LordReed:

That is why I said Adam was not a child and yes he could tell it was good to obey God and wrong to disobey which is why it took the deceiver telling Eve a lie in other to get her to eat it. How many lies did you tell your 8 month old daughter?

He was not a child, but was equipped with kid's knowledge. How do you justify alien punishment for crime?

LordReed:

I didn't say that was a lie. I asked you if leaving out the sad consequences was to you the truth.

He didn't tell them that they would live forever either. And why should we care about the tempter leaving out the consequences. He was there to make them fall. It is the person who claims to love them that should have warned them clearly including warning them about the tempter. It didn't even seem like Eve felt that the tempter was evil. She fell so easily.

plaetton:

I don't get you.
The bible clearly says that they did not know good from evil, and here you are, saying that they did.
Are you repudiating the words of your bible?

I really don't get you guys and how you are quick to repudiate and attempt to rewrite any part of the bible that contradict your arguments at any given time.

Religion is something else sha.

I am repudiating anything. Abi you have no concept of explanation in your vocabulary?

BodyKiss:

He was not a child, but was equipped with kid's knowledge. How do you justify alien punishment for crime?

Which kids knowledge was he equipped with?

Go and eat poison berries and then ask me who punished you.

hifaif:

He didn't tell them that they would live forever either. And why should we care about the tempter leaving out the consequences. He was there to make them fall. It is the person who claims to love them that should have warned them clearly including warning them about the tempter. It didn't even seem like Eve felt that the tempter was evil. She fell so easily.

Obedience really has nothing to do with how you feel on the matter. A criminal steals is he spared because he has no job?

LordReed:

Which kids knowledge was he equipped with?

Go and eat poison berries and then ask me who punished you.

Adam wasn't as knowledgeable as I am, so you can't compare the both of us. When you said he had the innocence of a child, what did you mean?

LordReed:

Obedience really has nothing to do with how you feel on the matter. A criminal steals is he spared because he has no job?

I don't understand the correlation.

hifaif:

If they had free will, then they were never created to live forever in the first place. How would they make good choices all the time forever and ever if they weren't perfect? But yet the Bible made it look like they were originally created to live forever.

Freewill has nothing to do with longevity. They were supposed to take their cue from God. Don't eat means don't eat even if a deceiver comes and says otherwise.

LordReed:

Freewill has nothing to do with longevity. They were supposed to take their cue from God. Don't eat means don't eat even if a deceiver comes and says otherwise.

Then that is not free will. That was a command with a threat. How can you exercise free will when your choices are dependent on coercion?

BodyKiss:

Adam wasn't as knowledgeable as I am, so you can't compare the both of us. When you said he had the innocence of a child, what did you mean?

Of course you are more knowledgeable than Adam, you have the benefit of centuries of knowledge but when it comes to the basic morality of do or do not the playing field is level. Adam was given a specific command with no vague statement. Do not eat or you die. If you are presented with this choice will interpret it in any other manner?

Does a child care about his or her naked butt? Would a child be reticent about walking to the kitchen from the room in front of a bunch of strangers butt-naked?

hifaif:

Tagged:

nora544 , DeepSight, infonubia, macof, Seun,
PAGAN9JA, Rossikk, FOLYKAZE, plaetton ,
musKeeto, rinrin23, marieolae, MrsBreezy, datalossvictim1, Vikky014, Missyhorlah, Creamish, Joagbaje, Gombs, OLAADEGBU, torchwave, kevoh, oduduwaboy, alienvirus, Kay17, bluish, PastorKun, musKeeto, malvis, HumbledbYGrace, pesty100, ProphetUdeme, OlaoChi, emmyskies, 2tex, Gorzy1, Delydex, Macelliot, frosbel, bolaino, alexleo, Ishilove, Elantracey, Liveair, Macelliot, jbird, MizMyColi, Dayvhid, Pr0ton, Tallesty1, uzolexis, logicboy01, youngwarlocks, tpia1, BossTdiamonds, mstic, Dolemite.

It's a pity you didn't call me out as my Master has been the chief accused of this whole saga.
Anyway, I'll leave you all to your silliness.

hifaif:

I don't understand the correlation.

You said Eve didn't feel that the serpent was evil. Obedience does not require you feel anything for your compliance. A jobless man will not be spared if he steals because he feels that it was the best action he could take.

LordReed:

You said Eve didn't feel that the serpent was evil. Obedience does not require you feel anything for your compliance. A jobless man will not be spared if he steals because he feels that it was the best action he could take.

A jobless man has a knowledge of good and evil. Eve didn't have prior to eating the fruit.

hifaif:

Then that is not free will. That was a command with a threat. How can you exercise free will when your choices are dependent on coercion?

Adam was not coerced. He was presented with a command which underlined two choices that were available to him. Did God torture him? Beat him? Hold a thunderbolt to his head? Where and how was he coerced if you say he was?

LordReed:

The concept of monster or Santa Claus has to be transferred to your child first before any of them holds which means your child knows monster even if he has never seen one of felt one in real life. Eve knew what death was or the deceiver could not have used it as a ploy. Can you tempt a child with no concept of Santa Claus?

