Why would a perfect garden need anyone to look after it?

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

If they were interacting with God, then that by default would have been "good".  Her input previous to the encounter with Satan was "good" and that's all she knew.

 

No,  This contradicts the bible.

 

The bible says that Eve only came to know what good was after she ate.

 

Not before.

 

Not during any interactions with god or Satan.

 

Only after eating.

 

Read your bible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Bible doesn't even say what you are speculating...actually says the opposite.

Bible says she lied before she ate the fruit.  Bible says she was tempted by Pride.  Bible says she desired what god had forbidden.   Bible says all of this happened before she ate the fruit.  I'm not even going to argue with you on this point; because you are just plain wrong.

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

If they were interacting with God, then that by default would have been "good".  Her input previous to the encounter with Satan was "good" and that's all she knew.

 

Please answer this one, Ed.

 

How could Eve have known god was good before she ate the fruit if the knowledge of what good was was only given to her after she ate?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Bible doesn't even say what you are speculating...actually says the opposite.

 

If you are going by what the bible says Ed, then when does the bible say that Eve knew what good was?

 

Before or after she ate?

 

Here's what the bible says.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

 

Well?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No,  This contradicts the bible.

 

The bible says that Eve only came to know what good was after she ate.

 

Not before.

 

Not during any interactions with god or Satan.

 

Only after eating.

 

Read your bible.

No sir, that's not right.  I can gain experiential knowledge WITHOUT interpretation.

 

To follow, if her experience of God was good, then "good, pleasing, and desirable" are not necessarily bad things.  Satan used her positive experiential knowledge to trick her into choosing his offerings.  Then she was bound to the choice.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Please answer this one, Ed.

 

How could Eve have known god was good before she ate the fruit if the knowledge of what good was was only given to her after she ate?

 

 

She didn't know the definition; she just knew the experience.  The definition came post fruit.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, that's not right.  I can gain experiential knowledge WITHOUT interpretation.

 

Yes, you can.

 

Because you were born with your moral software already installed.

 

But Eve didn't.  She was an empty void in your words.

 

So you can't compare what you can do to what she couldn't do.

 

This is a false comparison.

 

 

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

 

To follow, if her experience of God was good, then "good, pleasing, and desirable" are not necessarily bad things.  Satan used her positive experiential knowledge to trick her into choosing his offerings.  Then she was bound to the choice.

 

An empty void cannot experience good, nor can an empty void experience evil.

 

But if the void is filled with by a download of moral wisdom after eating a certain fruit, then it is no longer a void.

 

Only after eating the fruit could Eve know and understand what good and evil were.

 

Before then - no way.

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

She didn't know the definition; she just knew the experience.  The definition came post fruit.

 

You said this.

 

Hence my conclusion that Eve took away good, pleasing, and desirable away from the conversation with Satan and acted.

 

That's a definition of good.  Pre-fruit.

 

Are you now saying that she wouldn't have known what good was until after she ate?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Have you considered what's going on here, Ed.

 

 

The bible says that Eve only knew what good was after she ate.

 

The logic of your own 'empty void' argument says that she only knew what good was after she ate.

 

The logic of the Prof's argument and mine are saying the same thing.

 

 

So you are not only arguing with us but you are also arguing with the bible and with yourself.

 

We can carry on with this game if you like.

 

It's your call.

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You said this.

 

Hence my conclusion that Eve took away good, pleasing, and desirable away from the conversation with Satan and acted.

 

That's a definition of good.  Pre-fruit.

 

Are you now saying that she wouldn't have known what good was until after she ate?

 

 

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly Walter.  I can experience good but not have read the book defining good.  She experienced it, and then consumed, took in, COMMUNED with the definition.

 

Satan presented the definition in a way that she had experienced and she thought she was doing good I expect.  If we read the two previous verses, the presentation was a positive presentation for Eve....you won't die, you will be smart, and like God.  Why would she not.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Have you considered what's going on here, Ed.

 

 

The bible says that Eve only knew what good was after she ate.

 

The logic of your own 'empty void' argument says that she only knew what good was after she ate.

 

The logic of the Prof's argument and mine are saying the same thing.

 

 

So you are not only arguing with us but you are also arguing with the bible and with yourself.

 

We can carry on with this game if you like.

 

It's your call.

It's not a game, it's you stubbornly not wanting to change your mind or consider my thoughts.

[walterpthefirst]

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not a game, it's you stubbornly not wanting to change your mind or consider my thoughts.

 

I've considered your thoughts in the form of your 'empty void' argument.

The logic of your own argument is that Eve was unable to recognise good before she ate the fruit.

But you don't to seem to understand the logic of your own argument.

 

 

Anyway, your accusation that I don't want to change my mind is unfounded.

In this thread I've changed my mind when mwc persuaded me that Adam and Eve were created as equals.

I changed my own mind when I dropped the requirement for perfection in Eden from my argument.

