-->
@fauxlaw
I was also referring to the lack of knowledge of good and evil, which is the reason God's wrath upon Adam and Eve was given and why they were banished from Eden.
Atheists Are Not Stupid
Posts
Total:
127
-->
@ATroubledMan
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, why was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge? No, God's consequence [it was not wrath] was exacted after their discovery of that knowledge, but not because they had acquired it. Remember, God first told them that "of every tree thou mayest freely eat," and He meant every one of them. He did not require their suspension of their free agency ["thou mayest freely eat"], it was only that a condition was given to choosing to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and even that condition did not result in punishment any more than we are punished by God for falling off a ladder. We are punished by gravity for our violation of it, not by God. People have this impression that God is the total cause of everything when, in fact, He is not the total cause of anything. Yes, He has influence, but if He causes everything, what of our free agency?
People are also misguided by blaming Adam and Eve for "the Fall," and that we suffer for it, as if responsible for their choice. Aren't we each responsible for our own choices? Does someone else dictate what you put in your pie hole? Do you blame Adam and Eve for what you do in that, and any other regard? No. What if "the Fall" was really a rise, bringing us closer to heaven?
-->
@fauxlaw
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, why was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge?
Can you feel that dodge coming on?
Christians are not born, they are converted.
While it's technically true that all children are born atheist in that they lack a belief in God, children who are born and raised to be Christians...
Christians are not born, they are converted....
From the darkness of atheism to the glorious light of Christianity.
-->
@fauxlaw
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, why was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge? God first told them that "of every tree thou mayest freely eat," and He meant every one of them.
"Genesis 2 narrates that Yahweh places the first man and woman in a garden with trees of whose fruits they may eat, but forbids them to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." When, in Genesis 3, a serpent persuades the woman to eat from its forbidden fruit and she also lets the man taste it, God expels them from the garden."
-->
@ethang5
Christians are not born, they are converted....From the darkness of atheism to the glorious light of Christianity.
"Religious conversion is the adoption of a set of beliefs identified with one particular religious denomination to the exclusion of others. Thus "religious conversion" would describe the abandoning of adherence to one denomination and affiliating with another. "
I observe a lack of intelligence being posted on these forums.Can you feel that dodge coming on?
-->
@ATroubledMan
“9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
“16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
I see no forbid, forbidded, or any variation thereof; just that there was a consequence to eating of the tree of knowledge: death. But, what’s death? It’s a door, and, because of the redemption of Christ, it is not a locked door. Even Christ died, so how forbidden can it be?
“16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
I see no forbid, forbidded, or any variation thereof; just that there was a consequence to eating of the tree of knowledge: death. But, what’s death? It’s a door, and, because of the redemption of Christ, it is not a locked door. Even Christ died, so how forbidden can it be?
-->
@ethang5
What dodge?
-->
@fauxlaw
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it
That part there would be where God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of that tree.
-->
@fauxlaw
What dodge?
This one...
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge?
He'll dodge answering your great question.
We all observe it every time you make another sock puppet and post to yourself.I observe a lack of intelligence being posted on these forums.
-->
@ethang5
And another post to report. Keep em coming.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Think loser. What exactly are you reporting?
Do you really think that for the first time in your online history, things are going to end differently for you?
Lol. And if the mods banned me, what would happen to your obsession and stalking of me? Who would you fixiate on?
-->
@ATroubledMan
That part there would be where God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of that tree.
And what of the previous advice of God's that they could eat of every tree. Do we just ignore that?
-->
@ethang5
Oh, I misundersrtood. I thought you were asking abnout my dodge. Apologies.
-->
@fauxlaw
I think that's just common knowledge that when there is a large group of objects and we don't want someone to touch one of them, we say they can touch all of them except the one we don't want them to touch. This is much easier than trying to list all the objects they can touch.
-->
@fauxlaw
No worries, you will find that for someone who has not known him for more than six years, I'm very knowledgeable about what that troubled man will do.
-->
@ATroubledMan
אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל׃ וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַגָּן
אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מֹות תָּמוּת׃ וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טֹוב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיֹום
The ancient Hebrew of the text of what is Genesis 2: 16, 17, which translates as:
And YHWH Elohim directed the human saying, from all the trees of the garden you may certainly eat.
And from the tree of the knowledge of function and dysfunction you will not eat, because in the day you eat from him you will surely die.