Wrong sir.
Children are fearful of everything right from birth, and do not need to understand something before they fear it.
Even adults fear what they do not fully understand, talkless of infants.

To say that eve knew what death was is quite laughable.
Pray tell, what experience did she have of death before then?

I can't believe how you are running in circles, contradicting yourself and your bible at every point.

LordReed:


God did not lie, He told them clearly this is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil don't eat it because you will die. He clearly states what effect eating the fruit gives - knowledge and the consequence of eating - death.

God did lie. It is there before your eyes , but cognitive dissonance won't allow you to face it.
First, if you don't allow your children to know good from bad, then how will they follow your ethical or moral rules, your philosophy? How would they navigate the ocean of life and make good beneficial decisions for themselves and their environment?

So god, obviously wanted them to remain in zombie, semi-conscious state so that they may not see or question his own shortcomings and contradictions. From the tower of babel incident, it is again obvious that god was afraid of the human intellect and it's infinite abilities.

Lie #2. Did Adam die after eating the fruit? No. He lived, he gained knowledge and became self-conscious and self-aware, just like the wise serpent had told him.
Who was the liar and insecure one?

Now, to use death as a threat and the consequence of gaining and being self-aware is quite laughable if one ignores the fact that these were written by stone age people.
Life and death are interwoven and interchangeable. All that live must die. That is something that god himself should very well have known.
Therefore, god couldn't have created life without the expectation and inevitability of death.

If plants and animals die, planets die, stars die, galaxies die, then it is really really dumb for any biological life to dream of eternal life.

The idea of eternal life is an idea only suited for ignorant and s.t.u.pi.d people.

LordReed:

Of course you are more knowledgeable than Adam, you have the benefit of centuries of knowledge but when it comes to the basic morality of do or do not the playing field is level. Adam was given a specific command with no vague statement. Do not eat or you die. If you are presented with this choice will interpret it in any other manner?

Does a child care about his or her naked butt? Would a child be reticent about walking to the kitchen from the room in front of a bunch of strangers butt-naked?

You're contradicting yourself, just like the bible. The whole story doesn't add up. Adam and Eve were going about, butt naķėd, what does that tell you? Look up your post where you made mension of toddler, again. My phone battery is badly on the low. Later.

AlfaSeltzer:

It's a pity you didn't call me out as my Master has been the chief accused of this whole saga.
Anyway, I'll leave you all to your silliness.

Forgive me. I had the intention of inviting you. You are most welcome, good sir.

hifaif:

A jobless man has a knowledge of good and evil. Eve didn't have prior to eating the fruit.

I think I have tried. I don't think I will continue dancing circle dance with you. Bye bye.

LordReed:

I think I have tried. I don't think I will continue dancing circle dance with you. Bye bye.

You tried though but you couldn't point out anywhere in the scripture to support your argument that man had the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit.

I was able to give a clear scriptural text.

BodyKiss:

You're contradicting yourself, just like the bible. The whole story doesn't add up. Adam and Eve were going about, butt naķėd, what does that tell you? Look up your post where you made mension of toddler, again. My phone battery is badly on the low. Later.

This is the my first post, please point to the contradiction.

The good and evil referenced there is not the
same good and evil of morality. For instance
one effect of eating the fruit was their sudden
"awareness" of their unclothedness and even
God asks them "who told you you are Unclad?".
Their eyes are opened to things that should not
have been problems to them, they lost the
innocence of children and have to begin to
discern everything for themselves and most
times their discernment is wrong because they
no longer have the benefit of the wisdom of
God. The moral good and evil was already with
them as they had a commandment not to eat
the fruit. The tempter did not change their
ability to obey, he just gave them a "reason" to
disobey.

Please note I never wrote Adam and Eve were children. I wrote they lost the innocence of children. Two very different things.

hifaif:

You tried though but you couldn't point out anywhere in the scripture to support your argument that man had the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit.

I was able to give a clear scriptural text.

So to you Knowledge of good and evil = Knowledge of obedience and disobedience = freewill?

LordReed:

This is the my first post, please point to the contradiction.

The good and evil referenced there is not the
same good and evil of morality. For instance
one effect of eating the fruit was their sudden
"awareness" of their unclothedness and even
God asks them "who told you you are Unclad?".
Their eyes are opened to things that should not
have been problems to them, they lost the
innocence of children and have to begin to
discern everything for themselves and most
times their discernment is wrong because they
no longer have the benefit of the wisdom of
God. The moral good and evil was already with
them as they had a commandment not to eat
the fruit. The tempter did not change their
ability to obey, he just gave them a "reason" to
disobey.

Please note I never wrote Adam and Eve were children. I wrote they lost the innocence of children. Two very different things.

Complete bull.
I don't know how you can write something and not see the 100+ contradictions staring you in face.
I just don't know how you guys do it.
First, you said they were not toddlers, now you are referring to" their childlike innocence". Can't you see how you contradict your own self?