And the Prof changed my mind by persuading me that Adam and Eve were not created innocent.

 

 

So far you've presented nothing to change my mind.

But you change that by doing just one thing for me, Ed.

By answering the following question.

When does the bible say that Eve understood good and evil - before or after she ate fruit? 

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

 

Just tell me when, according to the bible and if it says before then you'll change my mind.

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I've considered your thoughts in the form of your 'empty void' argument.

The logic of your own argument is that Eve was unable to recognise good before she ate the fruit.

But you don't to seem to understand the logic of your own argument.

 

 

Anyway, your accusation that I don't want to change my mind is unfounded.

In this thread I've changed my mind when mwc persuaded me that Adam and Eve were created as equals.

I changed my own mind when I dropped the requirement for perfection in Eden from my argument.

And the Prof changed my mind by persuading me that Adam and Eve were not created innocent.

 

 

So far you've presented nothing to change my mind.

But you change that by doing just one thing for me, Ed.

By answering the following question.

When does the bible say that Eve understood good and evil - before or after she ate fruit? 

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

 

Just tell when, according to the bible and if it says before then you'll change my mind.

 

One, I'm allowed to have new understandings as I go.  My historical record is what it is.  AFTER consideration, I am presenting what I think now.  

 

Two, by DEFAULT what Eve experience with God in the Garden was good.  Could have been nothing else.  SHE ONLY NEW GOOD AND ONLY THROUGH EXPERIENCE.  She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil.  Those were in the fruit.  She did not download all that entails until she ate.  

 

She then was given an experience that appeared and was similar to what she had experienced before but was a trick by one of God's crafty creations.  (And who of God's creations could actually appear like God?)

 

It's not that hard to envision.

 

Thx.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly Walter.  I can experience good but not have read the book defining good.  She experienced it, and then consumed, took in, COMMUNED with the definition.

 

You don't need to read the definition of good in a book to know and understand what it is.  That's because, unlike Eve, you were born with an inner knowledge of good and evil.  That's just a strawman argument.

 

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Satan presented the definition in a way that she had experienced and she thought she was doing good I expect.  If we read the two previous verses, the presentation was a positive presentation for Eve....you won't die, you will be smart, and like God.  Why would she not.

 

How could she think she was doing good if inside she's an empty void, bereft of any understanding of what good is?

 

Your own 'empty void' argument says you are wrong here.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

One, I'm allowed to have new understandings as I go.  My historical record is what it is.  AFTER consideration, I am presenting what I think now.  

 

Two, by DEFAULT what Eve experience with God in the Garden was good. 

 

We can know that by reading scripture.  But if Eve was an empty void (your definition) then she couldn't know that.

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

Could have been nothing else. 

 

 

Only to us.  Not to her.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

SHE ONLY NEW GOOD AND ONLY THROUGH EXPERIENCE. 

 

 

No.  By your own empty void argument, that's impossible.  You are arguing against yourself.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil.  Those were in the fruit.  She did not download all that entails until she ate.  

 

We agree!

 

So, if she had no understanding of the consequences of her actions and no understanding of good and evil until after she ate the fruit, how can she be held responsible for doing evil?

 

People with no understanding of what they are doing are never held responsible for their actions.

 

So why should Eve be held responsible for doing something she had no understanding of?

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

She then was given an experience that appeared and was similar to what she had experienced before but was a trick by one of God's crafty creations.  (And who of God's creations could actually appear like God?)

 

It's not that hard to envision.

 

Thx.

 

 

 

Hallellujah!

 

Edgarcito has finally come round to seeing that Eve had no understanding of her actions before she ate the fruit!

 

Now let's see if he understands why she therefore shouldn't be held responsible.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You don't need to read the definition of good in a book to know and understand what it is.  That's because, unlike Eve, you were born with an inner knowledge of good and evil.  That's just a strawman argument.

 

 

How could she think she was doing good if inside she's an empty void, bereft of any understanding of what good is?

 

Your own 'empty void' argument says you are wrong here.

We aren't talking about post generations after A&E.  

 

Because what Satan presented was congruent to what God presented, her experience, without anything else, her or our understanding of good.  

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We can know that by reading scripture.  But if Eve was an empty void (your definition) then she couldn't know that.

 

 

Only to us.  Not to her.

 

 

 

No.  By your own empty void argument, that's impossible.  You are arguing against yourself.

 

 

 

We agree!

 

So, if she had no understanding of the consequences of her actions and no understanding of good and evil until after she ate the fruit, how can she be held responsible for doing evil?

 

People with no understanding of what they are doing are never held responsible for their actions.

 

So why should Eve be held responsible for doing something she had no understanding of?

 

 

Hallellujah!

 

Edgarcito has finally come round to seeing that Eve had no understanding of her actions before she ate the fruit!

 

Now let's see if he understands why she therefore shouldn't be held responsible.

