ramifications of omnipotence for God

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

Did God forbid Adam and Eve from eating of the tree? Yes (the scriptures say that)

---

So? What does that mean to someone who doesn't understand good and evil? Yeah, he said it...but what does it mean?

quote:

---

Did they disobey Him? Yes (the scriptures say that)

---

No, they didn't. Disobedience requires understanding of good and evil, which they didn't have. Did they do what god didn't want them to do? Of course. But disobedience means that you have to have deliberateness and clarity of purpose, which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.If I tell you not to step on the carpet and you trip and fall, stepping on the carpet, did you "disobey" me? Of course not. You didn't actively seek to defy me specifically and directly because I told you not to. That's what "disobedience" means. If you don't understand the concept of "consequences," how on earth can you possibly "disobey" someone?

quote:

---

Why would they not trust there own father?

---

Because you're trying to attribute some concept of deference and "respect for ones elders" that only comes with a concept of good and evil. The onus is on you to explain why on earth they would trust god since they have no reason to do so as they don't understand good and evil.God said you'll die. The serpent said you'll become as gods.How do Adam and Eve decide who to believe without any concept of "good" and "evil" and thus no ability to comprehend things like trust, deference, deception, or trickery?

quote:

---

God did not simply present A&E with choices A & B saying you are free to choose.

---

I never said he did. I simply pointed out that Adam and Eve were incapable of following god's instructions as he wished them to because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Yeah, god said not to touch. So? The serpent said god was full of it. Why should they believe god and not the serpent?

quote:

---

Disobeying God = BAD, Dying = bad.

---

Logical error: Equivocation. You're confusing "bad" meaning "morally offensive" with "bad" meaning "unpleasant." It is "good" to eat something that tastes "bad" if it is "good" for you.

quote:

---

This statement alone proves that God forbid them to eat it.

---

Of course. I never said he didn't. But, that is irrelevant since the problem isn't god's command but Adam and Eve's ability to understand the command. Since they haven't eaten from the tree, they were unable to understand it.

quote:

---

The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God.

---

Says who? Such a story is nowhere to be found in the Bible. You seem to have fallen for Catholic mythology.

quote:

---

(Genesis 3:12,13)"... the woman replied "The serpent it deceived me and so I ate".

---

Precisely: The [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b], not "Satan."Notice, the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] is punished as an animal, not a fallen angel or one possessed by such. As you said yourself, if someone on a horse robs a bank, you don't punish the horse.So why would the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] be punished when the devil is at fault? Are you saying snakes are the offspring of the devil?

quote:

---

Snakes have nothing to do with the devil.

---

But the punishment of the serpent is to have his offspring hated by Adam an Eve's offspring. Are you saying snakes are the offspring of the devil?If snakes are not the offspring of the devil, then what makes you think the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the devil?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Contrary to your carpet illustration, God, was not guarding Adam and Eve with a warning to save them from tripping up, He presented them with a law. It was not just any law, it was God's divine law, and the cost of breaking it was of the highest order(death).This demonstrates that God was ruler and upholder of the highest law. God not only demonstrated that he held full authority on life itself but He also instructed them on the implications of His laws. Adam and Eve faced God law with the full knowledge of it's implication and consequences. Under the circumstances, there are no loopholes or little catch phrases that will change this..So once again...Adam and Eve were instructed on God's laws by God himself. Just as we would be instructed on social laws today, they too were educated and aware of the law and consequences which followed. Having been educated on God's law, they were inherently bound to uphold them in the face the consequences. While you struggle to present loopholes in the arrangement, there is no way around it. They were both well educated(by God himself!) and aware of the implications of their actions.The only defacto, is if we somehow imply that death was not a bad choice. However, the account provided in the scriptures do not support this concept, since it is well indicate that Adam and Eve were both elusive(afraid) in the face of consequence. Pressing further onto matters, what do your beliefs say about God? Are we to assume that the same entity which created the entire universe and all things within was somehow incapable of communicating effectively with His own creations? Why mislead or lie? Furthermore, Why would He play such games, holding back on there education(just enough), only to watch them continue in ignorance? We have no reason or evidence whatsoever to conclude such theories anywheres in the scriptures.In fact, all fingers point in the other direction. God was very masterful in presenting Adam and Eve with freedom of Choice, he did not skimp on any of the good things they had before them. He educated them and provided them with everything they needed to live in eternity in their Paradise Garden. We know this because it has been well documented and written as such.In a case such as this, where one seeks to reason on the Creation account and the fall of man. It is completely irrational to adopt theories which ends up in complete contradiction with the scriptures. Though such cases certainly exist(in the bible). They rarely if ever manifest themselves within the same book, let alone the same chapter.In returning to the original statement, Adam and Eve were left with the power of choice. As educated beings, they made their choices(though for different reasons) and faced the consequences(just as God said). Unfortunately, there are no loopholes or conspiracy theories to be had in this account. It's all there in black and white, plain as day.Edited by pbee, : No reason given.Edited by pbee, : typosEdited by pbee, : No reason given.

