Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of AnimatedDirt

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AnimatedDirt

1
Apologetics and Theology / Re: World Cup (Off-topic)
« on: June 14, 2018, 02:22:45 pm »
Soccer annoys me.  But I will be watching only the final.
.
.

2
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 14, 2018, 12:23:49 pm »
If she knew what God said, then she knew she shouldn't be there nor should she partake of the fruit of THAT tree.
She ( they ) knew.
Your interpretation remains flawed...at best. 
How does this follow...if she knew what God said>>she knew she should not...considering my argument that they could not know right from wrong, good from evil and them acting like toddlers and not knowing who to believe and who not..?

You're equating the knowledge of right vs. wrong with the knowledge of good vs. evil.  These are not equal as knowledge.  One is simply the knowledge of what one was/is told to do or not do. ( obey/disobey )  The latter is knowledge that only God can have without having acted out a sin...which is the exact point that the serpent made, though deceptively.
.
.

3
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 14, 2018, 09:52:10 am »
If she knew what God said, then she knew she shouldn't be there nor should she partake of the fruit of THAT tree.

She ( they ) knew.

Your interpretation remains flawed...at best. 
I already dealt with it and your repeated accusation that mine is flawed and yours not is kind of silly.

No more silly than your shown-to-be-flawed literal interpretation.
.
.

4
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 14, 2018, 09:47:06 am »
Eve's words make it perfectly clear what she ( and the Adam ) understood...and they understood right from wrong and/or obedience vs. disobedience.
No, I don't agree with you here. I know that is a very strong point in your own religion, but I don't read it that way. It is actually quite evident as she told the serpent what God had said, not what they themselves think they should or should not be doing.

If she knew what God said, then she knew she shouldn't be there nor should she partake of the fruit of THAT tree.

She ( they ) knew.

Your interpretation remains flawed...at best. 
.
.

5
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 14, 2018, 09:04:11 am »
I was arguing that my interpretation seems obvious from a literal reading of the text (see the above analysis).

Your interpretation is flawed considering that you ignore plain words in your "literal" reading...Eve's words make it perfectly clear what she ( and the Adam ) understood...and they understood right from wrong and/or obedience vs. disobedience.

We can agree they didn't understand the FULL ramifications of their act ( good vs. evil ) or knowing what God knows.
.
.

6
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 14, 2018, 08:50:23 am »
^ I have assumed it would be apparent from the manner in which I attempted to convey the implications of the actual text. I will try again next time I am on line.
I look forward to you doing so.
Let me attempt to illuminate what I thought should be as obvious as a naked emperor:

[Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise...
]
So we have the serpent implying that Adam & Eve were indeed unable to know good and evil and thus unable to know whether it was good to believe God or good to believe the serpent, and that the fruits from the tree would have opened their eyes and gave them said knowledge. Eve’s reaction is described as somewhat naïve; what she saw of the tree seemed attractive and made her believe that it may be better to believe what the serpent just told them, that it might be true. Not knowing good and evil at that stage, both she and Adam would have lacked proper conscience (defined here as “a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour”) and unable to judge their actions. The state of mind that they must have been in prior to eating the fruits is again confirmed by virtue of verse 22. Even though Eve had recalled what God told her, the serpent’s assurance easily convinced them. This kind of naïve vulnerability to believe whatever the next thing that they are being told is reminiscent of how a toddler would behave. 

[Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.]
They were obviously naked from the outset but it never mattered to them. Again, imagine a toddler running around naked, which would be perfectly normal, having a sudden adult-like insight into his/her state of being.

[ And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.]
Hiding themselves points to an act of shame/guilt, i.e. at this stage they had developed an inner voice, or conscience.

[And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”]
God connecting the dots.

[The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.]
Just a quick reference to the second part of this verse, which we know to be false.

[Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil...]
This is confirmation that man did not know good and evil before the act of eating the fruits and has since acquired the knowledge (a.k.a. conscience). Ironically this part, plus the fact that they did not die from the fruits, show that the serpent had it right all along.

[Now, lest he reach out his hand rand take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.]
Again just a further reference to this, the very next part of the same verse, that refers to the tree of life and seemingly indicates that they were never immortal to start with. Clearly, according to the Genesis narrative, it was not the act of sin that brought physical death into the world. God’s curse was not about returning to the ground, it was merely a lifelong (all the days of your life) curse of hardship. There is also no actual mentioning of any future redemption, even of the transfer of sin to following generations.

