Sin

[blü 2]

I pretended to see a difference between the tree's "good and evil" and "right and wrong"? I did? Show me.

Well, either that, or you accept that Adam and Eve were incapable of sin before they ate the fruit.

Take your pick.

 

[nPeace]

Well, either that, or you accept that Adam and Eve were incapable of sin before they ate the fruit.

Take your pick.

Oh you didn't read my post. No prob. If you don't want to respond to it, you are free to leave... of course, it's up to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, either that, or you accept that Adam and Eve were incapable of sin before they ate the fruit.

Take your pick.

That's one of those tricky questions. If they were incapable of sin, they would not have eaten the fruit. But if they were capable of sin, then they wouldn't have needed to eat the fruit. Good luck getting an answer to that.

 

[blü 2]

Oh you didn't read my post. No prob. If you don't want to respond to it, you are free to leave... of course, it's up to you.

I read ;your post.

You said you didn't see where in the Garden story it said Adam and Eve couldn't tell right from wrong.

Since "good and evil" are in this context equivalent to "right and wrong", I asked you to explain the difference, in your view, between "right" and "good" on the one hand, and "wrong" and "evil" on the other, in the context of the Garden story.

An explanation you've since been asked for many times and have never given.

So since you've failed to substantiate whatever point it was you were making, i assume you've abandoned your argument.

If you haven't, set out the difference between "right / good" and "wrong / evil" and we can go from there.

Otherwise I'll go with all the evidence and continue to assume you haven't answered because you can't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nice kitty cat.
You should keep that avatar.
Take care.

Thanks, I just got him yesterday. He will probably stay in my avatar until I get another cat.

 

[blü 2]

That's one of those tricky questions. If they were incapable of sin, they would not have eaten the fruit.

They were incapable of sin because you have to have to intend to transgress to sin. When Eve ate the fruit, through no fault of her own she didn't know what good and evil were, so even in eating the fruit she wasn't sinning since that would involve intention to do wrong. Only after, when "their eyes were opened" did they have the capacity to sin.

 

[Thief]

in Spanish....the word 'sin' means.....without

are we born in sin?

yes

 

[McBell]

They were incapable of sin because you have to have to intend to transgress to sin.

Interesting.
Where does the "intentional" part come from?

 

[blü 2]

Interesting.
Where does the "intentional" part come from?

The same place where we get the idea that babies can't sin. If you do an act legitimately free of any awareness of wrongdoing, you haven't intended anything wrong so you have no moral fault. (In real life we also have the concept of negligence ─ "knew or ought to have known" ─ but that doesn't apply to Adam and Eve, not least because their ignorance was God-given. Nor did Eve or Adam act out of malice ─ the malice is all God's as when [he] monstrously sentences Eve and womankind to painful childbirth, and expels them to protect [his] own self-interest (3:22-23).

 

[McBell]

The same place where we get the idea that babies can't sin. If you do an act legitimately free of any awareness of wrongdoing, you haven't intended anything wrong so you have no moral fault. (In real life we also have the concept of negligence ─ "knew or ought to have known" ─ but that doesn't apply to Adam and Eve, not least because their ignorance was God-given. Nor did Eve or Adam act out of malice ─ the malice is all God's as when [he] monstrously sentences Eve and womankind to painful childbirth, and expels them to protect [his] own self-interest (3:22-23).

please reference where god says that intent is required.

I have not seen any such verse, but freely admit I am not knowing of the whole of religious literature.

 

[blü 2]

please reference where god says that intent is required.

The idea of being punished for wrongdoing when your accuser has deliberately kept all knowledge, even the very concepts, of right and wrong from you seems to me to speak for itself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They were incapable of sin because you have to have to intend to transgress to sin. When Eve ate the fruit, through no fault of her own she didn't know what good and evil were, so even in eating the fruit she wasn't sinning since that would involve intention to do wrong. Only after, when "their eyes were opened" did they have the capacity to sin.

If I commit manslaughter is that not a sin? I did not intend to kill. But I did (hypothetically).

I see where you are going with this and it is not what I was thinking. Rather glad you did though. That is a take on it that I hadn't thought of.