PS. I had to cut my last response short.Earth was not merely a proving ground, as part of a humans transition to heavenly existence. It was Satan the Devil, through the serpent, that held out a hope of promotion and exaltation, and the obtaining of godlikeness and immunity from death. The record of his sly enticements and the fall of Adam and Eve is found at (Genesis 3:1,6). However, the results were not as Satan promised. Since God said to Adam that because he followed his wife in disobedience, cursed shall be the ground through him, and that he would suffer in his living from it for the remained of his life. "...since it was from it that you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you must return(Gen. 3:17,19)So instead of humans living on forever as Satan promised, they were to return to the state prior to their creation. Please note that, that state was not immortal soul, *but dust. Adam had no immortal soul before his creation, during his life, or after his death. The false pretense that man has an immortal soul is founded on Satan’s lie to Eve to the effect that she would not die, and contradicts God’s Word.When God created the first human pair, He did so in his image and likeness, with wisdom, justice, love and power(Gen. 1:26). He gave them a moral sense and a conscience, so that they could distinguish right from wrong. He did not owe them anything, but they owed Him a debt of appreciation. As a showing of their appreciation, God commanded them "From every tree in the garden you are free to eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for the day that you eat of it you shall certainly die"(Gen. 2:16, 17.All of God’s work being perfect, Adam and Eve could have obeyed His command perfectly. However, Adam deliberately chose to disobey God and thereby sinned(meaning *to miss the mark), and so was rightfully sentenced to death(1 Tim. 2:14).God declared his law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and bad, making that a forbidden tree. "And He(God) proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it.God laid His command upon Adam saying ..."From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will most positively die"(Gen. 2:15,17)This shows us that Adam was not deprived of anything necessary to him by being barred from eating of this tree, since there was plenty of fine food for him. But God made the simple requirement that he must not eat of this fruit while it was prohibited. As for having knowledge of good and bad, Adam could leave that safely with God without fear of anyone’s accusing him of being ignorant. Actually God allowed Adam freedom of choice, whether he would eat from it or not. God did not tempt Adam to be disobedient or wicked by putting this tree of knowledge in the garden, because there were many other trees to eat from, and God encouraged him to obedience and faithfulness to the supreme God by warning him of the penalty of eating of the forbidden fruit.One of your outstanding arguments seems to revolve around Satan(his origin) and how a perfect creation of God(Angel), could turn away from perfection and bear such a despicable title. We can find the explanation in the words of the king of Tyre; In these scriptures, we can read how the Cherub in Eden developed an impure heart condition and was lifted up with pride at all the wonderful endowments he received from God. He became consumed by this and engaged in a wrongful course. The covering cherub became selfish and wanted to be worshiped just as God was by Adam and Eve. Greedy for selfish gain, he was willing to capture Adam and Eve, take them away from God and give them up into sin for the price of worship of him as god. He did violence to the interests of Adam and Eve by murderously lying to them and leading them into death and the death of their offspring. For this crime the covering cherub, grown proud and selfish, brought destruction upon himself, which was foretold in Ezekiel 28. It was not God who created Satan the Devil. But the cherub himself who independently earned his title as Satan(the opposer of God).Edited by pbee, : typos

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

God, was not guarding Adam and Eve with a warning to save them from tripping up, He presented them with a law. It was not just any law, it was God's divine law

---

I never said otherwise. The part you are overlooking is that it doesn't make any difference. Adam and Eve haven't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus don't understand what that means. Therefore, they cannot be said to be "disobeying" it because disobedience requires the knowledge they haven't acquired yet.

quote:

---

Adam and Eve faced God law with the full knowledge of it's implication and consequences.

---

No, they didn't. In order to have "full knowledge," you have to understand it. Since they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus didn't have any comprehension of of good and evil, they were incapable of having "full knowledge." Oh, they could recite it to you, but that doesn't mean anything.

quote:

---

Pressing further onto matters, what do your beliefs say about God?

---

Since I have yet to say one word about my beliefs regarding god, you're just going to have to remain in the dark about that.

quote:

---

God was very masterful in presenting Adam and Eve with freedom of Choice

---

And yet, he got pissed when they exercised that freedom. That isn't love. That isn't good. That isn't benevolence.That's stalker behaviour.

quote:

---

is completely irrational to adopt theories which ends up in complete contradiction with the scriptures.

---

You mean the scriptures can't possibly be wrong?No wonder we have creationists. When faced with the question of, "Who are you gonna believe: Me or your lying eyes?" they refuse to accept their own observations.

quote:

---

As educated beings

---

Didn't you just say that you aren't supposed to develop a theory in contradiction to the scriptures? You just contradicted scripture. They weren't "educated beings." Instead, they were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

It's all there in black and white, plain as day.

---

Precisely. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet. And to show that they didn't understand what they were doing, the scriptures say, in black and white, plain as day, that they were sinning up a storm and yet nobody seemed to mind. After all, they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

So instead of humans living on forever as Satan promised

---

Huh? Not only wasn't Satan there, but nobody ever told Adam and Eve that they would live forever. God never said one word or the other (but does panic that they might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever, thus hinting that Adam and Eve were going to die anyway) and the serpent simply says that god's threat that they would immediately croak upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge was bogus.And, it turns out, the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] was correct: They ate from the Tree of Knowledge and didn't die. Adam, at least, lives on for nearly a millenium.

quote:

---

All of God’s work being perfect, Adam and Eve could have obeyed His command perfectly.

---

If it were perfect, how could Adam and Eve possibly do anything but obey his command perfectly?Oh, that's right...they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus weren't capable of obeying anything. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.You also seem to be confusing Genesis 1 with Genesis 2. They are not the same story. Genesis 2 is filled with god's mistakes. Hint: Why did Eve come on the scene?

quote:

---

God declared his law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and bad, making that a forbidden tree.

---

So? If you don't understand what that means, what's the point? Adam and Eve, having not eaten from the tree yet, don't understand what that means. Ergo, how can they possibly be accused of disobeying it? Ergo, how can anybody expect them to comply with it?

quote:

---

One of your outstanding arguments seems to revolve around Satan(his origin) and how a perfect creation of God(Angel), could turn away from perfection and bear such a despicable title.

---

Incorrect. It's your outstanding argument. You have confused Catholic dogma with Jewish theology. Again, Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. There was no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written. Therefore, any attempt to claim that the [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] was something other than a [I][B]SERPENT[/i][/b] means you don't understand the text.There is no explanation to be found in the Bible as to where the devil came from. In the Torah, "Satan" is an agent of god, or have you forgotten about Job already?

quote:

---

We can find the explanation in the words of the king of Tyre

---

Ahem.What part of "king of Tyre" do you not understand? This is not a reference to some supernatural being. It's to an actual person. We've already been through this.Hint: When we call a serial killer a "monster," do we really mean that he's not a person?The king of Tyre was a person, not the devil. You seem to have overlooked Ezekiel 28:12 when the Bible directly states that the passage you quoted was directed to the king of Tyre.Are you saying Tyre was ruled by the actual devil and not a person?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Adam and Eve haven't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus don't understand what that means. Therefore, they cannot be said to be "disobeying" it because disobedience requires the knowledge they haven't acquired yet.

