On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Michael Fisher wrote:
> Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
> >=20
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Michael Fisher wrote:
> >=20
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > MWF
> > > Here's some more previously written stuff, just for Tony (or JE=
FF [dammit, I
> > > just can't seem to type straight today])
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Hmm. Perhaps. But there is a more interesting question to be as=
ked
> > > about the scenario.
> > >
> > > A & E had a command.
> > >
> > > One command.
> > >
> > > Only one rule they could break.
> > >
> > > Until they broke it, they had been unselfconsciously nude.
> > >
> > > Obviously there had been no rule about clothing in the garden=
=2E
> > >
> > > In modern times, where a low technology tribal society had be=
en
> > > similarly nude prior to contact with fully clothed westerners, it is =
a
> > > simple fact that the _donning_ of clothing will cause embarrassment =
to the
> > > members of the tribal society.
> > >
> > > Now, A & E after eating of the tree supposedly gainged a mora=
l
> > > conscience. Therefore, after eating the fruit they realized they had =
broken
> > > a rule and that that is a BAD THING.
> >=20
>=20
> Tony;
> > More than just a moral conscience..that is if you look at the Greek and
> > Hebrew.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Um. Your point?
> >=20
> > >
> > > So when the almighty shows up, about what do they show
> > > consternation? Their abject disobedience?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Rather they're worried about their lack of sartorial resplend=
ence.
> > >
> >=20
> > Look at the Hebrew, dude.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Sorry, I don't speak, read, or write Hebrew. If you want to bring the =
Hebrew in,=20
> then YOU'LL have to the leg work.
>=20
> =09Until you show what you mean, you're just waving your hands in a magic=
al=20
> incantation. I.e., dodging the question.
>=20
> >=20
> > > Kinda odd. I mean when *my* kids do something wrong, it is th=
at
> > > thing done wrong which inspires consternation. They certainly don't w=
orry
> > > about getting in trouble for *following* the rules, nor for acts for =
which
> > > there are no rules in our house, like which hand you hold the apple i=
n
> > > while you eat it.
> > > Yet this is just what A & E are depicted as doing.
> > >
> > > There's another gaping problem, but everyone dodges that bull=
et, so
> > > I'll save it for now and see if anyone can come up with a principled
> > > explanation for the oddly displaced guilt of A & E.
> > >
> >=20
>=20
> Tony
> > I didn't!
>=20
> I haven' brought it up here.
>=20
> =09AND YOU HAVEN'T ASWERED THE QUESTION.
>=20
> >=20
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Some more thoughts:
> > >
> > > If God is *omniscient*. If nothing is unknown to God.
> > >
> > > If God's knowledge is complete and perfect.
> > >
> > > Then why would he need to perform any "tests"?
> > >
> >=20
>=20
> Tony:
> > So that we can demonstrate our adherence to his doctrine. Faith withou=
t
> > works is dead(one of God's Laws..that is if you know what the Bible
> > says:James 2:26).
>=20
>=20
> MWF
> =09And just what "doctrine" did Adam have to follow?
>=20
> >=20
> > > You only need to "test" when you don't *know* what's going to=
happen.
> > >
> > > Therefore, if God needed to "test" Adam, that means that ther=
e
> > > was/is something which God COULD NOT OR CANNOT KNOW.
> > >
> >=20
>=20
> Tony;
> > No, actually he does know, or it wouldn't say that in the scriptures. =
It
> > is just a part of God's character to test us. Therefore you are wrong.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Hmm.
>=20
> =09Tony can't answer the question, so we're back to=20
>=20
> =09"The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."???
>=20
> =09Sorry Tony, but that DOESN'T settle it. WHY is it necessary for an omn=
i-everthing=20
> being to test us?=20
>=20
> =09HOW is it that an omni-everything would NEED to "test" ANYTHING?
>=20
> =09**He supposedly ALREADY knows the answer!!!**
>=20
> =09And you haven't answered the question---again.
