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

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

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.

 

That's ok Ed.

 

We've been making excellent progress here and I'd certainly like to continue.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, let's discuss the last line.

 

I presume you mean the last one on this list, which isn't crossed off as fully answered?

 

One, that God violated Adam and Eve's free will and two, that God does this on purpose. 

How did Satan enter the garden? 

Why is the knowledge of [good and] evil there?
And if God is alive even through periods of death and decay, how are His actions not equally valid despite the various time frames?

 

 

If so, then I'm happy to do so.

[walterpthefirst]

We can start here, at the very last sentence of Genesis 4.   It follows the story of Cain and Abel and precedes the list of generations in Genesis 5.  The sentence reads like this...

 

 At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.

 

So why did they do this?  Wasn't god physically present any more, as he had been in Eden, before the Fall?  The answer is, of course, that once Adam and Eve sinned god expelled them from his presence.  He cannot tolerate the physical presence of sin and because the whole of creation was now corrupted with sin, decay and death god removed himself physically from the world.

 

But isn't god omnipresent, you might say?  Isn't he everywhere, all at once?  How can he be absent from the world but still be omnipresent in every part of it?  Isn't this a paradox?

 

Well no, not really. 

Not if you understand the difference between god being physically present in one location, but having his power spread everywhere through the entire world and the whole universe.  So, while he was physically present in a human body in Eden that Adam and Eve could see and speak to, simultaneously his power and his knowledge extended everywhere.

 

When he was physically present in a certain place he was visible, tangible and audible.  Necessarily so in Eden so that Adam and Eve could interact with him as they might interact with any other human being.  

 

But his omnipresent power is invisible, intangible and inaudible to us - unless he chooses otherwise.

 

Do you see the difference, Ed?

 

 

I have an idea about how I can show this visually, but first let's see if you follow what I've written here, ok?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

35 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I presume you mean the last one on this list, which isn't crossed off as fully answered?

 

One, that God violated Adam and Eve's free will and two, that God does this on purpose. 

How did Satan enter the garden? 

Why is the knowledge of [good and] evil there?
And if God is alive even through periods of death and decay, how are His actions not equally valid despite the various time frames?

 

 

If so, then I'm happy to do so.

No sir… about what we know of regarding the history of Heaven I assume.

[walterpthefirst]

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir… about what we know of regarding the history of Heaven I assume.

 

Oh sorry.  I must have become confused.

 

Just for my clarity of mind, did you want to to tackle that fourth question at all?

[walterpthefirst]

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir… about what we know of regarding the history of Heaven I assume.

 

Hmm... not sure I recall how we got onto that topic in this thread.

 

Can you jog my memory please?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

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

If there was never any evil in the Garden, then there could never have been any good, either; because that is how dualities work.  And scripture is clear that the Tree represented the duality of good and evil.  So youve just destroyed your own argument. 

 

Moreover, if the Serpent presented the choice as "good," then it necessarily would have been a morally ambiguous "good" since, per your own statement, the morally explicit duality of good and evil could not exist prior to eating the fruit.  So you are, again, attempting to conflate two radically different dualities. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

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

Think about this, also, Ed.  If there was never evil in the Garden, then why was god so worried about them eating the fruit?  Why not just let them have at it, since there was no evil to hurt them?  If evil didn't already exist, then what did the knowledge of evil actually represent?  Your argument simply falls flat before it even gets started.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If there was never any evil in the Garden, then there could never have been any good, either; because that is how dualities work.  And scripture is clear that the Tree represented the duality of good and evil.  So youve just destroyed your own argument. 

 

Moreover, if the Serpent presented the choice as "good," then it necessarily would have been a morally ambiguous "good" since, per your own statement, the morally explicit duality of good and evil could not exist prior to eating the fruit.  So you are, again, attempting to conflate two radically different dualities. 

Who said there was a balance?  Yes it says the Tree was there, but not as a function of everyday balance.  

 

To Satan.  I've never studied Satan in the Bible and have no clear understanding of the level of deception, lack of truth, etc he would be capable of.  But in this scenario, it appears he sells death via deception....as in making it appear a good thing.  That is my personal reading of those couple of verses.  

 

But no, I've never thought of Eden as anything but good and have constantly wondered why the tree and Satan were allowed or placed there to begin with.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Think about this, also, Ed.  If there was never evil in the Garden, then why was god so worried about them eating the fruit?  Why not just let them have at it, since there was no evil to hurt them?  If evil didn't already exist, then what did the knowledge of evil actually represent?  Your argument simply falls flat before it even gets started.

I don't deny it's there, just not in the everyday form you're suggesting.  

[Edgarcito]

If the Garden was openly evil, why did God have to remove them...

 

Edit: and let's go to Genesis 3 again.  

 

1) Eve even told God "the serpent deceived me".

2) God kicks them out because the tree of life is also there and he doesn't want them living forever in that condition.

 

So your argument falls flat sir, because there is obviously no life/death duality present.

 

Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Who said there was a balance? 