​

No, they didn't. In order to have "full knowledge," you have to understand it. Since they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus didn't have any comprehension of of good and evil, they were incapable of having "full knowledge." Oh, they could recite it to you, but that doesn't mean anything.

---

God instructed them on His law by issuing the command "you must not eat..." "... you will most certainly die". Eve demonstrated that she understood when she recited the commandment to Satan in the Garden. We have evidence to show that they understood.Can you provide scriptural evidence to support that they did not understand what God was telling them?

quote:

---

And yet, he got pissed when they exercised that freedom. That isn't love. That isn't good. That isn't benevolence.
That's stalker behavior.

---

The definition of stalker does not fit the account.

quote:

---

You mean the scriptures can't possibly be wrong? No wonder we have creationists. When faced with the question of, "Who are you gonna believe: Me or your lying eyes?" they refuse to accept their own observations.

---

I believe the scriptures to be accurate. I believe it is people who are driven to change them to suit there own needs.

quote:

---

Didn't you just say that you aren't supposed to develop a theory in contradiction to the scriptures? You just contradicted scripture. They weren't "educated beings." Instead, they were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

---

Innocence and education are in no way relative to one another. Since, you can be educated and innocent at the very same time. While it is true that Adam and Eve were both sinnless in the face of God, they were also both aware of God's commandment. They knew what He said and were left with the freedom of choice over it.So contrary to your beliefs, Adam and Eve were very capable of evaluating the right decision.1) Obey God's commandment and live life as He intended.
2) Disobey God's commandment and die, as He commanded.Granted, some people may claim that no.2 was the way to go. However, based on life as we know it, that would be the "bad" choice. Secondly, it was against God's wishes. It was purely out of arrogance that Eve beleived she knew what was better(with a little help).

quote:

---

Didn't you just say that you aren't supposed to develop a theory in contradiction to the scriptures? You just contradicted scripture. They weren't "educated beings." Instead, they were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

---

Your arguement rests on the implication that Adam somehow needed to experience wrong to obey God. However, we have no evidence anywheres past or present to support this. The obedience demanded by God was based on trust. Trust that God knew better. Trust that heeding His laws would benefit them. The scriptures state that Adam was instructed by God on His laws. They also show that Eve was also educated on God's laws(when she recited it to Satan). So I ask, please provide evidence to support your theory that they were not educated or evidence to support the concept that they did not understand God's words?Choosing to beleive that God created human creatures only to find He is incapable of communicating with them is a benign concept. We have no evidence to support such a theory. Only evidence against it.

quote:

---

Precisely. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet. And to show that they didn't understand what they were doing, the scriptures say, in black and white, plain as day, that they were sinning up a storm and yet nobody seemed to mind. After all, they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

---

A sin can only take place in opposition to God's divine law. Where in the scriptures does God issue a commandment against being naked?

quote:

---

Huh? Not only wasn't Satan there, but nobody ever told Adam and Eve that they would live forever. God never said one word or the other (but does panic that they might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever, thus hinting that Adam and Eve were going to die anyway) and the serpent simply says that god's threat that they would immediately croak upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge was bogus.

---

God issued the command saying, if they ate from the tree, they would die. Satan mocked God's command saying "... did He really say that?" - Eve, recited the commandment. On the same day(as stated) of there eating, God came to investigate and sentence Adam and Eve. He handed them a death sentence saying "... in the earth you were taken and in the earth you will return", and cast them out of the Garden.They disobeyed God and God responded *just as He said He would and handing them their death sentence.

quote:

---

If it were perfect, how could Adam and Eve possibly do anything but obey his command perfectly?

​

Oh, that's right...they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet and thus weren't capable of obeying anything. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

​

You also seem to be confusing Genesis 1 with Genesis 2. They are not the same story. Genesis 2 is filled with god's mistakes. Hint: Why did Eve come on the scene?

---

The term perfection does not mean(can do no wrong). For better lack of terms it means in balance. Or complete satisfaction. Under the conditions of *free will. Adam and Eve could *choose to disobey God if they so wanted and is exactly what they did.

quote:

---

Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

---

That's false. Obedience does not require knowledge of good and bad. Obedience can be carried out as an act of Love, Trust and Devotion. In order to impose a law, one only requires to educated those under it. Adam and Eve were both aware of the God's command as the scriptures state.Taking a step further, a Law is issued and upheld by a body of authority. God was that authority. Adam and Eve had every reason to trust God. He was good to them and demonstrated that by all that He had given them. Just as a parent would fully expect there own children to uphold there loyalty in the face of the hard work they provided to them. God wanted Adam and Eve to respect show respect for His efforts.

quote:

---

Why did Eve come on the scene?

---

The fact that God created male and female creature is proof that God knew exactly what He was doing. Do you think He created the entire earth just for one person? No, He placed Adam into the Garden and assigned him a task which would *expose him to the male female concept. This allowed Adam to reach the need on his own, and also allowed God to satisfy that need thus demonstrating His creative qualities and powers to Adam.It was in every sense of the word *the perfect setup.

quote:

---

So? If you don't understand what that means, what's the point? Adam and Eve, having not eaten from the tree yet, don't understand what that means. Ergo, how can they possibly be accused of disobeying it? Ergo, how can anybody expect them to comply with it?

---

Adam and Eve had the capacity to evaluate a good and a bad choice. In this case we are talking 0 and 1. In a case were God offers 99% good and 1% bad, the choice it pretty obvious isn't it? Do good(as I want)... and can will have access to life an everything I have Created in it. Do what I do not like and you will cease to exist(as before).Adam and Eve most certainly knew that dying was bad. We could conclude that they knew what death was by other creature which surrounded them. But... I do not support the theory that animals died in Paradise so we won't go with that.No, the fear of death comes with or without knowledge of death. It comes based on the feeling of loss of all good things dear to us. Certainly, Adam and Eve loved their paradise Eden and each other. Surely the would of put a great deal of emphasis on the future God laid before them.There are other reasons also to justify why Adam and Eve knew what God was talking about. However, this alone is enough to conclude that it was indeed the case. God spoke to Adam and Adam would have understood. God's name(YHWH) alone means "to cause or make to happen". With this in mind, it is impossible to conclude that God would of laid a command before Adam only for Adam to not understand.

quote:

---

Genesis was written by Jews

---

Please provide evidence for this claim.

quote:

---

There is no explanation to be found in the Bible as to where the devil came from. In the Torah, "Satan" is an agent of god, or have you forgotten about Job already?

