Then God must know evil and can do evil if he knows what good is.

So it (garden of Eden) wasn't perfect then?

This is the problem with this story, you defend one part, and it makes another look silly, or amoral.

So if this perfect place existed then it cannot possible be deficient anything, it has to be perfect.

If it was less than perfect than the bible is wrong and god was not happy with paradise. If you cannot know good without evil than perfect does not exist.

You have a god which is supposedly perfect, who created a perfect garden of Eden but was not satisfied? REALLY?

Contradictions abound my friend. It takes a tortured logic to try to defend this silly parable.

God of the bible is anything but perfect, he asks fathers to kill sons, he asks innocents to obey arbitrary laws that he knows they will not understand, he slaughters whole tribes that he knew would defy him even tho with his all power could have shown the right way, but NOOO I want them to make the decision themselves without his influence, even tho its his own influence that set them up for failure to begin with.

Its all a fairy tale predicated on illogical parable to appease the masses and create an all powerful authority which if you defy you will never get to see some eternal paradise ect ect. It preys on humans fear of death to achieve control in life. Its so transparently a creation of man to control man. Its a giant manipulation from end to end to prop up real world authorities, nothing more, nothing less.

You're comparing an infinite mind with a mind that has it's limits. God is omniscient, meaning he know's everything. That would include both pure and evil.

But this does not mean that he DOES evil. Knowing and doing are two different things. With what you say is the same as saying if someone know's how to kill another, he has. No, because knowledge and action are two different things.

But yes, just reread what you wrote. God COULD do evil. There is that possibility. But he never would, for doing evil is complete opposite of him and how he does things. Would make little to no sense if God said to not do this or that, then he went and did it himself. Would be hypocritical, which God is not, he is pure, he is righteous.

Sorry Jeannie, but I'm erasing everything but the last part..

Why?

This has been my point, time in and time out.

If God could not keep an eye on two kids.

How is it reasonable or even logical to believe that he has his eyes on all 7 billion of us?

Cowboy.

Baby.

Bottle of cyanide.

Don't touch.

If you do this, which I highly suggest you don't.
That baby will take drink and bathe in that bottle.
(Yes, that's hypothetical, but still)

Adam and Eve were of such a mind frame.
To tell them 'not to do this' when you put it in front of them..
Heck you might as well decorate the tree while you are at it.
And place a big neon says, "EAT AT JOES" pointing to it.

You say this was Gods plan.
If that is true, which I will work with you and say, Mkay that's true.

..how is it NOT reasonable for me to say:

God is a sociopath/psycho?

That very action defined man for the next thousands of years.
He set the 'cog' in motion, if you will.

That said, the ideal of sacrificing his son.
Was also his fault; via logic.

Had he not set us up to fail.
Then banished us for doing exactly what he knew we'd do.

Everything after was, in fact, his plan.

NOT TO MENTION.

This is where the birth of my stating that FREE WILL is an illusion.

You cannot sit there and tell me:

Adam and Eve had a CHOICE (via free will)
Whether or not to eat from the tree.
But then tell me, it was his plan that they WOULD eat from said tree.

That's a hypocrisy in itself.

By this concept, it is then rather clear and concise.
That every action man has taken since, has in fact..
..been preordained.

You were meant to have her your long and be almost a spitting image of Jesus yourself.

Adventure is supposed to look like Jesus if Jesus was a hippy.

Bushido is supposed to look like my old Counselor.

..and they are all supposed to be exactly and right where they are now.

Doing wtf ever it is they are doing right now.

..thus, the visage of free will..

As I said to Adventure moments ago.

There is a blue pill, there is a red pill.

You have the four choices.
Take one, take the other.
Take neither, take both.

But reality is, neither pill has any effect.
So all choices have the same result.

Thus.

Destiny.

Yay!

I finally made Jeannie laugh. :)

Sin I wish you had speakers so you could watch Dan Dennet explain "free wont". Vs "Free Will".

Basically we are good avoiders.

What do people mean when they say that they are destined to do something, they mean they cannot avoid it.

Evolutionarily speaking we wouldn't exist in our current state if we could not avoid certain outcomes.

Dan defines free will as just a set of abilities of consciousness which allow us to make choices to avoid outcomes which we have reasoned are not desirable.

It tosses away all of the metaphysical baggage which causes these contradictions, and makes one try to disparage determinism.

Its good stuff, and what ultimately pushed me toward compatibilism.

I wish I had speakers even more. :/

I miss watching/listening to music from my laptop.
50 songs - Phone.
..compared to..
12,379 - Laptop.

Actually, hey Bushido..

You think you'd mind e-mailing (Mingle) that link?
I can access my e-mail from my phone, just not the forums.

I could probably check it out that way.
I do wanna see/hear it.

