Re: One more time: Re: EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Anthony R. Woodcock (arwoodco@mtu.edu)
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:07:56 -0500 (EST)

=09Man this is wussy stuff. If I have a chance in the midst of ALL
my studies I will show you that you are wrong, as I have with Till. How
about it Till, what about all those prophecies? why don't you respond?
If you are willing to use the Bible you have to be willing to be corrected
by it. Expect a future correcting....

Thank you,

Tony Woodcock.

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Michael Fisher wrote:

> Tony opined:
> Hello. Have you read the Bible before? Of the great books you
> read, why don't you have the Bible? Do you realize how authentic it is?
>=20
> MWF
> =09Here's some more previously written stuff, just for Tony (or JEFF [dam=
mit, I=20
> just can't seem to type straight today])
>=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>=20
> Hmm. Perhaps. But there is a more interesting question to be asked=
=20
> about the scenario.
>=20
> A & E had a command.
>=20
> One command.
>=20
> Only one rule they could break.
>=20
> Until they broke it, they had been unselfconsciously nude.=20
>=20
> Obviously there had been no rule about clothing in the garden.
>=20
> In modern times, where a low technology tribal society had been=
=20
> similarly nude prior to contact with fully clothed westerners, it is a=20
> simple fact that the _donning_ of clothing will cause embarassment to th=
e=20
> members of the tribal society.
>=20
> Now, A & E after eating of the tree supposidly gainged a moral=20
> conscience. Therefore, after eating the fruit they realized they had brok=
en=20
> a rule and that that is a BAD THING.
>=20
> So when the almighty shows up, about what do they show=20
> consternation? Their abject disobedience?
>=20
> Nope.
>=20
> Rather they're worried about their lack of sartorial resplendence=
=2E
>=20
> Kinda odd. I mean when *my* kids do something wrong, it is that=
=20
> thing done wrong which inspires consternation. They certainly don't worry=
=20
> about getting in trouble for *following* the rules, nor for acts for whic=
h=20
> there are no rules in our house, like which hand you hold the apple in=20
> while you eat it.
> Yet this is just what A & E are depicted as doing.
>=20
> There's another gaping problem, but everyone dodges that bullet, =
so=20
> I'll save it for now and see if anyone can come up with a pricipled=20
> explanation for the oddly displaced guilt of A & E.
>=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>=20
> Some more thoughts:
>=20
> If God is *omniscient*. If nothing is unknown to God.
>=20
> If God's knowledge is complete and perfect.
>=20
> Then why would he need to perform any "tests"?
>=20
> You only need to "test" when you don't *know* whats going to happ=
en.=20
>=20
> Therefore, if God needed to "test" Adam, that means that there=20
> was/is something which God COULD NOT OR CANNOT KNOW.
>=20
> Which means God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, then=
=20
> somewhere in all infinity and eternity there is that which will destroy=
=20
> God. Which means God cannot keep, even if he makes, infintie promises suc=
h=20
> as eternal life.
>=20
> It might be, ah, fruitful to ponder that.
>=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>=20
> Here=92s a psychological study of ole=92 Adam & Eve, a dialog from a newg=
roup exchange:
>=20
> ->As for the parent/child analogy, it was probably not the best, as Adam=
=20
> ->and Eve were not children in the sense of being immature and incapable =
of
> ->forming rational thought, or obeying/disobeying.=20
>=20
> Uh, they weren't? If they had no knowledge of good or evil, had=
=20
> never been punished, admonished, restricted, instructed, reprimanded,=20
> disciplined. Never had to make a dead line, look for food, obey=20
> instructions to avoid any danger because there was none. In short, if in=
=20
> there entire existence there had never been a command to obey, or a reaso=
n=20
> to have a command to obey, just now were they supposed to learn??=20
>=20
> -> In a child this is a
> ->developmental process as the child grows towards adulthood. In the cas=
e=20
> ->of Adam and Eve, they were clearly "developed" -- though they may have=
=20
> ->lacked "experience" (but that's a whole other matter).
> ->
>=20
> See above.
>=20
>=20
> ->So, the child is not responsible for crying in the cinema, and the pare=
nt
> ->should know better. However, it's hardly the same as disobeying the
> ->Creator of the Universe is it? :-)
> ->
>=20
> The parent provides rewards and "disincentives" to the child so t=
hat=20
> (whether this is what the parent is thinking at all times or not) the chi=
ld=20
> will learn and internalize the proper behaviours for her culture. And=20
> people living in social groups invariably have some authority figures who=
=20
> are to be obeyed. Children are rewarded for obeying, and given some kind =
of=20
> negative reinforcement (more or less consistently) for disobeying.
>=20
> As above, at what point over which subjects for what reasons by w=
ho=20
> did Adam and Eve recieve any such training?
>=20
> ->Yes, God could have stopped all this evil. He could have destroyed all
> ->life and started again. And again. And again. Ad infinitum. He could
> ->have also "lobotimised" His creation, and forced their/it's compliance,=
=20
> ->but He didn't. Probably that's what we'd have done.
> ->
>=20
> Given God's supposed power and concern, if I were doing it, I'd j=
ust=20
> do it the right damn way the first damn time. And if I omnsciently knew=
=20
> it'd never work, I'd start a different project.
>=20
> ->What He did do shows the true character of God.=20
>=20
> Hmm. Sure you want to say that?
>=20
>=20
> -> At the right time, He sent
> ->His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, so that the integrity of=20
> ->God's holiness could be upheld, but the desire of God's love to be merc=
iful to=20
> ->us could be met.
>=20
> Christ we are told IS God. Part of the Triuity. As such he is=20
> immortal, omnipotent, and omnsient.
>=20
> How the (Insert prodigious numbers of non-specific verbal=20
> intensifiers) can an #*omnipotent*# _%!immortal being!%_ =20
>=20
> !?!?!?!?_*! >DIE< !*_!?!?!?!
>=20
> -> And in this one act He righted the wrong of the Fall, and
> ->redeemed us.=20
>=20
> How?? By what mechinism? What about a wrong deed of mine has any=
=20
> kind of ontological being such that another person can take it away from =
me=20
> and "right" it? How does it change me?
>=20
>=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>=20
> =09I rather like that last question.
>=20
> =09To SIN is to ACT. A sin is SOMETHING YOU __!!**DO**!!__.=20
>=20
> =09Once it=92s done, it is =93history=94, like a fallen rock. It has beco=
ms something=20
> which
> has already happend.=20
>=20
> =09How is it =93undone=94?? How can it be =93borne=94 by any other? =93Ta=
ken away=94 from
> me?
>=20
> =09I await your devastating responses.
>=20
> =09Ciao.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> =09Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent=09
>=20
> =09http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994
>=20
> =09*=09=09*=09=09* =20
> =09
> He that would make his own liberty secure,=20
> must guard even his enemy from oppression;=20
> for if he violates this duty,=20
> he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
> =09=09
> Thomas Paine
>=20