Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1395 of 1444 (886009)
05-02-2021 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Phat
05-02-2021 2:59 AM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
ringo writes:
We have had the knowledge of good and evil since Adam and Eve. Case closed.
Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it?
I think would make God guilty of planting an attractive nuisance:
quote:
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.
There is no set cutoff point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on a case-by-case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth. If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the hazard, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply.
Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. However, most jurisdictions have statutorily altered this condition, and now require only that the injury was foreseeable by the landowner.
Add to that list of examples of attractive nuisances old-style refrigerators and freezers (with latched doors that could only be opened from the outside, since replaced with a magnetic seal), and trees of knowledge of good and evil.
Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it? Who fully foresaw the injury to those innocents that that attractive nuisance would cause?
It is abundantly clear who is responsible. Looks like a closed case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Phat, posted 05-02-2021 2:59 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 1412 of 1444 (897398)
09-04-2022 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1411 by ringo
09-04-2022 11:27 AM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
God Himself said so in Genesis. We have become like Him (Them). We have grown up.
Which is why we can look at the atrocities that God commanded or did himself in the Old Testament and condemn them and him
as the atrocities and atrocious monster that they so clearly are.
IOW, we have grown up and we know better now.
 
Of course God was created by Man and given the characteristics and faults of Man -- ever notice how convenient it is that God always hates the same people that his followers hate?
That horrible early god then got set in cement through writing, so that we whose sense of morality has matured since then can look back in horror of how we used to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1411 by ringo, posted 09-04-2022 11:27 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1418 by Phat, posted 09-06-2022 2:29 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1421 of 1444 (897507)
09-06-2022 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1418 by Phat
09-06-2022 2:29 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
What you just did is called Whataboutism, a form of "appeal to hyprocrisy" (Tu quoque ("You too")):
quote:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the Tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the Ad-hominem argument.
The communication intent here is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism, the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy.
No matter how hard you try to divert our attention to other blood-soaked monsters like Putin, that does not make God as depicted in the Bible any less blood-soaked nor any less of a monster.
For some appreciation of the difference in scale between how monstrous God is compared to Putin, consider how as they learn ever more of the sheer volume of government documents, hundreds of which are very clearly marked as being highly classified (based on my 40 years of training and professional experience with handling classified, they are so very clearly marked that nobody could possibly miss it), that Trump has stolen, his Republican defenders immediately turn to "But what about Hillary's emails?!?!?!?!!" because a couple excerpts of classified info found their way onto her server from others plus none of it was marked as classified.
So trying to exonerate Trump for his flagrantly deliberate acts of massive stealing and mishandling of government documents by pointing out Hillary's email server -- be sure to note the vast difference in scale and in deliberate actions -- would be like your trying to exonerate the God of the Bible's long history of being a blood soaked monster by pointing out that Putin is also a bad guy. Nobody's going to buy that one!
They collectively have no supernatural belief and it hardly makes them any better.
Your information is decades out of date. Christianity has had a revival in Russia since the Soviet Union ended. Orthodoxy, of course, but fundamentalism has also established itself with many ties with American fundamentalist churches and organizations (such as the Institute for Creation Research). And Russia is presenting itself as being the defender of the white race, morality, and even Christianity (Orthodoxy, of course).
Moscow is back as the Third Rome, though with the label of Russian World, an Orthodox concept developed in the 1990's which exalts the primacy of Russian language and culture. Putin is using Russian World to promote the recreation of the Russian Empire. That includes making Ukraine completely Russian by destroying Ukrainian culture, identity, and language in order to replace them with Russian culture, identity, and language. Hardly indistinguishable from a religious crusade.
For that matter, Putin is himself a Christian, or at least was. He was baptized, though he did it in secret to keep his father for knowing about it. And despite Putin not now being seen as being very religious, many others in the Russian government are (I've seen Medvedev being presented as an example).
Time for you to get up to date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by Phat, posted 09-06-2022 2:29 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024