If I recall my Bible, Eve wasn't exactly told not to eat the fruit. She wasn't even around when Adam was given that information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The idea of being punished for wrongdoing when your accuser has deliberately kept all knowledge, even the very concepts, of right and wrong from you seems to me to speak for itself.

Sounds like my ex-wife.

 

[McBell]

The idea of being punished for wrongdoing when your accuser has deliberately kept all knowledge, even the very concepts, of right and wrong from you seems to me to speak for itself.

So your addition of "intended" is not based on anything any deity actually proclaimed?

To assume that a deity who declares a child born out of wedlock is not even to step foot into a church nor their offspring for 10 (15 depending upon the verse) generations would say that the same infant can not sin seems to speak for itself, right?

 

[nPeace]

I read ;your post.

Oh. You did?
Seriously? So why are these questions continuing? Why are you refusing to answer my question? Why are you claiming that I have not answered your questions?

You said you didn't see where in the Garden story it said Adam and Eve couldn't tell right from wrong.

Since "good and evil" are in this context equivalent to "right and wrong", I asked you to explain the difference, in your view, between "right" and "good" on the one hand, and "wrong" and "evil" on the other, in the context of the Garden story.

An explanation you've since been asked for many times and have never given.

So since you've failed to substantiate whatever point it was you were making, i assume you've abandoned your argument.

If you haven't, set out the difference between "right / good" and "wrong / evil" and we can go from there.

Otherwise I'll go with all the evidence and continue to assume you haven't answered because you can't.

Then I don't think you really read the post, at all.Or perhaps you did not understand it. Or... perhaps the way you are looking at it, is the way you want it to be.
I don't see how you could claim you read the post, and be making such false accusations.

I must say, it is really trying my patience to an extreme level. You have no idea.
For one thing, I hate lies and slander, both of which you insist upon. What does that do for you? Does it make you feel smart? It's a fantasy, b - a figment of your imagination.

However, I'm going to allow myself to be tried. I'm going to put up with it, no matter how long it takes, I will continue to point out that your idea of the Adam and Eve account is your own idea, and not the Biblical account.

You claimed you read the post. Yet you claim I have not given an explanation to your semantic question, which never came up previously... It came after my questions actually. although I am not obligated to answer your questions, especially when you ignore mine...
I have both given explanations, and answered all your questions. You have refused to answer my questions... repeatedly, or address my posts.

nPeace, taking a deep breath. Here we go again...
Post #44

Eve ate the fruit at a time when she couldn't tell right from wrong. Since God imposed that ignorance on her, no one can accuse her of choosing to do wrong, deciding to sin, since she had no idea what wrong or sin were. This changed when she ate the fruit of course, but the same was still true of Adam when he ate the fruit ─ he too was incapable of wrong, of sin.

And sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, are nowhere in the text. No, God is quite frank about why he kicked them out ─

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" ─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken

.

Your words... "Eve ate the fruit at a time when she couldn't tell right from wrong."
That is wrong. The scripture - the account never said Eve could not tell right from wrong. That is your idea.
Where is that in the text? Nowhere.

Your words... "no one can accuse her of choosing to do wrong, deciding to sin, since she had no idea what wrong or sin were. This changed when she ate the fruit of course, but the same was still true of Adam when he ate the fruit ─ he too was incapable of wrong, of sin."
Did you hear yourself? She decided to sin? Yet she had no idea what wrong or sin were? Adam was Incapable of sin?
What? Do you realize how made up ideas tend to come off totally absurd.
Let's look at that again... She decided to sin. Yet she had no idea what wrong or sin were. Adam was Incapable of sin.

My words...
If you say you are sticking to the story, you need to be able to show me where in the story does it say Adam and Eve couldn't tell right from wrong. I never read that.
Also, it would help if you explain how one can tell right from wrong.

Your response...
Post #95 again.

Human morality comes from a number of sources. Having evolved as gregarious primates, we dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to the group, and we get a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We're also mammals so we have instincts in favor of child nurture and protection. The rest of our morality we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience. Genetically we're also equipped with a conscience, and with a capacity for empathy. Thus equipped we can decide what's the proper thing to do and not to do ─ right and wrong.

But of course, in the story, Adam and Eve can't do this ─ not anyway till they eat the fruit.

And you have to admit it's a good thing ─ a seriously brilliant thing ─that Eve did, bringing us humans knowledge of good and evil, even if she only did it in a story.