---

I am writing a rather lengthy document bound for the Angels and Demons topic. In this document, I have covered the implications of Satan, his origin and history. I will post a reference in this thread when it has been submitted.

quote:

---

Ahem.

​

What part of "king of Tyre" do you not understand? This is not a reference to some supernatural being. It's to an actual person. We've already been through this.

​

Hint: When we call a serial killer a "monster," do we really mean that he's not a person?

​

The king of Tyre was a person, not the devil. You seem to have overlooked Ezekiel 28:12 when the Bible directly states that the passage you quoted was directed to the king of Tyre.

​

Are you saying Tyre was ruled by the actual devil and not a person?

---

Your right, the context of Tyre was not a good choice. Not because it does mention an Angel in the Garden of Eden, but because the account would be to demanding to elaborate within the context of this thread. I would like to point out though that, within the words spoken in tht account(by God), that there is mention of a Cherub(Angelic creature) and the Garden of Eden. I also mentions that the Cherub(Angel) was pure in nature and untainted only to deviate into a path of sin and degradation.I will not argue any further on this account(here), however, I leave that with you to ponder over personally.

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

Can you provide scriptural evidence to support that they did not understand what God was telling them?

---

Yes. Over and over again, I have provided it. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet. God tells them back in Gen 2. They don't eat from the tree until Gen 3. After they eat from the tree, god directly states that they "have become" as gods, knowing good and evil.Question: Why would god say they "have become" if they already were?

quote:

---

I believe the scriptures to be accurate.

---

So why do you keep contradicting what they say? You are confusing what people claim the Bible says with what it actually says. People claim that the famous line from Casablanca is "Play it again, Sam." But that line isn't in the film. Mae West never said, "Come up and see me sometime." Carl Sagan never said, "Billions and billions," in Cosmos. Lots of people claim that these things happened and will swear up and down that they did, "I was there and I saw it!"But they're wrong. You can check the film and video and see that they're wrong.The problem isn't the scriptures. It's your interpretation of them.

quote:

---

Your arguement rests on the implication that Adam somehow needed to experience wrong to obey God.

---

Incorrect. My argument rests on the requirement that in order to obey anything, one must UNDERSTAND good and evil. You don't have to do evil to understand it.I've never committed suicide, but I understand that I don't want to commit it.

quote:

---

A sin can only take place in opposition to God's divine law. Where in the scriptures does God issue a commandment against being naked?

---

Have you forgotten Gen 2?

quote:

---

They disobeyed God and God responded *just as He said He would and handing them their death sentence.

---

Except they didn't die as god said they would. God said they would be physically dead by the time the sun set on the literal, physical day they ate of the tree.Instead, Adam (at least) lived on for practically another millennium. Eve lived on to have at least three children, one after her first two had grown to adulthood.

quote:

---

Obedience does not require knowledge of good and bad.

---

Yes, it does.This is the crux of the argument. If we cannot come to agreement on this issue, then there is no point in continuing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why did Eve come on the scene?

---

​

The fact that God created male and female creature is proof that God knew exactly what He was doing.

---

You're confusing Genesis 2 with Genesis 1.Now, answer my question: Why did Eve come on the scene? The Bible says directly why. All you need to do is quote it. And no, it cannot be found in Genesis 1. The answer lies in Genesis 2.

quote:

---

Do you think He created the entire earth just for one person?

---

Then why did he create only a single person? Answer the question: Why did Eve come on the scene?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis was written by Jews

---

​

Please provide evidence for this claim.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Was it written by Christians?

quote:

---

this document, I have covered the implications of Satan, his origin and history.

---

Ahem."Implications" is not the same thing. Yes, there is a lot of mythology surrounding the devil, but none of it is to be found in the Bible. It never mentions where the devil comes from and, in fact, there is no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written."Satan," is translated as "Adversary" and is a servant of god. Have you forgotten Numbers 22:22?Numbers 22:22: And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.The word "adversary" in this verse is the word "satan." This "satan" is an "angel of the lord.""Satan" is not the devil.

quote:

---

I would like to point out though that, within the words spoken in tht account(by God), that there is mention of a Cherub(Angelic creature) and the Garden of Eden.

---

Indeed. It's called a "metaphor." Like I said, when we call a serial killer a "monster," are we really talking about something inhuman? Or is it just a metaphor to describe the actions of someone who has gone beyond the pale?The passage is to rebuke the king of Tyre, saying that he was once exalted but will now be damned. And what more powerful imagery can carry that but to claim that the king of Tyre was once in paradise, nay, not that low but actually so exalted as to be next to god. It's to show the extreme depths that the king of Tyre is about to be brought to. And what does the passage go on to say? That Tyre will be wiped off the face of the earth.Do you not see the dramatic license here?Now, answer the question: Was Tyre ruled by the actual devil and not a person?Oh, by the way...the prophecy of Ezekiel is false. Tyre remains. It's one of the most populous cities in Lebanon.But, again, this entire conversation can be boiled down to a single question:Does obedience require knowledge of good and evil.You seem to say no. I say yes.If we cannot come to terms with this discrepancy, then there is no point in continuing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Yes. Over and over again, I have provided it.
They hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
God tells them back in Gen 2.
They don't eat from the tree until Gen 3.
After they eat from the tree, god directly states that they "have become" as gods, knowing good and evil.

​

Question: Why would god say they "have become" if they already were?

---

After they eat from the tree, god directly states that they "have become" as gods, knowing good and evil.Actually the scriptures do not say they became "as God's" but rather(Between God and Jesus) saying "Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil". AKA making their own rules or self governing(independent). It was quite obvious that Adam and Eve were not independent from God in the original arrangement.

quote:

---

So why do you keep contradicting what they say? You are confusing what people claim the Bible says with what it actually says. People claim that the famous line from Casablanca is "Play it again, Sam." But that line isn't in the film. Mae West never said, "Come up and see me sometime." Carl Sagan never said, "Billions and billions," in Cosmos. Lots of people claim that these things happened and will swear up and down that they did, "I was there and I saw it!"