Since you insist on excluding the context and the most important issue here... Genesis 3:2

Quote
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

Genesis 3:2

The woman ( and therefore the Adam also ) understood right from wrong and though they didn't understand the full ramifications of their future act, they did understand they were not to be there, much less partake of the tree's fruit.

They don't need to ( or can't ) understand the full ramifications, because ACTING is understanding, not being All-Knowing.
.
.

7
And what do we do about it?

They get the SJW's to vote based on the gender of a person rather than on the substance of their platform...except that platform includes "Women are under-represented in politics" as their loudest point.
.
.

8
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 08, 2018, 02:29:53 pm »
^ More like trying to convince others that the emperor is naked, but does anyone care..?

^Evidently.
.
.

9
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:50:45 pm »
^ Oh well, I never expected to convert hardcore Christians to my identification of some of the obvious shortcomings in the original sin narrative and we are just going around in circles. Your uppercase emphasis of certain claims won't convince me either, so best to end our chat. Thanks.

Shortcomings obviously created in your mind.

Best case: You're ignorance makes you wrong
Worst case: You're arrogance makes you willfully wrong.

I say its the latter.  Either way, you're wrong on the narrative and your interpretation thereof.
.
.

10
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Do you believe in the Devil?
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:12:59 pm »
So, there's a little debate. I admit that humanoids is the most probable interpretation if the scriptures are completely not talking about the king of Tyre or the king of Babylon. If the message is mixed, then it's still possible that we're not talking about a humanoid.

I have no real disagreement/argument.  This was simply an inquiry of curiosity.

I don't think we have a real need to know how or what the true manifestation of evil is, but that it/he can manifest in various forms.
.
.

11
Apologetics and Theology / Re: School shootings
« on: June 08, 2018, 11:00:38 am »
That's not the presupposition at all. You bring up inner-city gangs; these are largely poor youths, not sophisticated crime cartels. If there are no guns locally available then they are not going to be able to get them from Mexico or wherever very easily.

Fact:  Illicit drugs are illegal. ( redundancy? )
Fact:  I can still get Illicit drugs if I wanted.
Fact:  Drug users still use drugs, including illicit drugs.
Fact:  Overdose deaths still occur due to the use of illegal drugs
Fact:  Crime due to illegal drugs still exists.
Fact:  The drug problem still exists despite the illegality of drugs.
Conclusion:  Illicit drugs being illegal does not change the above facts.

Your logic just doesn't stand up...

Then how come London youth gangs use knives rather than guns?

That simply proves the point!  Why, then, are you not for banning knives?  Then, forks, then sharpened toothbrushes...etc...until in the end, we end up banning having hands/arms!
.
.

12
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Do you believe in the Devil?
« on: June 08, 2018, 10:29:24 am »
There are a few other texts in scripture that lend to my position...though again, it just seems more plausible that the devil is a person/being.  Why would God "argue" with a force?  ( Jude 1:9 ) Why would Jesus/God use a certain language for God the Father and use the same language for the devil opposing God? ( John 8:31-47 )  It seems to me that if the devil was simply a force, that the language used would not be one of a father personified, but rather of an attitude, like a cloud/fog that rolls in or like heat/cold.  Add to this that the devil was once WITH God in heaven...resided there.  ( How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? )  This suggests a free willed being making a conscious decision to rebel and/or think different.

I agree with much of what you say, AnimatedDirt, and if you are believer who takes the Bible seriously, Satan certainly seems to be a character, a being, a person, since he appears as such in the Book of Job as having dialogue with God and later has dialogue with Jesus.  But he also seems to be a symbol or a metaphor as well, such as when Jesus tells Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"  Obviously, Jesus doesn't think Peter is Satan, he is simply making a point about Peter's behavior.  So, Harvey is making some valid points as well.  There doesn't seem to be an either/or answer, even just going by the Bible and nothing more. 

And then, there is the deeper question of what tempted the Devil to become the Devil.  Let's say he was the first rebel, an actual person created by God and who rebelled against God, therefore bringing sin into existence.  Wouldn't Lucifer have to have the abstract qualities leading to his rebellion, however?  And where did they come from?  His pride, vanity, greed, duplicity and so on couldn't just come out of a vacuum.  Reflect upon Isaiah 45:7.

Understood.

This is a 'here nor there' point in the great scheme of Christianity, to me.  I don't think the belief of the devil is a being vs. a "force" is of any REAL value.  The value is in knowing what is of the devil and what is of God.
.
.

13
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 08, 2018, 10:01:11 am »
My argument is that they were not equipped to differentiate right from wrong, that their conscience and judgement were akin to that of toddler (I explained why and this seems quite obvious from the narrative). A toddler is not held accountable before a court.

