONLY ADAM was extant when god said anything about it.
Also in that story, it is made quite clear that neither adam nor eve
knew how to discern right from wrong until they ate the fruit.
You're picking a single verse and ignoring the rest.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
08 Apr 2005 09:22:20 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to
eat from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his
hand and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living
for ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil, but they never had any
problem to *know* good and evil. And the proof of that is Gen 3:6
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a
delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of
its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before they
ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit, they had
no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after they ate the
fruit, they became like God and were able to judge good and evil all
by themselves.
Therefore, the ability to judge good and evil is not essential to know
good and evil. In fact, it's an extra which only brings sorrow to
life. That is why the Bible teaches us not to judge.
The reason the Bible tells us not to judge is so that some priest can
usurp that power for himself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
Gen 3:6 just says that she knew that god said it was wrong.
But she didn't know that it was wrong. She was just repeating
something that god said, but it meant nothing to her, as she hadn't
eaten the fruit yet and gained the ability to discern right from
wrong.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
08 Apr 2005 01:08:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Gen 3:6 just says that she knew that god said it was wrong.
But she didn't know that it was wrong. She was just repeating
something that god said, but it meant nothing to her, as she hadn't
eaten the fruit yet and gained the ability to discern right from
wrong.
Well, the fact that God warned them not to eat from the tree of
knowledge shows they did have the ability to know what is right and
what is wrong to certain extent. Otherwise, God wouldn't warn them.
In fact, I think even a dog has certain ability to know right and
wrong. Are you saying originally God created Adam and Eve with the
kind of intellectual ability that was less than a dog?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
08 Apr 2005 05:33:32 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right or
wrong?
Gen 3:6 just says that she knew that god said it was wrong.
But she didn't know that it was wrong. She was just repeating
something that god said, but it meant nothing to her, as she hadn't
eaten the fruit yet and gained the ability to discern right from
wrong.
Well, the fact that God warned them not to eat from the tree of
knowledge shows they did have the ability to know what is right and
what is wrong to certain extent. Otherwise, God wouldn't warn them.
In fact, I think even a dog has certain ability to know right and
wrong. Are you saying originally God created Adam and Eve with the
kind of intellectual ability that was less than a dog?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
09 Apr 2005 04:09:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
09 Apr 2005 06:28:11 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6f515qbienmtcv0io9b6qum9sbh74o2d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his
hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
I fail to see why anyone would willingly do wrong if they belive it is not
right. Unless of course they did not have free will.
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
10 Apr 2005 05:23:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:28:11 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6f515qbienmtcv0io9b6qum9sbh74o2d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his
hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
I fail to see why anyone would willingly do wrong if they belive it is not
right. Unless of course they did not have free will.
On the contrary, no one would do anything wrong if there is no free
will. It's because people believe they have their own free will, they
try not to follow God's will in order to serve themselves instead.
That's why free will is not a good thing.
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
10 Apr 2005 04:38:05 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9vh51lfb8cnu7tvf5v5j2mt56vuhnc1mm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:28:11 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6f515qbienmtcv0io9b6qum9sbh74o2d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve
to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one
of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his
hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living
for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying
that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right
or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
I fail to see why anyone would willingly do wrong if they belive it is not
right. Unless of course they did not have free will.
On the contrary, no one would do anything wrong if there is no free
will.
I see, free will means you are free to avoid doing good becase you are
motivated to do otherwise.
because people believe they have their own free will, they
try not to follow God's will in order to serve themselves instead.
That's why free will is not a good thing.
If it is not a good thing then why does god include it as part of our
reality? You have contradicted yourself. Not only that, if free will is not
a good thing then we are better off without it right? That way we don't
loose the possibility of getting to heaven where god wants us.
You need to go take a course in critical thinking. Or maybe you have but
skipped out to go to church.
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
11 Apr 2005 06:21:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:38:05 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9vh51lfb8cnu7tvf5v5j2mt56vuhnc1mm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:28:11 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6f515qbienmtcv0io9b6qum9sbh74o2d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve
to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one
of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out his
hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living
for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit, they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying
that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right
or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
I fail to see why anyone would willingly do wrong if they belive it is not
right. Unless of course they did not have free will.