​

But they're wrong. You can check the film and video and see that they're wrong.

​

The problem isn't the scriptures. It's your interpretation of them.

---

It is a well known fact that people have and will continue to interpret the bible differently. Such a phenomenon was observed while Jesus was on earth as he rebuked the Pharisees for misusing the bible to exercise control over people. Today, the same trend continues as we are surrounded by religious enterprises built on doctrines soaked in controversy and convoluted interpretations of the scriptures.

quote:

---

Incorrect. My argument rests on the requirement that in order to obey anything, one must UNDERSTAND good and evil. You don't have to do evil to understand it.

---

There is no evidence to support this theory. As humans they would have had the capacity to reason and deduct what is beneficial and not. As it turns out, God did not ask Adam and Eve for blind obedience, He provided them with all the information they needed to evaluate the problem and make a healthy choice. He presented them with two choices.A) was a future(life) filled with an abundance of good.
B) Was death(no future)Now I fully realize that this is not what some people like to hear, but if Adam and Eve could not look at these choices and deduct or reason which of the two was beneficial. Then in all respects, they were retarded or defective. But we don't have any evidence to conclude this do we? No, the scriptures tell us that they were perfect humans and that God made a statement "that it was good". So the concept that Adam and Eve were somehow incapable of reasoning good from bad is a baseless argument. We have no reasoning or evidence to support this claim.

quote:

---

Have you forgotten Gen 2?

---

Does Genesis 2 mention God commanding against nakedness?

quote:

---

Except they didn't die as god said they would. God said they would be physically dead by the time the sun set on the literal, physical day they ate of the tree.

​

Instead, Adam (at least) lived on for practically another millennium. Eve lived on to have at least three children, one after her first two had grown to adulthood.

---

Was it written anywhere that they would physically die? Since the sentencing was handed on the same day, we can conclude that they were pronounced dead.It would seem as though God purposefully allowed them both to live on to have children. Yet He upheld His command by dealing with the matter immediately. We can also observe that they were cast from the Garden at that time also. This serves as further evidence that they were condemned or shunned by God. The account literally demonstrates that God disconnected himself from Adam and Eve(free from His rule) and allowed them to expire.The interesting thing about it that Satan didn't lie about everything(as you stated). They did inherit a Godlike trait. That of self governing and rule. However, Satan was deceptive in his advertising because he sold Eve on the fact that they would live forever(which they did not). In fact, they lost there privilege of eternal life when God sentenced them. The entire deal by Satan was nothing more than a ruse to get Adam and Eve to obey him instead of God(which they did).

quote:

---

Yes, it does.

​

This is the crux of the argument. If we cannot come to agreement on this issue, then there is no point in continuing.

---

Please provide evidence that humans cannot rationalize values without knowledge of good and bad. AKA obedience.
I fear that the argument is based partly on literary values and reason. When combined it allows people to rationalize that Adam and Eve were incapable of identifying value in choices. Yet, we all know that even the most primitive creatures have the capacity to determine deferential values under choices. The fact alone that God commuicated the information to Adam and Eve completely negates the concept that somehow Adam and Eve were incapable of determining a good value from a bad one.

quote:

---

You're confusing Genesis 2 with Genesis 1.

​

Now, answer my question: Why did Eve come on the scene? The Bible says directly why. All you need to do is quote it. And no, it cannot be found in Genesis 1. The answer lies in Genesis 2.

​

Then why did he create only a single person? Answer the question: Why did Eve come on the scene?

---

God saw that Adam was ready for a companion. He obviously created Eve in order to carry out His plans for mankind(to populate, become many and glorify His name).

quote:

---

You did not just say that, did you? Was it written by Christians?

---

Please provide us with a reference to show that the Author(s) of Genesis were written by Jews or Jewish person(s).

quote:

---

"Implications" is not the same thing. Yes, there is a lot of mythology surrounding the devil, but none of it is to be found in the Bible. It never mentions where the devil comes from and, in fact, there is no such thing as the devil when Genesis was written.

---

The bible does speak of Satan's origin actually, but as I stated, it is not fitting under this topic. You are however, welcome to add your piece to the Angels/Demons thread if you want to contest that.I will however provide you with a source that offers a nice explanation of Satan's origin and a breakdown of the scriptural implications of the King of Tyre. It breaks down the scriptures and it's symbolisms but keeps the reading simple and well defined. I could of written it here also but, the this simplifies things. Page not found - NeverThirstyPS. You should not become discouraged by indifference. I guess the key here is to state your beliefs, evidence and applied reasoning and see how it stands up against others. Though the scriptures come with a mind boggling number of interpretations, I believe that they do remain measurable. By eliminating theories that stand in opposition with other scriptures and /or scriptural support it is possible to destinguish the empty ones from those with value.

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

Actually the scriptures do not say they became "as God's" but rather(Between God and Jesus) saying "Adam is become as one of us

---

And is not god a "god"? If we have become as him, then we have become as gods.

quote:

---

There is no evidence to support this theory.

---

On the contrary. All observations show it to be the case. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil.If we cannot come to agreement on this point, then there is no point in continuing. Note: This is me trying to wind this conversation down since it appears to be only between you and me. If you cannot agree with this point, then do not respond as we will just be repeating the same things over and over again.

quote:

---

but if Adam and Eve could not look at these choices and deduct or reason which of the two was beneficial. Then in all respects, they were retarded or defective.

---

No, not "retarded." Not "defective.""Innocent."When you enter another culture, you become innocent. Being told, "Don't offend people," is all well and good, but what on earth does that mean? You're not stupid. You're not defective. You're merely innocent. You need to learn the knowledge of good and evil in order to make wise choices. Otherwise, you will innocently sin. People may not pay it no nevermind because they know you're innocent, but they'll change their minds once they realize that you do know better.

quote:

---

Does Genesis 2 mention God commanding against nakedness?

