₦airaland Forum

Dbestmax: Read meaning into wat u say friend..Every1 has a reazon for wat dey believe in nd y...and dats wat I seek...it dosnt jst end in not believing in God den wat do they believe in....

Dbestmax: If u call yourself an Atheists defend yourself here by letting us know what you believe in since you believe there is no God... #Ymodulus and #Mizmycoli

LordReed: How can you say man that named all the animals was without sense?

LordReed: Understand the consequence was made very clear to Adam. You are the ones getting in a twist because you say Adam had no knowledge so you are forced to making God an evil judge. God says to Adam "You will die if you eat this" yet you say Adam didn't have knowledge, you are the ones contradicting yourselves.

LordReed: That is a contradiction. He disobeyed which means he knew he ought to obey so you can't say he did not know it was wrong and still call it disobedience. Also God would not have condemned him if he had no knowledge.

LordReed: That fault is yours. I said from the beginning they had knowledge, the knowledge of the command DO NOT EAT.

BodyKiss: You gave the impression they were kids in grown-up body.

LordReed: I wonder how come you want to interpret something that you don't consider true.

LordReed: So was eating the fruit wrong?

LordReed: I thought you were seeking for someone to explain it to you? How come you have a "point"?

That aside you are mixing it up. The Bible never says they couldn't distinguish between good and evil. They had a command and they were given the consequences, what is more basic than that for distinguishing between good and evil?

macof: Where's the wedding ceremony?

They should have invited the animals as guest

LordReed: What sir is morality if it is not about obedience and disobedience?

LordReed: Which is why I said you didn't read my previous post well. They had morality or they would not be punished. What they began to know was not the moral good and evil but about making conclusions about themselves and their environment (what I termed "subjective observation". Are you saying God was unfair in condemning them when they didn't know what they were doing was evil?

LordReed: Which is why I said you didn't read my previous post well. They had morality or they would not be punished. What they began to know was not the moral good and evil but about making conclusions about themselves and their environment (what I termed "subjective observation". Are you saying God was unfair in condemning them when they didn't know what they were doing was evil?

LordReed: Unless you are not reading with discernment it is clear in Bible.

1. God gave a command that becomes the basis for their morality because they will be judged on their ability to obey or disobey.

2. If they cannot choose to disobey then there was no point to the exercise and if the fruit was going to give them the ability to choose then they would not have been condemned for it.

LordReed: The fruit of that tree was not going to give them morality. The tree was there to prove their ability to choose.

LordReed: No I did not. Read my previous post properly.

LordReed: No I did not. Read my previous post properly.

LordReed: The knowledge of good and evil.

FOLYKAZE: Where did you read in the passage that sin was created?

One they were never married, and they had sex which lead to pregnancy. In the bible, is this not fornication? Why were Adam and eve not punished for fornication if they had sinned?

The fruit was eaten by human so they have to die like you stated. . . .was it eaten by animals and plants too because they die?

You just dont read bible like story book. And all ancient accounts have there essense.

Someon on this thread explained Adam and Eve are nations of people. Reading from you won lines, you mean they are two individuals.

Some people understand the account to be passage of time and change of ages. You took it as a time within short period.

You dont have to hold me down if you got perplexed in between.





And between. . . .no time for argument on sundat. There is nothing to achieve here so I better hook up with something better

Ezyp: From one of your post you wrote you are ONE WHO IS SKEPTICAL so no need to keep replying/quoting you cos you will keep asking same question i just answered.

LordReed: 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 naked?". 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.

FOLYKAZE: I think the passage is metaphoric. . . .

Would come back. . . .busy with her

hifaif: I don't know if anyone has ever noticed anything while reading this biblical verse:


And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Gen 3: 22.


From the above passage, we are made to understand that man had no knowledge of good and evil before he ate the forbidden fruit. So why was God so angry?

Man clearly didn't know what he was doing (he couldn't differentiate between good and evil).

If man had no knowledge (of good and evil), how could he have responded to the laws of not eating of the fruit?

How can a man who cannot differentiate between good and evil resist temptation?

How can he tell if what his tempter is saying is good or evil since he cannot differentiate one from the other?

The first man (before he sinned) seems more like a robot to me. So why did God make a big deal out of it?

.

Ezyp: to a very large extent better than the naked girls we have on the street all in the name of fashion......BUT THEY FOUGHT AND DIED FOR PRESENT DAY CHRISTIANS TO ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE NOW

musKeeto: Pray tell, great Sage, where this spiritual converter thou talkest about lyest? In the dank recesses of thy riddled brain?