Douglas King
Member
What would happen if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
- Thread starter Douglas King
- Start date
It was that or derail God's plan, according to what Christians sing.
Read your Exultet hymn and explain it's wording.
Can you focus?
Regards
DL
There is no such thing.
Evil, like good, is a subjective opinion.
If you think it something else, show a picture.
LOL.
From one whose whole theology is based on fiction and lies that are not ever backed up.
Pot kettle.
Regards
DL
3,000 denominations, all shrinking.
You try to play to each set of deluded supernatural believers.
I do not have the memory to know all your different sects and cults.
Do you also ignore what Jesus taught about responsibility for sin?
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Regards
DL
I agree.
Evil is a subjective opinion.
I believe it's OK to pull persons nails out with plyers.
Maybe on someone in your immediate family.
Typical Christian.
Without the inquisitions, there would be no Christianity.
Regards
DL
I have a comment and another question for you..
1. This sub-forum is for Christian's who wish to answer someone's honest question...which you are not doing.
2. You apparently hate Christianity.
Why? And do you also hate God?
BroRoyVa79
Member
You ask questions and ignore answers and just repeat the questions. I covered the O Felix Culpa song and that I am not Catholic. Either way, from reading explanations provided online of the theological concept, I provided a summary of those explanations. You've entirely ignored it to hold to your opinion on the matter over what they say the song actually means and is. Most of all that it's a Catholic song. You do realize all Christians aren't Catholic, don't you?
Ah, sure there isn't until evil is done to you then evil is suddenly existent as wondering was suggesting. This argument is usually made until someone perceives something done to them as evil and then they expect everyone else to perceive it as evil as well so that the evil doer who did something evil to them can be punished for the evil that the evil doer did that shouldn't exist and should be subjective.
I'm starting to think that you might not be who you claim to be, Gnostic. Many of the things you say would go against even the Gnosticism you claim to believe in. Gnostics considered the material evil, therefore in ancient Gnostic school of thought, evil existed, no matter what sect you cite, they believed in some form of "evil."
Aside from that, I'm sure you realize you are on a Christian site and what we most likely mean when speak of evil and most of all that we believe evil exists.
I find this ironic given your name and the school of thought you claim to believe in borrowed so much from Christianity and Judaism. So, if all of that (Judeo-Christian writings) is "fiction and lies" then what does that mean for Gnosticism? Oh, of course, they're the ones with the secret knowledge that developed not so much in a vacuum but after the Christian and Jews wrote things downs over thousands and hundreds of years that Gnostics plagiarized and/or produced fraudulent writings under imposter names.
And sure, I can't point to some absolute collection of evidence and data, but I know that if you're an intellectually honest person then you know how all of this works and how historical writings are corroborated with various things like findings in archaeology, other historical writings, etc. So, with that in mind, the Bible, and by extension Judeo-Christian belief has been backed up several times over.
Very difficult, or easy I guess, for me to ignore something I can't access. Maybe next time don't link something that's been privated:
Last edited:
Hi BroRoyVa79You ask questions and ignore answers and just repeat the questions. I covered the O Felix Culpa song and that I am not Catholic. Either way, from reading explanations provided online of the theological concept, I provided a summary of those explanations. You've entirely ignored it to hold to your opinion on the matter over what they say the song actually means and is. Most of all that it's a Catholic song. You do realize all Christians aren't Catholic, don't you?
Ah, sure there isn't until evil is done to you then evil is suddenly existent as wondering was suggesting. This argument is usually made until someone perceives something done to them as evil and then they expect everyone else to perceive it as evil as well so that the evil doer who did something evil to them can be punished for the evil that the evil doer did that shouldn't exist and should be subjective.
I'm starting to think that you might not be who you claim to be, Gnostic. Many of the things you say would go against even the Gnosticism you claim to believe in. Gnostics considered the material evil, therefore in ancient Gnostic school of thought, evil existed, no matter what sect you cite, they believed in some form of "evil."
Aside from that, I'm sure you realize you are on a Christian site and what we mean when we most likely mean when speak of evil and most of all that we believe evil exists.
I find this ironic given your name and the school of thought you claim to believe in borrowed so much from Christianity and Judaism. So, if all of that (Judeo-Christian writings) is "fiction and lies" then what does that mean for Gnosticism? Oh, of course, they're the ones with the secret knowledge that developed not so much in a vacuum but after the Christian and Jews wrote things downs over thousands and hundreds of years that Gnostics plagiarized and/or produced fraudulent writings under imposter names.
And sure, I can't point to some absolute collection of evidence and data, but I know that if you're an intellectually honest person then you know how all of this works and how historical writings are corroborated with various things like findings in archaeology, other historical writings, etc. So, with that in mind, the Bible, and by extension Judeo-Christian belief has been backed up several times over.
Very difficult, or easy I guess, for me to ignore something I can't access. Maybe next time don't link something that's been privated:
I'll be needing my computer to reply to you. I agree BTW.
Also, I do believe the Moderator might want to move this thread to THEOLOGY. Or maybe Bible Study.
Lastly, I welcome you to CFnet.
I am phobic about lying and never lie.
Christianity began as the best religion the ancients could come up with. I love.
Then Christianity stupidly pushed faith and belief in supernatural lies.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
Regards
DL
I love my God while hating yours.
I gave you a polite and thorough reply above.