---

Yes. Does the word "ashamed" mean anything to you? Do not confuse the fact that god didn't tell Adam and Eve with the fact that it was recognized as a sin before Adam and Eve ate from the tree.Again: What was the very first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree? If, as your logic claims, the only commandment that exists is, "Don't eat from the tree," then why do they not panic over that? It should be the foremost thing in their minds because they just did it right then and there. Why do they panic over something else? If it wasn't a sin before they ate from the tree of knowledge, how could it be a sin afterward?

quote:

---

Was it written anywhere that they would physically die?

---

Yes. Have you forgotten Gen 2? The direct statement of god is that Adam will die a physical death before the sun sets. That's what the phrase means. There is no such thing as a "spiritual" death because there is no such thing as a "spirit" at the time when Genesis was written. Remember, you cannot understand Genesis outside of the context in which it was written. Imposing Christian interpetations on a Jewish text will only lead to trouble.

quote:

---

Please provide evidence that humans cannot rationalize values without knowledge of good and bad.

---

What are "values" if not the sifting of good and bad? How can one justify a "value" if one doesn't understand what good and bad are? That's the point of values: They tell you what's good and what's bad.

quote:

---

God saw that Adam was ready for a companion.

---

That's not what the text says. You seem to have forgotten Gen 2:18. What do you think the phrase "not good" means? If the creation was perfect, how could there be something that was "not good"?And why on earth would god first make animals to be the companion of Adam?

quote:

---

Please provide us with a reference to show that the Author(s) of Genesis were written by Jews or Jewish person(s).

---

That it is a "Jewish" text is insufficient?Methinks you're about to become disingenuous. Romeo and Juliet is an English text. It was written by William Shakespeare, an Englishman, in the late 1590s. The only way to understand it is to understand the English culture of the time.Now, the underlying themes of Romeo and Juliet did not originate with Bill. It can be traced back to Italian and the concept of the star-crossed lovers goes back to Ancient Greece. But that doesn't change the fact that the play we all know as Romeo and Juliet is an English play from just before the Restoration. If you don't approach it from that angle, you won't get half of the jokes.Help me out here: Tell me what it is you are looking for rather than play a game of gotcha.

quote:

---

The bible does speak of Satan's origin actually

---

No, it doesn't. Again, I asked you a direct question, which you haven't answered:Are you saying the King of Tyre was ruled by the actual devil?That's a yes or no question. It'd be nice if you actually answered it.But, as I said, I'm trying to wind this conversation down. I will gladly forgo all questions if you just deal with the following point:Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil.If you cannot agree to that, then there is no point in continuing. We will just go on repeating ourselves until we reach 300. Let's do the database a favor and quit now, eh?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

On the contrary. All observations show it to be the case. Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil.

​

If we cannot come to agreement on this point, then there is no point in continuing. Note: This is me trying to wind this conversation down since it appears to be only between you and me. If you cannot agree with this point, then do not respond as we will just be repeating the same things over and over again.

---

Of course were going to disagree. You are trying to convince me of your beliefs without any backing or, logic or reasoning. And you are free to rescind your argument at any time. Just don't expect to convince anyone with independent thought that what you believe is sensible.

quote:

---

When you enter another culture, you become innocent. Being told, "Don't offend people," is all well and good, but what on earth does that mean? You're not stupid. You're not defective. You're merely innocent. You need to learn the knowledge of good and evil in order to make wise choices. Otherwise, you will innocently sin. People may not pay it no nevermind because they know you're innocent, but they'll change their minds once they realize that you do know better.

---

Thats perfectly fine and so what happens when this person is educated on the other cultures laws and customs? Are they still innocent? Your argument rests on smoke an mirrors.

quote:

---

No, not "retarded." Not "defective."

​

"Innocent."

​

When you enter another culture, you become innocent. Being told, "Don't offend people," is all well and good, but what on earth does that mean? You're not stupid. You're not defective. You're merely innocent. You need to learn the knowledge of good and evil in order to make wise choices. Otherwise, you will innocently sin. People may not pay it no nevermind because they know you're innocent, but they'll change their minds once they realize that you do know better.

---

As I stated above, upon being educated, you are no longer innocent on matters. Besides, that point raised here was not about Adam and Eve not being able to understand evil. It was about Adam and Eve being able to discern values. Good and not good. Does innocence cloud ones capacity to make choices? We all know the answer to this. We have no reason to believe that they were incapable of choosing A from B. Life from Death. Your attempts to justify your beliefs are baseless and circular.

quote:

---

Yes. Does the word "ashamed" mean anything to you? Do not confuse the fact that god didn't tell Adam and Eve with the fact that it was recognized as a sin before Adam and Eve ate from the tree.

​

Again: What was the very first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree? If, as your logic claims, the only commandment that exists is, "Don't eat from the tree," then why do they not panic over that? It should be the foremost thing in their minds because they just did it right then and there. Why do they panic over something else? If it wasn't a sin before they ate from the tree of knowledge, how could it be a sin afterward?

---

Do we have any evidence of a law of command upheld that was not recorded in the scriptures? Now your just making stuff up.

quote:

---

Yes. Have you forgotten Gen 2? The direct statement of god is that Adam will die a physical death before the sun sets. That's what the phrase means. There is no such thing as a "spiritual" death because there is no such thing as a "spirit" at the time when Genesis was written. Remember, you cannot understand Genesis outside of the context in which it was written. Imposing Christian interpretations on a Jewish text will only lead to trouble.

---

Not calling you a liar or anything but... " Adam will die a physical death before the sun sets.
Can you provide me with a bible and reference for this?There is no such thing as a "spiritual" death because there is no such thing as a "spirit" at the time when Genesis was written
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

quote:

---

What are "values" if not the sifting of good and bad? How can one justify a "value" if one doesn't understand what good and bad are? That's the point of values: They tell you what's good and what's bad.