Nobody, which means the rest of your argument is a strawman. 

 

Please educate yourself on the difference between duality and balance.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't deny it's there, just not in the everyday form you're suggesting.  

Thank you for admitting that evil existed before they ate the fruit.  Now, please answer my original question: Since god alone did the creating, where did that evil come from?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

40 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

If the Garden was openly evil, why did God have to remove them...

Answer my question first.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nobody, which means the rest of your argument is a strawman. 

 

Please educate yourself on the difference between duality and balance.

A duality could be a balance....you didn't specify but more or less implied that it was.....when it was, per the story bound in a piece of fruit...

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thank you for admitting that evil existed before they ate the fruit.  Now, please answer my original question: Since god alone did the creating, where did that evil come from?

His creation, His evil.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Answer my question first.

I did, and I already answered mine it the post edit.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

So your argument falls flat sir, because there is obviously no life/death duality present.

Wow.  An argument that I never made fell flat.  Thanks for another strawman. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

A duality could be a balance..

Yes.  It could.  Doesn't mean, or even imply, that it is.

 

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

you didn't specify but more or less implied that it was.

I made no such implication.

 

22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

when it was, per the story bound in a piece of fruit...

The story only speaks to the duality.  It doesn't even attempt to address any balance within said duality.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

His creation, His evil.

Thank you for admitting that god created evil and placed it into the world. 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thank you for admitting that god created evil and placed it into the world. 

Truthfully I don't know who placed what where... but thanks for saying something I didn't.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Truthfully I don't know who placed what where... but thanks for saying something I didn't.

 

"His creation, His evil."  Your exact words.

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

"His creation, His evil."  Your exact words.

 

You’re not very bright are you.

[walterpthefirst]

Back again.

 

Just to let you guys know, I'll have much less time to contribute here over the next two days than I've had lately.  So if there are long pauses between my replies, this explains why.

 

 

I see you two are discussing the presence of evil in Eden.  For what its worth, here's my take on that.

 

Whether god created Eden with evil in or not is a moot point for me.  When it mattered, he allowed evil to enter into the garden when he had the foreknowledge, power and means of stopping it.  This is not just idle speculation on my part or even personal interpretation.  The bible plainly says that god has always had the means of imprisoning the rebel angels to keep them out of humanity's way, has done so and will do so again.  Here are the relevant passages.

 

2 Peter 2 : 4

 

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

 

Jude 6

 

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

 

And in the future Satan himself will be bound and imprisoned because god orders his loyal angels to do it.

 

Revelation 20 : 1 - 3

 

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 

3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

 

See that?

 

God ordered an angel to chain Satan up and imprison him to keep him from deceiving people.  So why didn't god order that done when he knew Satan was going to enter Eden and deceive Eve?

 

We're right back to your garden Ed, with your children in it and that rattlesnake, which is coming for them.  You said you'd shoot that sucker to protect your kids.  But you're just a man who can't see the future and who doesn't know all things.  Yet you'd take up your gun and shoot without even hesitating.

 

So why didn't god do anything?  He's all powerful, knows the future, has already bound SOME of the rebel angels in chains and he also plans to bind Satan in the future, to stop him deceiving people.  So why didn't god do the same in Eden, to stop Satan from deceiving Eve?  

 

The answer is really, really simple, is written in the bible and has been staring us in the face for a long time.

 

Romans 11 : 32

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

God wants to have mercy on everyone, so he has to make everyone guilty of disobedience without getting personally involved in causing Eve to disobey him.  Instead he allows Satan to do his dirty work for him.  THAT is why god didn't act to protect Eve from being deceived.  Allowing Satan to tempt her was all part of god's plan.

 

He planned it, wanted it to happen and stood back, doing nothing when he could have protected his children from harm.

 

The buck stops with god.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

If you like, think about this as taking place in a court of law.

 

 

God stands accused of endangering his children.

 

The evidence, taken from god's own Word, the bible, plainly says that he had the knowledge, means and opportunity to protect them from harm.  But he didn't do so.  They were deceived and harmed on his watch.  He was responsible for their care and didn't deliver.

 

The same body of evidence goes further. 

It tells us that rather than being motivated to care and protect his children as a loving father should, god had a secret agenda.  That instead of wanting to protect them he was motivated to let them be harmed.  This was a necessary part of his greater plan to make everyone guilty of disobeying him.  He let Eve be deceived by Satan so that she, Adam and the whole human race would become guilty of disobedience.  On the basis of this evidence, from god's own lips, what would a jury do?

 

Would they find god guilty of deliberately endangering his own children?

 

Would they find him responsible for allowing Satan to harm them, when he could have stopped that happening?

 

Would they find him to be an unfit parent by putting his own needs before his children's?

 

Would they accept his argument, that he cannot be tried by anyone and so he doesn't recognise the court?

 

Would they they accept his other argument?

That his failure to protect his children, the consequent suffering this brought to the whole world and the future suffering of billions in the fires of hell were all the necessary price that had to be paid for his plan to be carried out?

 

?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.