Reciprocity is fair play.
Why do you love a genocidal God, who is also homophobic and mysogynous?
Regards
DL
Dorothy Mae
Member
Good and evil are not subjective matters. They are objective. But If you insist, they are matters of God’s opinion. He is the absolute subject determine good and evil and that knowledge is now in us.
Hogwash.
I ignore preaching and reams of quotations.
Let's chat on why you love a genocidal God, who is also homophobic and mysogynous?
Show what you can do before criticizing me.
I am above most poor Christian apologists.
I can tell by your ilk always running from moral questions.
Show your stuff here or go preach your satanic God to one who is as immoral as the Christianity of today.
Regards
DL
Dorothy Mae
Member
You really don’t know anything anyone does that is objectively evil? Really? It’s all just a matter of personal taste?
BroRoyVa79
Member
This entire reply is you admitting that you ignore every response in the previous topics you brought up only to move on to something else now about morality and a genocidal, homophobic, misogynous God.
Sure, but I'm sure you're going to do your patent ignoring everything or just derail the topic with more questions.
I have this conversation with people all of the time. My default position ahead any discussion on it is as so, God is the Creator of all things therefore God as Creator of all things has the Authority to judge all things by His immutable standards on what is Good and what is Evil that comes from His nature and is not arbitrary. If I create a world, for example and set up laws for that world and the creations start going against those laws, I'm within my rights simply as the creator of the world, those beings, and those laws to judge those beings and punish them according to the standard of the law. I always find this argument about God's judgments ironic coming from humans who also set up legal systems of judgment against people base don what humans think is "fair" and human "fairness" as you, yourself just showed, is definitely arbitrary when you consider evil subjective. So, by what standard are you judging God, Gnostic, if evil is subjective to you? Why should I agree with your subjective standard of judgment?
God determined that man and woman is created to be with man and woman. There was no Adam and Steve in the beginning nor Eve and Adamina (or whatever would be the female version of Adam). God made man and woman, not man and man, not woman and woman, and defined how all of this is supposed to work.
Woman was made out of man as a helper. However, I've looked into things like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Code of Hammurabi, Code of Ur-Nammu, Code of Lipit-Ishtar, etc. and many of the the Bible's laws in comparison could be considered "progressive" in regard to women, slaves/servants, etc. in the Ancient Near East. For example, Hammurabi's code (just like others) are similar to the Mosiac Law, but Hammurabi writes in relation to a husband accusing a wife of being unfaithful without proof:
"132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man,(notice they admit there's no proof) she shall jump into the river for her husband." (Meaning she proves her innocence by test and I'm guessing it will depend on whether or not she survives or not)
Compare to:
Deuteronomy 22: 13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
Notice how compared to the Code of Hammurabi, in Deuteronomy they have an entire trial over the accusations made against the wife to determine if they are true or not with evidence by showing the cloth of their wedding night which would have shown the hymen breaking as opposed to the Code of Hammurabi where the woman has to prove her innocence by committing near suicide in the river. Once it's cleared up, the man is punished and the marriage continues and now the man knows everyone knows that he did that and he will likely act differently from that point on.
Outside of that I find that these types of arguments expect Ancient Societies to be just like us. First of all, you're dealing with a time that's not equivalent to Western Civilization or Modern Civilization where women could go into an office building, work at a typewriter all day, get paid, buy themselves an apartment, and live independently. Most of these cultures were agrarian societies and based on physical strength. Let's not play the game of faux-equality when it comes to biology and all that between men and women. So, women had their roles and men had their roles. Roles in society are not synonymous with some type of negative treatment to those who have a particular role based on what they can and cannot do.
Not going to go any deeper because I'm anticipating you hand-waving away these responses and jumping to something else.
But you have also said, several times, things such as the following:
"Let's chat on why you love a genocidal God, who is also homophobic and mysogynous?"
"Show your stuff here or go preach your satanic God to one who is as immoral as the Christianity of today."
You are using these terms and making these claims as if they're objective, as if what you have said is actually true and actually matters. However, if evil is subjective opinion, then these are merely your opinions and don't communicate the actual state of things, they can't speak to reality, since there can't actually be evil (or good), and we can dismiss them. Only if they're actually objective, are you then communicating something about reality, and then such claims need to be addressed.
That is the self-refuting nature of the relativism to which you, and most of society, hold. As such, it should be discarded.
Gnostic
I should have pointed out that morals are truth claims about what is truly good and what is truly evil, and how we ought to respond to instances of evil. If you also believe that truth is subjective, your whole endeavor--salvation through knowledge--is utterly pointless. Truth becomes your opinion and you can't even begin to actually know what salvation is, if it is necessary, and if any so-called knowledge will actually bring about the desired results. You are probably relying on the teachings of past Gnostics, but those are simply their own opinions, and you cannot even know that they have any bearing on reality, much less claim them to be actually true.
You are also making certain truth claims about what the Bible teaches, such as the need to become brethren of Christ, but, as you can see, you have no basis for believing that it actually speaks to reality.
However, if you believe truth is objective--because you live and believe as though it actually is--then you must necessarily believe that morality is objective, which contradicts your previous assertion. If both are subjective, then your most logical position should be agnosticism, not Gnosticism.
It seems that you do not have an example of what you claim.
Come back when you can.
Regards
DL
- Status