---

Alright now your getting somewheres. All you need to do now is believe that Adam and Eve knew what each choice implied.1) Eternal life and all the good things God created
2) Death(the end)Now based on your concept, the only way you can apply that Adam and Eve were worthy of innocence is if they looked at both of those choices with no idea what they meant. AKA retarded.Not only did God provide them with information to His visual aids but He also *told them what was good and bad. How much more does one need to see that God went way out of His way to make sure they understood? He informed them of the choices and values attached to them, and then He forbid them to touch the tree of knowledge of good and bad. So you see why your claim doesn't stand to reason. While I fully understand what your saying, I just don't see it in the account nor do I see any evidence to support it. I can see you are frustrated but, your asking me to look beyond the logic and reason provided in Genesis in order to uphold a belief. To my knowledge this is the trademark of religious influence.

quote:

---

What are "values" if not the sifting of good and bad? How can one justify a "value" if one doesn't understand what good and bad are? That's the point of values: They tell you what's good and what's bad.

---

So you think Adam and Eve could not discern that living forever in God's world was better than dying? Again... you are attempting to justify your beliefs without reason. Innocence on a matter can only be claimed without knowledge. In this case God told them and Eve knew. We know she knew because she recited it. So you argument is baseless. Unless, Eve had no mental capacity to reason but the ability to repeat words like a parrot.

quote:

---

That's not what the text says. You seem to have forgotten Gen 2:18. What do you think the phrase "not good" means? If the creation was perfect, how could there be something that was "not good"?

​

And why on earth would god first make animals to be the companion of Adam?

---

Well based purely on the fact that God had a plan, we are led to believe that the task He gave Adam(naming the animals) was part of his conditioning. By exposing Adam to the animals(male and female) Adam would have a first hand account at the companionship concept created by God. As I said, you can reach if you want, but the surrounding context does not support the argument that somehow God was not on top of things.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. Again, I asked you a direct question, which you haven't answered:
Are you saying the King of Tyre was ruled by the actual devil?
That's a yes or no question. It'd be nice if you actually answered it.
But, as I said, I'm trying to wind this conversation down. I will gladly forgo all questions if you just deal with the following point:
Obedience requires knowledge of good and evil.

​

If you cannot agree to that, then there is no point in continuing. We will just go on repeating ourselves until we reach 300. Let's do the database a favor and quit now, eh?

---

No... what I am saying however is that the King of Tyre was likened to Satan, and the account goes on to explain the implications and origin of Satan. Did you read it or are you being evasive?As for the Jewish writings etc. I was leaning towards God being the author of the scriptures. However, I don't think it's worth pursuing since I never have never seen any problems with the origin of the scriptures or Jewish tribes to begin with. I think it is racism and discrimination that leads people to point such things out.

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

Of course were going to disagree. You are trying to convince me of your beliefs without any backing or, logic or reasoning. And you are free to rescind your argument at any time. Just don't expect to convince anyone with independent thought that what you believe is sensible.

---

And that is precisely my argument to you. So do you want to keep repeating yourself for the next 96 posts or shall we just admit that we are never going to get anywhere?

quote:

---

Thats perfectly fine and so what happens when this person is educated on the other cultures laws and customs? Are they still innocent? Your argument rests on smoke an mirrors.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Do you truly not get it? Learning about the other cultures laws and customs is precisely the process of eating from the tree of knowledge: You learn what is good and bad. When you learn what is good and bad, you are no longer innocent. That doesn't mean you've actually done anything. It means you have acquired knowledge.

quote:

---

As I stated above, upon being educated, you are no longer innocent on matters.

---

Not quite. Instead, as I directly pointed out, innocence is the property of not having knowledge. As you become knowledgeable (eat from the Tree of Knowledge), you become as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

Besides, that point raised here was not about Adam and Eve not being able to understand evil.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Do you truly not see it? That is precisely my point! Adam and Eve, having not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, do not know what good and evil are. And because they don't know what good and evil are, they are incapable of things like "obedience" since that requires conscious acquiesence in order to achieve something good.

quote:

---

It was about Adam and Eve being able to discern values.

---

Huh? As I directly stated, discerning values is precisely the act of knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

Does innocence cloud ones capacity to make choices?

---

Of course not. Innocence precludes us from discerning the meaning in those choices, understanding the moral consequences of them. Since you don't know what good and evil are, you cannot comprehend that your choice is "good" or "evil."You keep trying to make Adam and Eve capable of what they haven't acquired the ability to do. If they already could discern good and evil (which is what "values" are), then what on earth was the point of the Tree of Knowledge?Talk about "circular logic" and "smoke and mirrors."

quote:

---

Do we have any evidence of a law of command upheld that was not recorded in the scriptures?

---

Since you didn't read it before, let me try it again:Yes. Does the word "ashamed" mean anything to you? Do not confuse the fact that god didn't tell Adam and Eve with the fact that it was recognized as a sin before Adam and Eve ate from the tree.Again: What was the very first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the tree? If, as your logic claims, the only commandment that exists is, "Don't eat from the tree," then why do they not panic over that? It should be the foremost thing in their minds because they just did it right then and there. Why do they panic over something else? If it wasn't a sin before they ate from the tree of knowledge, how could it be a sin afterward?See what I said about repeating ourselves? You asked a question, I gave an answer, you asked the same question, and thus you get the same answer. Do you really want to do this for another 96 posts (or until the admins come in and shut it down?)

quote:

---

Not calling you a liar or anything but... " Adam will die a physical death before the sun sets.
Can you provide me with a bible and reference for this?

---

Since you didn't read it before, let me try it again:Yes. Have you forgotten Gen 2? The direct statement of god is that Adam will die a physical death before the sun sets. That's what the phrase means. There is no such thing as a "spiritual" death because there is no such thing as a "spirit" at the time when Genesis was written. Remember, you cannot understand Genesis outside of the context in which it was written. Imposing Christian interpretations on a Jewish text will only lead to trouble.See what I said about repeating ourselves? You asked a question, I gave an answer, you asked the same question, and thus you get the same answer. Do you really want to do this for another 96 posts (or until the admins come in and shut it down?)

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a "spiritual" death because there is no such thing as a "spirit" at the time when Genesis was written
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

---

Do you not know Judaism? Have you not read the texts? Why is it, do you think, that god makes his promises to the living, not the dead? The reward for the Jews is paradise here on earth, not some spiritual ecstasy after death. When god punishes Adam and Eve, he punishes them here and now. The punishment of the serpent is earthly and physical. The Hebrews are called out of Egypt to reach the Promised Land here on earth. Judaism does not put nearly as much importance on what happens after death. That's why everything is focused on the present.

quote:

---

All you need to do now is believe that Adam and Eve knew what each choice implied.