All this from https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-verses/genesis-2-syntax-and-morphology.htm#Genesis%202:16
Note the significant difference in this translation from the ancient Hebrew in verse 17, “And from” as opposed to the typical translation in English, “But from.” Note, also, that in both cases, Verse 16 is not followed directly by 17 as a single sentence, but each verse is a stand-alone sentence, each complete without follow-on phrasing. You cannot, for example, assume from these two sentences, the following logic: Following X, therefore because of X. The whole of it is more properly understood as one sentence saying that “the human,” Adam, may freely eat of all the trees in the garden” [stop] and a second sentence saying, “And from the tree of knowledge…” with identification of a specific tree, that not eating of that tree is commanded, but not because it is a sin, but because it would have a consequence: death. Is eating, for example, rat poison a sin? No, it merely will cause death. Is death a sin? No, it’s merely a consequence of living. How about eating an excess of couscous and beer. Is that a sin? No, but, as the Nazis learned from the Southern French in WWII, it caused death by excessive bloating of the stomach. It’s a health code, just like the Jews avoiding pork, or me avoiding smoking and drinking and drugs.
-->
@ethang5
Thanks. You are a gentleman and scholar.
-->
@ATroubledMan
I can see that we are going to have some fun here.And another post to report. Keep em coming.
There is someone here (and I won't mention Ethong's name) who thinks that every new member is one and the same person.
One can see how he copes with his paranoia. He just insults every one of them just in case which is exactly how he eventually sent another debate site to the dogs....insulting everyone's intelligence.
But this is an extremely religiously biased website and he gets away with it of course.
If an atheist dare call anyone and everyone a moron he would be kicked off the site. And without notice, I might add,
-->
@fauxlaw
You are about to realise otherwise.Thanks. You are a gentleman and scholar.
What he told you was a load of contrived paranoic nonsense.
-->
@Tyran_R
who thinks that every new member is one and the same person.
I'm a new member of 30 days. Ethang has always treated me with respect, and I try to do likewise. Anyone who uses excess to describe a group as all of the same stripe doesn't recognize the stripe. I always say of such people that they use a wide paintbrush as a toothbrush, and the results ought to be obvious.
-->
@fauxlaw
I think you did not pick up on what I was saying.I'm a new member of 30 days. Ethang has always treated me with respect, and I try to do likewise. Anyone who uses excess to describe a group as all of the same stripe doesn't recognize the stripe. I always say of such people that they use a wide paintbrush as a toothbrush, and the results ought to be obvious.
Ethong treats you with respect because you are a Christian.
Anybody who admits to being an atheist or say anything that contradicts his views is accused of being a moron, at best.
If you treat such an individual with respect that is your business but the facts speak for themselves. Count the number of posts where he has done nothing but belittle and insult others.
Very little of what he writes has anything to do with the topic at all, rather he is more focused on making personal attacks.
I have consistently argued religious topics in an intelligent, well informed way but will also continue to expose those who try to bully and belittle others to get their ill-conceived, bigoted and hateful points across.
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry, but your link came up with the error message that the page was not available.
I've had a look at the verse from a number of online books, they each show something a little different, but in essence, the verse goes like this:
"And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
Nowhere in any of the books are there two distinct sentences, they are usually separated by a comma or semi-colon.
-->
@ethang5
Interesting how you ignored all the relevant statistical data in my previous post.
And the attempts at refutation that you did give were, it has to be said, complete nonsense.
Statistics as presented are not based on conversion, that's just a foolish claim.
Children born to Christians will be counted as Christians as those born to Muslims will be regarded as Muslim etc.
Your argument seems to have reduced to wild self affirming claims.
And a multitude remains a multitude.
And your bias cannot change reality.
And your argument is not a lie....it is just the same old unprovable assumption.
-->
@ATroubledMan
So why do you continue to seek a source of fresh water so far down stream? Want a fresher glass of water, go higher on the mountain. Yo know, like Moses did. Sure, none of your English translations show you two separate sentences. The ancient Hebrew does. Fresher water; letter source.
So does my French LSG, 1910. So does my 1526 English Tyndale version. And my Greek Septuagint from approx 3rd century BCE.
works for me. copy and paste it rather than clicking on it.
-->
@fauxlaw
Which specific mountain did Moses ascend?
Or was it just a metaphorical mountain?
-->
@zedvictor4
Does it matter? Exodus makes the claim he climbed a mountain at God's request. However, which it was is as inconsequential as the location of Eden, or of Noah's ark, or what the duration of creation was, or how many generations between Adam and his latest posterity. It is all of inconsequence to the real value of the history.
-->
@fauxlaw
Hmmmm….Conveniently inconsequential.
It's interesting how a text so full of fact, is simultaneously so short of facts.
Sort of pseudo-hypothetical mythology as it were.
And exodus didn't say anything...It was the compilers of the mythical hypothesis that came up with tales.
Some might say that the inconsequence of the text, as you put it, is somewhat devaluing.