Ayn Rand's Theory of Free Will

by Harry Binswanger

Does the individual make genuine choices, choices that are entirely self-generated? Or is he fundamentally passive, merely reacting to antecedent factors beyond his control?
According to the theory of free will, the individual is fundamentally in control of his own life, forges his own character, and is morally responsible for his own actions. Ayn Rand advanced an original theory of free will that locates free will in a single basic choice: to think or not to think.
In this talk, Dr. Binswanger presents and defends Ayn Rand's theory of free will, and explains its vital significance for understanding oneself and human nature generally. Dr. Binswanger argues that one's volitional control over the operation of one's own mind is an axiom which has to be implicitly assumed as true even by those, such as Marx, Freud, and Skinner, who attempt to deny it.


Quote by Ayn Rand.....

“Man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it's up to him and only him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be.”

"Good and evil are concepts forged by religion. We created morals through our explanation of the universe and dictators and rulers set the morals for a society that lacked any guidance. This ideal alone, is what caused the birth of 'good' and 'evil'. I mean after all, how can you save a country if nothing threatens it? For man to have a hero, first we must create the villains. For God, we must first create the Devil."

And I say total BS Sin!!! and this too...

Good versus Evil" is a myth

Many stories (including those found in the Christian bible) suffer from the same weakness: an overly simplistic set of characters, each one of which is either totally good or totally evil. In these simple stories, the "bad guys" have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, they are pure evil, which creates a willingness in the reader to accept the necessity of their ultimate defeat at the hands of the "good guys". This childish method of telling a story conveniently ignores one nagging little fact: such "good versus evil" scenarios very rarely, if ever, exist in reality.
Every person's motivations are forged from their own personal experiences. When two people, or two groups, with conflicting ambitions collide, the result is conflict. Sometimes verbal, sometimes physical. Each side, in order to galvanize their forces, will "demonize" the other side in an attempt to gather support for their cause. The result is lies, propaganda, and misinformation. The old phrase "history is written by the winners" springs from this. Whichever side ultimately wins the conflict will have their version of events more widely publicized than the loser's. Revisionist historians will frequently rewrite certain parts of the story to make the other side look worse, and/or to make their side look better. This "revised" version of events is then passed on to the next generation, which accepts it fully.

At the heart of it all is the question of who is in the "right" and who is not. The question, more often than not, can never be satisfactorily answered, other than by seeking refuge in the shades of gray in between those two extremes. Both sides had valid, understandable motives. Both sides committed unethical acts while attempting to gain the upper hand. These statements sound indecisive, but they are usually correct. The question of who was "right" and who was "wrong" is a naive one.

Exactly...Free will, the "choice" to think.....

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

Galt's Speech.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good,_the.html

Nothing to do with Religion,but with Life!

I did not say it WAS God's plan, only that it might have bee. I know not of what God's plans are.



"God" didn't sacrifice his son. Jesus sacrificed himself for you. And no, he didn't set us up to fail. We failed on our own free will. Our choice

..but that's what you told me earlier, did you not?

I asked, "Why did he put the tree there?"

You said, "It was a part of God's plan."



...ok, fine, so it was no longer 'God's plan' that set the stones in action.

Let me ask you something else then.

"Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins."

..from what exactly?

Had he not, what then..?

What did his sacrifice actually change?

I said I don't know exactly why. Had to have been some reasoning, you'd have to ask God when you see him face to face.



Jesus died on the cross and went to hell in your place, so you would not have to. So you could take what Jesus did, in your place.

Cowboy wrote:






Cowboy....evil is the absence of good...

dark is the absence of light....

And ALSO ....since God knows ALLLLL Things ,that would include

the fact that God Knows ALLLLL things about us TOO...including

the fact that God knows the number of our days even before we

live them , and even knows us before we were even born yet

(see scriptures shared earlier again, showing that God knows

ALL things )....


God even knows what we will do with our days ,even before we

live out our days....


again ,because God already knows the end from the beginning....

and the beginning from the end.


GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME.

GOD IS ETERNAL.

Fair enough.



..so prior to that, there was no 'judgment'.
It was hell or high water? (Yes, I mean Heaven)

..and by that account, it is actually negating the Commandments themselves; because, meh, why follow them?

What sins could I have possibly done 2,000+ years before my birth? o.O

..how did everyone get a 'free pass' since then?

Meh, it just doesn't add up..

And again Cowboy...get some understanding of the

Word of God first...before sharing it on here.


Do a study of the early texts ,and find out what scriptures

mean, when the bible says Jesus descended into hell....



hell was haides/paradise.....2 separate chambers in one place...

paradise was there right next to haides... a waiting place of

souls who had believed in God...and when Jesus arose back up to

heaven ,He TOOK those Who beleived in God,right up to heaven WITH Him.

He took the keys of hell and death...

do a study on that also..(I can't help anymore... am booked for time).


Again....please do a Study of God's Word before posting on

here....find scriptures...study them first ,before posting on the

subject of the bible .

People need to hear Truth,not just our opinions on here.