It doesn't fucking matter Walt.....Satan presented the same experience...whether she knew absolutely nothing.  I KNOW you are smarter than this.

[Edgarcito]

And this is why you are a douchebag sir.

 

So God asks "who told you", then who or what other of God's creations had the ability to deceive to this level?

 

Moving along, let's discuss what's going on in Heaven.  Then we might get to place blame somewhere.

 

Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It doesn't fucking matter Walt.....Satan presented the same experience...whether she knew absolutely nothing.  I KNOW you are smarter than this.

 

I see.

 

So you'd be ok with being blamed and punished for doing something you had no understanding of?

 

Really?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

And this is why you are a douchebag sir.

 

So God asks "who told you", then who of what other of God's creation had the ability to deceive to this level?

 

Moving along, let's discuss what's going on in Heaven.  Then we might get to place blame somewhere.

 

Thx.

 

You mean that you'd like me to answer your last question?

 

That was the next thing on the agenda.

 

Please let me know.

 

 

Logging off for a while.

[Edgarcito]

You know Walt, I have been watching how you have been removing yourself to control yourself....which is admirable imo.  But when you do shit like this it just makes me think of what an untrustworthy dick you are.  

 

Carry on.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

You mean that you'd like me to answer your last question?

 

That was the next thing on the agenda.

 

Please let me know.

 

 

Logging off for a while.

Yes, let's discuss the last line.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ed seems to be arguing here that, because Eve was able to experience morally ambiguous "good" without understanding it, she should, therefore, be held accountable for choosing morally explicit evil.  The problem I see is with the dualities being presented.  Morally ambiguous "good" has the dualistic counterpart of "bad," which is also morally ambiguous.  The roads in South New Jersey are not "good;" but they're certainly not evil, either.  And Ed seems to be trying to conflate the morally ambiguous dualityof good versus bad with the morally explicit duality of good versus evil.

 

The very fact that these are both dualities, however, presents Ed with yet another problem.  As the term implies, dualities must exist in pairs of two.  Light and darkness, love and hate, rich and poor, etc.  Dualities, therefore, explicitly imply the existence of both properties.  

 

If there was "good" on the earth for Eve to experience prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also existed either bad, or evil, or both.  If there was morally ambiguous "good" prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also been morally ambiguous "bad" as well.  But this would make god a liar, since he had declared his entire creation to be "good."

 

However, the Tree itself, as its name implies, represented the duality of morally explicit " good" and "evil".  The same principle applies here.  If there was morally explicit "good" on the earth prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also been "evil" on the earth as well.  Since god alone did all of the creating, where did the evil come from?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ed seems to be arguing here that, because Eve was able to experience morally ambiguous "good" without understanding it, she should, therefore, be held accountable for choosing morally explicit evil.  The problem I see is with the dualities being presented.  Morally ambiguous "good" has the dualistic counterpart of "bad," which is also morally ambiguous.  The roads in South New Jersey are not "good;" but they're certainly not evil, either.  And Ed seems to be trying to conflate the morally ambiguous dualityof good versus bad with the morally explicit duality of good versus evil.

 

The very fact that these are both dualities, however, presents Ed with yet another problem.  As the term implies, dualities must exist in pairs of two.  Light and darkness, love and hate, rich and poor, etc.  Dualities, therefore, explicitly imply the existence of both properties.  

 

If there was "good" on the earth for Eve to experience prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also existed either bad, or evil, or both.  If there was morally ambiguous "good" prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also been morally ambiguous "bad" as well.  But this would make god a liar, since he had declared his entire creation to be "good."

 

However, the Tree itself, as its name implies, represented the duality of morally explicit " good" and "evil".  The same principle applies here.  If there was morally explicit "good" on the earth prior to eating the fruit, then there must have also been "evil" on the earth as well.  Since god alone did all of the creating, where did the evil come from?

 

 

There wound never have been evil in the Garden.  And Satan presented the choice as good… something that she would want per her experience.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We aren't talking about post generations after A&E.  

 

Well, actually we are.

 

Genesis 3 : 20 says that Eve became the mother of all the living.  That's you, me, the Prof, everyone.  Every generation after Eve, right up to today have been unfairly and unjustly affected by the curses and punishments god laid on Eve.

 

The same goes for Adam.

 

God placed the whole of creation; the land, the seas and all the animals, birds and fish in the world under Adam's dominion.  So, when god unfairly blamed him for disobeying, every living thing in the world was affected by god's curses and punishments - which brought decay and death to all life.

 

So the injustice of what god did to them both by causing them to disobey affects everyone.  Which is exactly what the apostle Paul says he wanted.  To make us all guilty sinners who have to rely on his mercy to avoid the fires of hell.  Romans 11 : 32 again.

 

 

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Because what Satan presented was congruent to what God presented, her experience, without anything else, her or our understanding of good.