But they are held accountable for obedience...and sometimes disobedience results in unwanted and unknown ramifications.  Plus, they weren't toddlers, but adults that did understand right from wrong and death...as evidenced in Eve's reply.

Remembering what God told them about the tree does not imply anything more than just that.

Possibly...but it does establish they KNEW they shouldn't be there.

This would be the same in the case of the toddlers that I mentioned in my response to Pieter earlier. They might remember exactly what their father told them about the apples. And this was quickly denied by the serpent, telling them it was perfectly safe.

And they were warned...yet DIDN'T obey THEIR father.

So they were required to make a judgement call as to what would be the right thing to do, who to believe, which they were unable to do...like toddlers. The serpent's assurance and the lure of the attractive fruits that would make them wiser resulted in a spurious action.

No!  They were NOT REQUIRED to make a judgment call...they PLACED THEMSELVES IN A POSITION to have to make a call that they were NOT supposed to make on their own.  They were disobedient and it doesn't matter two hoots that they didn't fully understand the ramification of THEIR judgment call.

Again...Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

The transformation from Adam & Eve from prior to post "sin" is equally obvious from the narrative, having acquired the knowledge they hided away realizing their nakedness and their transgression; they were no longer toddlers, they suddenly had a conscience and knew they did wrong.

They didn't JUST realize they had done wrong, they knew they were DOING wrong.  The nakedness was simply a physical affirmation of guilt that they could NOT hide...as if God wouldn't have known.

You're simply arguing from a flawed position.
.
.

14
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Do you believe in the Devil?
« on: June 08, 2018, 09:13:41 am »
I'm sure you'll laugh this off, but at least consider it.

I wouldn't laugh because I don't KNOW my belief is true...however I do wonder how you reconcile this with Matthew 4 where Jesus is tempted by the devil.

Was Jesus talking to himself and worse, was Jesus "possessed" then, by the devil...having a conversation with the devil?

Again, no mocking because I wouldn't claim to KNOW Satan is a humanoid.  I don't see Satan as much different from whatever angels are made of.  But anyway...my curiosity stands on the above question.

Thanks.
.
.

That's a good point, but the whole point of fasting for 40 days was to incur the mindset where he could feel the human nature tugging at his divine nature. Under normal conditions, he wouldn't feel that tug, but in a hot desert faced with great thirst and hunger, the physical mind enters into the pre-conditions of temptation, which is not evil on Jesus' part because he did not entertain the evil. It was forced upon him as a result of human physiology. The Incarnation never denies Jesus' humanness. It just says that even though fully human and subject to its worst physical punishments, his divinity was able to overcome the passions of the flesh. These passions are spiked when fasting, under duress, pain and suffering, etc. This naturally allows one to hear the thoughts of the prince of the power of the air.

This is interesting, Harvey.  I don't mock it because, again, I don't have the knowledge to back up my own claim to say your position is wrong as the attitude towards the devil remains the same.  We should resist.  I will say, I think the manner in which the whole of the biblical narrative treats the character of Lucifer, Satan, the Devil makes the character an actual being and not a Force...if you will...as that is how I see your interpretation.

There are a few other texts in scripture that lend to my position...though again, it just seems more plausible that the devil is a person/being.  Why would God "argue" with a force?  ( Jude 1:9 ) Why would Jesus/God use a certain language for God the Father and use the same language for the devil opposing God? ( John 8:31-47 )  It seems to me that if the devil was simply a force, that the language used would not be one of a father personified, but rather of an attitude, like a cloud/fog that rolls in or like heat/cold.  Add to this that the devil was once WITH God in heaven...resided there.  ( How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? )  This suggests a free willed being making a conscious decision to rebel and/or think different.

Anyway, again, your position is interesting.  Let me know if my "force" interpretation misses your position.
.
.

15
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Question about Original Sin
« on: June 08, 2018, 08:40:42 am »
^ I have indeed been arguing from the text. Your quote merely confirms that she was aware what God told her. And why do you stop there, in the middle of the conversation..? Is it because the rest of it hints at my interpretation being more appropriate?

No, because you're whole argument is that they didn't understand WHY it was wrong, didn't know the full ramifications of such an act...and we both know that ignorance ( both in it's existence and in it's purpose ) is no excuse.

Quote
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

By their own words, they knew right from wrong.

So again, we return to an argument made from you that does not fit the narrative because they were aware.  Their answer to the serpent makes that plain.  That they didn't fully understand the ramification of taking the forbidden fruit has no relevance whatsoever.
.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 522