---

But they couldn't. They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet. You keep trying to make Adam and Eve capable of what they haven't acquired the ability to do. If they already could discern good and evil (which is what "values" are), then what on earth was the point of the Tree of Knowledge?Talk about "circular logic" and "smoke and mirrors."

quote:

---

Not only did God provide them with information to His visual aids but He also *told them what was good and bad.

---

Irrelevant. They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet, thus they were incapable of understanding what that means.

quote:

---

So you think Adam and Eve could not discern that living forever in God's world was better than dying?

---

Congratulations. You figured it out. This is precisely what I am advocating. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet. The concept of "better than dying" doesn't make any sense to one who doesn't know what good and evil are.

quote:

---

Innocence on a matter can only be claimed without knowledge.

---

Precisely. And since they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, how can Adam and Eve possibly be said to have "knowledge"? You keep trying to make Adam and Eve capable of what they haven't acquired the ability to do. If they already could discern good and evil (which is what "values" are), then what on earth was the point of the Tree of Knowledge?Talk about "circular logic" and "smoke and mirrors."

quote:

---

Well based purely on the fact that God had a plan, we are led to believe that the task He gave Adam(naming the animals) was part of his conditioning.

---

That's not what the text says. Instead, it says that god found it "not good" that Adam was alone and so set out on the task of creating him a companion...the animals. He presents them to Adam and finds that it isn't good enough:Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.God presents the animals to Adam to see if a companion would be found among them. But there isn't one.Thus, god failed at his task.

quote:

---

As I said, you can reach if you want, but the surrounding context does not support the argument that somehow God was not on top of things.

---

Except that the text directly contradicts you. What do you think "there was not found an help meet for him" means?

quote:

---

No... what I am saying however is that the King of Tyre was likened to Satan

---

Satan? Where does "Satan" appear in the text? Here is the entire passage: Satan is never mentioned anywhere in the lamentation to the king of Tyre. Ergo, where do you get off saying that the king of Tyre was "likened" to Satan?And since Genesis 3 never mentions "Satan," either," it is interesting that you seem to think that a passage that doesn't mention "Satan" is a reference to another passage that also doesn't mention "Satan" and yet actually means "Satan."

quote:

---

the account goes on to explain the implications and origin of Satan.

---

No, it doesn't. It never mentions either the devil or Satan (they are not the same).

quote:

---

Did you read it or are you being evasive?

---

(*chuckle*)I just quoted it to you. Where do you find "Satan" in the text? Once again, you seem to have confused Satan for the devil. Have you forgotten Job? Satan is not the devil but instead is an agent of god.

quote:

---

As for the Jewish writings etc. I was leaning towards God being the author of the scriptures.

---

Cute. You do realize that the god of Genesis is the JEWISH god, yes? Thus, you can only understand him in a Jewish context.

quote:

---

However, I don't think it's worth pursuing since I never have never seen any problems with the origin of the scriptures or Jewish tribes to begin with.

---

Huh? What on earth are you talking about? This isn't about the "origin of the Jewish tribes." This is about literary analysis. A text is written in a cultural context. The only way to truly understand the text is to understand the culture in which it was written. What on earth are you talking about?

quote:

---

I think it is racism and discrimination that leads people to point such things out.

---

Ah, I see. Pulling out the bigot card, eh? Unable to justify your argument, declare your interlocutor to be a bigot and hope that he spends all of his time defending himself from your charge so that he can't continue to point out that you failed to justify yourself.Nice try. Now, since I've pointed out that we've reached an impasse and since you are accusing me of anti-Semitism, why don't you go along with my suggestion of letting this go?Or would agreeing with me be too upsetting?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

pbee and Rrhain,Maybe you guys could spend the next 93 posts actually addressing the topic.If you both feel you are already addressing the topic, maybe you both could take the time to explain how your discussion fits in with the topic without repeating yourselves for the rest of us.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

AdminPD, Have you read or looked at the infamous 93 posts?The original post raised the question on God's power and capacity as a Creator relative to the first human pair. It put into question their capacity and obedience under the terms of God's arrangement(free will). It raised the question, on whether or not God remained almighty(omnipotent) where His creations stumbled so early on in the arrangement.Now some stated that the first human pair was incapable or discerning a good choice from a bad one based on the premise that they were innocent or free of sin. This reasoning would imply that God was not almighty, and would of been playing games(manipulating) with His human creations. It also implies that God is somehow not in control as He would be exhibiting human characteristics(panicking) in the face of change or actions outside the parameters of His arrangement.I think the argument rests precisely in line with the topic. In those so called 90+ posts, I submitted hoards of appropriate information and references to support my arguments. So why a call for mediation? Does the board have a policy against a number of posts from a specific reader under one topic? Or are we seeing the results of specific members crying foul behind the scenes?It is quite common for communities to run on a body of preferred members. If this is the case, tell me now and I will find another forum to carry out my discussion in.Also, I don't want to sound like I'm being difficult but your warning is circular, asking for an open explanation then stating that any response will result in a 24 hours timeout.

In the hope of preventing an overreaction by a zealous admin:pbee responds to AdminPD:

quote:

---

Also, I don't want to sound like I'm being difficult but your warning is circular, asking for an open explanation then stating that any response will result in a 24 hours timeout.

---

You have misunderstood his warning. It wasn't that you couldn't respond to it. It was that if you wanted to do so, do it in the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0 thread.His point was that this thread should not be sidetracked by the meta-discussion of if our conversaton is off-topic. Instead, that meta-discussion should take place elsewhere.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Sure. Why place limits on God? Perhaps a followup question would be Will God do everything that He is capable of doing and that He feels "needs" doing if humans have freewill veto power?Evidently we humans in general are not seriously convinced of Gods overall omnipotence. We even choose to wave His existence off all together! Thankfully, God foreknew our stubborn independent streak, and is gracious enough to let us grow up and make a go at our lives without His almighty meddling. (Now if only we can teach this Holy example to the Religious Right! )