On the contrary, no one would do anything wrong if there is no free
will.
I see, free will means you are free to avoid doing good becase you are
motivated to do otherwise.
Free will means you are free to set up your own standard for good/evil
other than following the common God's standard for good/evil.
because people believe they have their own free will, they
try not to follow God's will in order to serve themselves instead.
That's why free will is not a good thing.
If it is not a good thing then why does god include it as part of our
reality?
No. I always credit Satan for giving us the deception of free will.
God only gave us his good will for us to follow. God never has to
confuse us by giving us two conflicting wills. If you recognize God's
will is from God, you should know free will is not from God based on
simple logic.
You have contradicted yourself. Not only that, if free will is not
a good thing then we are better off without it right?
Right.
That way we don't
loose the possibility of getting to heaven where god wants us.
Right again.
You need to go take a course in critical thinking. Or maybe you have but
skipped out to go to church.
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 05:33:45 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:7emk51915imsgfsrb44st28borg4oacrl2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:38:05 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9vh51lfb8cnu7tvf5v5j2mt56vuhnc1mm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:28:11 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6f515qbienmtcv0io9b6qum9sbh74o2d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:s1id51to2gh6ckpc44cso6ppjafskajeoc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:31:37 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:17:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:09:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:57 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:09:12 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:nqf951t8bgjsh7hsrfv579jakjbklup5co@4ax.com:
Obviously, it was our own choice. Nobody forced Adam and Eve
to
eat
from the tree of knowledge.
The fable is flawed. A & E had no knowledge that they were
doing
wrong
before they ate.
Not true. They knew it was wrong, but they couldn't resist the
temptation.
Nope. Gen 3:22 makes it perfectly clear that they didn't know
that it was wrong.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, *Now the man has become like one
of
us, having knowledge of good and evil;* and now if he puts out
his
hand
and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living
for
ever.
Strange. Are you sure it's Gen 3:22?
Yep. I highlighted the relevant part. The part where god says
that as a result of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve *NOW* know good
from evil. The implication is that *BEFORE* they ate the fruit,
they
*DIDN'T* know good from evil.
They might not know how to judge good and evil,
No, they didn't know, period. Gen 3:22 makes that clear.
So, since they didn't know how to judge right from wrong, they
had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.
I disagree. Not knowing how to judge right from wrong does not
necessarily mean not knowing right from wrong.
Can you provide another example of such a thing? Is that like saying
that
its ok to drive through a green light but not ok to drive through a
red
light but I am color blind so I don't know if what I am doing is right
or
wrong?
Using your example, simply obeying the traffic rule shows we know
right from wrong. When we use color blind as an excuse to break the
traffic rule without being punished, it shows we not only know right
from wrong, we also know how to manipulate it for our own benefit.
That is the difference I am trying to point out.
I fail to see why anyone would willingly do wrong if they belive it is
not
right. Unless of course they did not have free will.
On the contrary, no one would do anything wrong if there is no free
will.
I see, free will means you are free to avoid doing good becase you are
motivated to do otherwise.
Free will means you are free to set up your own standard for good/evil
other than following the common God's standard for good/evil.
If god permits this freedom why is it bad?
because people believe they have their own free will, they
try not to follow God's will in order to serve themselves instead.
That's why free will is not a good thing.
If it is not a good thing then why does god include it as part of our
reality?
No. I always credit Satan for giving us the deception of free will.
Then why did god include Satan as part of our reality?
God only gave us his good will for us to follow. God never has to
confuse us by giving us two conflicting wills.
Appartently God has had no hand at all in preventing confusion.
If you recognize God's
will is from God, you should know free will is not from God based on
simple logic.
I didn't realise that logic could be so simple.
You have contradicted yourself. Not only that, if free will is not
a good thing then we are better off without it right?
Right.
That way we don't
loose the possibility of getting to heaven where god wants us.
Right again.
When why did god give us free will?
You need to go take a course in critical thinking. Or maybe you have but
skipped out to go to church.
Tom
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
