Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Majody · 08-08-2003, 07:58 PM

I'm assuming that the knowledge of good and evil would have to include the knowledge of right and wrong, since right and wrong are things that can be good and evil. Therefore, A&E could not possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong.

Am I missing something here? This seems stupendously stupid. A&E did not have the knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, disobeying God is an evil thing. This seems to create a kind of paradox, doesn't it? This all seems terribly confusing

08-09-2003, 02:05 AM

Just as weird is the idea that as a result of whatever A&E are supposed to have done, therefore all their descendants are automatically born with "original sin".

Doctor X · 08-09-2003, 02:07 AM

Logic and consistency rarely applies to myth.

--J.D.

Asha'man · 08-09-2003, 05:47 AM

Yep, clear paradox. The Garden of Eden was, in today's terms, a "set-up," or perhaps "entrapment."

After all, if God didn't want man to eat from the tree, why the hell did he put it in the garden, instead of on a small asteroid circling Alpha Centauri??

It's supposed to be confusing, that's why the Devil wrote it that way.

sophie · 08-09-2003, 07:56 AM

I think it's all a matter of perspective. Oh and having the right doses of information.

Majody :

Quote:

Therefore, A&E could not possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong.

I think this is pretense. You have structured your mind to think these ways, but I am sure you may be incorrect. I demonstrate this in the next paragraph.

On Earth things are generally divided between good and evil AND right and wrong. This does not necessarily have to be the case. Things could be divided between, good, better, best and the most complete. These are four choices which do not include any evil or badness whatsoever. ARE we together on this? Now on to the next paragraph where I will show that disobeying omniGOD is not necessarily wrong.

Let us premise an omniGOD and a scenario where omniGOD presents the four choices I listed in the previous paragraph. While presenting the four choices omniGOD winks and nudges for choice three, which is the best choice. Poor souls who wish to do otherwise, which Majody claims as wrong to not follow the hint, subsequently choose the first choice, which is a good choice. The good choice is not the best choice but it is a good one nevertheless. Results may not be awe-inspiring but the results are good nevertheless. Does this show it is not categorically wrong to disobey omniGOD?

kctan · 08-09-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Let us premise an omniGOD and a scenario where omniGOD presents the four choices I listed in the previous paragraph. While presenting the four choices omniGOD winks and nudges for choice three, which is the best choice. Poor souls who wish to do otherwise, which Majody claims as wrong to not follow the hint, subsequently choose the first choice, which is a good choice. The good choice is not the best choice but it is a good one nevertheless. Results may not be awe-inspiring but the results are good nevertheless. Does this show it is not categorically wrong to disobey omniGOD?

& it also show no such things as sin. So what the fish is jebus' death about ? omnidog got a death fetish ?

Make sense sister, if everything can be construed to be 4 choices as premised by you what do you mean by sinning then ? We can always say the choice is a good one, result may not be awe-inspiring blah blah blah therefore showing one is not sinning etc...

So how ? Sinning is in a different catergory ? Care to explain & see why it couldn't be construe to be the 4 choices as premised by you ?

sophie · 08-09-2003, 10:08 AM

kctan : It was only a scenario, not all the fish in the basket. It was not meant to be a universal adaptation of some proposed omniGOD. Even I would not attempt such, from this position.

wordsmyth · 08-09-2003, 11:03 AM

Your scenario also presupposes that omni-god doesn't know which choice will be made. That is a bit less than omni, don't you think.

emotional · 08-09-2003, 01:38 PM

Magus did explain this issue: A&E didn't know of good and evil, but they did know what "thou shalt not" meant, so they were culpable of eating of the fruit.

Of course this test, like the later testing of Abraham with his son Isaac, makes no sense for an omniscient god ... but I doubt the writers of the Bible considered him omniscient.

Doctor X · 08-09-2003, 03:41 PM

Well . . . indeed . . . or else he would not be wondering about the Garden looking for Adam. . . .

. . . or ask the prosecutor where he has been lately. . . .

. . . or right after giving Moses his mission, trying to kill him. . . .

--J.D.

08-08-2003, 07:58 PM	#1
Majody Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tx Posts: 26	Knowledge of Good and Evil paradox? I'm assuming that the knowledge of good and evil would have to include the knowledge of right and wrong, since right and wrong are things that can be good and evil. Therefore, A&E could not possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong. Am I missing something here? This seems stupendously stupid. A&E did not have the knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, disobeying God is an evil thing. This seems to create a kind of paradox, doesn't it? This all seems terribly confusing

08-09-2003, 05:47 AM	#4
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	Entrapment Yep, clear paradox. The Garden of Eden was, in today's terms, a "set-up," or perhaps "entrapment." After all, if God didn't want man to eat from the tree, why the hell did he put it in the garden, instead of on a small asteroid circling Alpha Centauri?? It's supposed to be confusing, that's why the Devil wrote it that way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2003, 02:05 AM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Just as weird is the idea that as a result of whatever A&E are supposed to have done, therefore all their descendants are automatically born with "original sin".

08-09-2003, 02:07 AM	#3
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Logic and consistency rarely applies to myth. --J.D.

08-09-2003, 10:08 AM	#7
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	kctan : It was only a scenario, not all the fish in the basket. It was not meant to be a universal adaptation of some proposed omniGOD. Even I would not attempt such, from this position.

08-09-2003, 11:03 AM	#8
wordsmyth Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Des Moines, Ia. U.S.A. Posts: 521	Your scenario also presupposes that omni-god doesn't know which choice will be made. That is a bit less than omni, don't you think.

08-09-2003, 01:38 PM	#9
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	Magus did explain this issue: A&E didn't know of good and evil, but they did know what "thou shalt not" meant, so they were culpable of eating of the fruit. Of course this test, like the later testing of Abraham with his son Isaac, makes no sense for an omniscient god ... but I doubt the writers of the Bible considered him omniscient.

08-09-2003, 03:41 PM	#10
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well . . . indeed . . . or else he would not be wondering about the Garden looking for Adam. . . . . . . or ask the prosecutor where he has been lately. . . . . . . or right after giving Moses his mission, trying to kill him. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.