You went on an excursion on morality, but nevertheless, I am only interested in the conclusion.
You said, "...we can decide what's the proper thing to do and not to do ─ right and wrong.
...in the story, Adam and Eve can't do this ─ not anyway till they eat the fruit."

So in your claim, you went outside the account, and created the story that Adam and Eve could not tell right from wrong, and they could only tell right from wrong after they decided to sin although not knowing what sin was.
I hope you are hearing how that sounds.
Anyway, the post you claimed to have read, which I will not spend time repeating, addresses these misguided (I'm using mild words here) ideas, in that 1) Adam and Eve knew what was right and wrong, since God told them and they understood. 2) being like God, in knowing good and bad, is what the account says - Being like God in knowing or deciding what was good and bad... as you acknowledged, by your explanation, I repeat...
QUOTE... abbreviated for simplicity and clarity, and to focus on the main point
...we can decide what's ...right and wrong.
...in the story, Adam and Eve can't do this ...till they eat the fruit. UNQUOTE.

Hence, being like God in knowing good and bad, has no bearing on Adam and Eve knowing it was wrong to disobey God, and take what he did not give them, but specifically made off limits to them.

Simple common sense. If I ask a child six and up this, they will understand it correctly. It's that basic.
Say I invited you to diner at my home, and I told you, "When you use the bathroom, Do not pull the lever on the right of the tank, otherwise the tank will overflow. There is a lever just below the tank, on the left. Pull the one on the left"
Are you going to claim that you did not know it was wrong to pull the lever to the right, until you pulled it? Would you consider such a person sensible, or might you not conclude that they are willfully own way, or mentally retarded?

An officer says to drivers, "Do not turn right on Saint Boulevard."
Sam turns right on Saint Boulevard, and you tell the officer, "Sam needed to turn right in order to know if it was right or wrong. He did not know. Well done Sam."

Is this reasonable to you? Let's hear from you.
I think any child would laugh at the person who patted Sam on the back. I think they would have good reason to.

If however, you said that in both cases, the individual decided for themselves what was right or wrong, I would consider you were being reasonable and talking sensibly. I'd give you the thumbs up.

Thus, as anyone reading these threads can see, I did clearly explain, and answer your attempts to try and win the argument.

Meanwhile, you repeatedly refuse to answer the one question that I asked, which you obviously do not want to answer as it throws your entire argument in the trash, which it has already been thrown already, but it will likely bury it.
Would you like me to answer it for you, so you can have a new argument, instead of repeating the same trashed argument?
Or are you going to answer?
Question - Human morality says X. Your judgment says Y. How can you tell that X is right or wrong, or Y is right or wrong?

 

[nPeace]

Thanks, I just got him yesterday. He will probably stay in my avatar until I get another cat.

Where do you get such fluffy cats from, if I am not being too nosy?

 

[blü 2]

I have both given explanations, and answered all your questions.

Then be so kind as to quote me the answers.

 

[nPeace]

Then be so kind as to quote me the answers.

Ha ha. Please be so kind as to read where I kindly took the time to write it rather than write you off as a waste of my time.

 

[blü 2]

Ha ha. Please be so kind as to read where I kindly took the time to write it rather than write you off as a waste of my time.

So there's n o such thing as your previous answers to my questions?

Okay. That's no surprise.

Just by the way, "I already answered that" is one of the oldest tricks in the Creationist Book of Dodges. For example, there weren't many posts by Karl Crawford where he didn't use one dodge or another, and this was a favorite of his.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where do you get such fluffy cats from, if I am not being too nosy?

I have to purchase them, and I normally find them on Craigslist. Nowadays I am lucky if I can find any adult Persians because they are in great demand, no matter how much money one has. There are also websites such as gokitty, but those cats are not normally located anywhere near where I live, and I cannot drive very far anymore.

Once,got a Persian from a shelter, but it is very rare to find them there, and other people usually adopt them right away, before I can ever get to that shelter. About six and a half years ago I got a Persian from a shelter in a smaller town west of here, but that was a fluke. She was the cat in my first Avatar, Princess. As you can see by the look on her face, she has quite a cattitude. She had been in that no-kill shelter for eight months before I found her.