And this trash : "moral good and evil was already before them" before god told them not to eat from the tree of good and evil.
Said who?
The bible version rewritten by Lordreed?

The contradictions are so embarrassing , even for me.
Gosh!

LordReed:

So to you Knowledge of good and evil = Knowledge of obedience and disobedience = freewill?

If you can't differentiate between wrong and right, so how can you obey or disobey? Nothing like knowledge of obey and disobey just knowledge of good and evil and free will to make choices independent (free) of coercion.

plaetton:

Complete bull.
I don't know how you can write something and not see the 100+ contradictions staring you in face.
I just don't know how you guys do it.
First, you said they were not toddlers, now you are referring to" their childlike innocence". Can't you see how you contradict your own self?

And this trash : "moral good and evil was already before them" before god told them not to eat from the tree of good and evil.
Said who?
The bible version rewritten by Lordreed?

The contradictions are so embarrassing , even for me.
Gosh!

Gosh plaetton you embarrass yourself by saying child like innocence is the same as saying one is a child. I thought you understood English more than that.

I try to use words to explain to you that Adam could tell the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him but you are so stuck up on the words good and evil you can't even recognize basic morality staring you in the face. Tomorrow you will come and shout how intelligent you are. SMH.

hifaif:

If you can't differentiate between wrong and right, so how can you obey or disobey? Nothing like knowledge of obey and disobey just knowledge of good and evil and free will to make choices independent (free) of coercion.

You so stuck up on the words good and evil you can't see the forest for the trees. Verily the word said "the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life".

LordReed:

You so stuck up on the words good and evil you can't see the forest for the trees. Verily the word said "the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life".

I can't do without them in this thread now.

LordReed:

Gosh plaetton you embarrass yourself by saying child like innocence is the same as saying one is a child. I thought you understood English more than that.

I try to use words to explain to you that Adam could tell the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him but you are so stuck up on the words good and evil you can't even recognize basic morality staring you in the face. Tomorrow you will come and shout how intelligent you are. SMH.

First, I have never claimed any intelligence.
Second, the words of the bible are good and clear enough, so why the attempt to substitute and redefine them?

The English language is actually a very simple language, but I think the real reason why majority fail english in their exams has to do with simple comprehension. They fail because they attempt to understand information that is given to them , and instead attempt to redefine and interpret things they should not.

The bible shows that god lied and the serpent told the truth, but you ignore and try to reinterpret.
The bible shows that god was very afraid of man's potential, but you refuse to acknowledge that.
The bible says Elohim(council of gods) but you still maintain a one and only god.
The bible shows that there were other gods, rival gods that yahweh was even scared of and envied, but you refuse to see it .
The bible says and shows that yahweh was evil, the architect of evil, malicious, jealous, petty, insecure, hateful, etc, but you maintain that god is full of love and goodness.

That is probably why civilized nations do not teach all this bible crap in schools, because of the negative effects it would have on developing comprehension skills.

plaetton:

First, I have never claimed any intelligence.
Second, the words of the bible are good and clear enough, so why the attempt to substitute and redefine them?

The English language is actually a very simple language, but I think the real reason why majority fail english in their exams has to do with simple comprehension. They fail because they attempt to understand information that is given to them , and instead attempt to redefine and interpret things they should not.

The bible shows that god lied and the serpent told the truth, but you ignore and try to reinterpret.
The bible shows that god was very afraid of man's potential, but you refuse to acknowledge that.
The bible says Elohim(council of gods) but you still maintain a one and only god.
The bible shows that there were other gods, rival gods that yahweh was even scared of and envied, but you refuse to see it .
The bible says and shows that yahweh was evil, the architect of evil, malicious, jealous, petty, insecure, hateful, etc, but you maintain that god is full of love and goodness.

That is probably why civilized nations do not teach all this bible crap in schools, because of the negative effects it would have on developing comprehension skills.

For someone who denies me the opportunity to elaborate on scripture you certainly are very liberal with your expositions.

LordReed:

For someone who denies me the opportunity to elaborate on scripture you certainly are very liberal with your expositions.

I find his exposition interesting. What sort of existence was man originally destined to have? If it were to obey God at all time (then, it means man originally had no free will). Why did God not want man to be wise?

hifaif:

I find his exposition interesting. What sort of existence was man originally destined to have? If it were to obey God at all time (then, it means man originally had no free will). Why did God not want man to be wise?

So if someone is always right you will deliberately do the wrong thing because you want to prove you have free will? If God is always right what stops man from obeying all the time?

Another wrong supposition. Who says God didn't want man to be wise?

LordReed:

So if someone is always right you will deliberately do the wrong thing because you want to prove you have free will? If God is always right what stops man from obeying all the time?

Another wrong supposition. Who says God didn't want man to be wise?

There is not supposed to be God in the equation. At least not physically. They were not even supposed to be camped in a garden.

hifaif:

There is not supposed to be God in the equation. At least not physically. They were not even supposed to be camped in a garden.

LoL! OMG! You even know pass God sef. Senior brother to God LoL!