>=20
> >=20
> > > Which means God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, =
then
> > > somewhere in all infinity and eternity there is that which will destr=
oy
> > > God. Which means God cannot keep, even if he makes, infinite promises=
such
> > > as eternal life.
> > >
> >=20
> > A question: Where does it say in the Bible God is omnipresent?
> > I am not disagreeing that it is true, just wondering if you know.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Not my problem, unless YOU -don't- believe so.
>=20
> =09Remember, I don't believe your spook exists AT ALL. It's the attribute=
s that YOU=20
> claim that I'm asking for some logical reason to even assent that they're=
possible.
>=20
> =09And you're failing miserably.
> >=20
> > > It might be, ah, fruitful to ponder that.
> > >
> >=20
> > For about two seconds to show that it is wrong.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Well then, please put in that two seconds and do so. Right now all you=
're doing=20
> is a _bad_ tap dance.
>=20
> >=20
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> > >
> > > Here=92s a psychological study of ole=92 Adam & Eve, a dialog from a =
newgroup exchange:
> > >
> > > ->As for the parent/child analogy, it was probably not the best, as A=
dam
> > > ->and Eve were not children in the sense of being immature and incapa=
ble of
> > > ->forming rational thought, or obeying/disobeying.
> > >
> > > Uh, they weren't? If they had no knowledge of good or evil, h=
ad
> > > never been punished, admonished, restricted, instructed, reprimanded,
> > > disciplined. Never had to make a dead line, look for food, obey
> > > instructions to avoid any danger because there was none. In short, if=
in
> > > there entire existence there had never been a command to obey, or a r=
eason
> > > to have a command to obey, just now were they supposed to learn??
> > >
>=20
> Tony
> > Uh, actually they did have a little. Think about it, God told them NOT=
to
> > do something and made it CLEAR it was wrong(a little knowledge of good
> > and evil). Therefore once again you are wrong.
>=20
> MWF
> =09Tony Woodenhead, would you please take notice that the entire question=
revolves=20
> around THAT SPECIFIC COMMAND!!!!=20
>=20
> =09THAT COMMAND, TO NOT DO SOMETHING, WAS THE __FIRST___ ***COMMAND** TH=
EY HAD EVER=20
> HEARD!!!!
>=20
> =09And how were they to know what "death" was, since it seems _nothing_ h=
ad ever=20
> died??
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >=20
> > > -> In a child this is a
> > > ->developmental process as the child grows towards adulthood. In the=
case
> > > ->of Adam and Eve, they were clearly "developed" -- though they may =
have
> > > ->lacked "experience" (but that's a whole other matter).
> > > ->
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > >
> > > ->So, the child is not responsible for crying in the cinema, and the =
parent
> > > ->should know better. However, it's hardly the same as disobeying th=
e
> > > ->Creator of the Universe is it? :-)
> > > ->
> > >
> > > The parent provides rewards and "disincentives" to the child =
so that
> > > (whether this is what the parent is thinking at all times or not) the=
child
> > > will learn and internalize the proper behaviors for her culture. And
> > > people living in social groups invariably have some authority figures=
who
> > > are to be obeyed. Children are rewarded for obeying, and given some k=
ind of
> > > negative reinforcement (more or less consistently) for disobeying.
> > >
> > > As above, at what point over which subjects for what reasons =
by who
> > > did Adam and Eve receive any such training?
> > >
> > > ->Yes, God could have stopped all this evil. He could have destroyed=
all
> > > ->life and started again. And again. And again. Ad infinitum. He c=
ould
> > > ->have also "lobotomized" His creation, and forced their/it's complia=
nce,
> > > ->but He didn't. Probably that's what we'd have done.
> > > ->
> > >
> > > Given God's supposed power and concern, if I were doing it, I=
'd just
> > > do it the right damn way the first damn time. And if I omnisciently k=
new
> > > it'd never work, I'd start a different project.
> > >
> >=20
> > You're wrong again. This time it has to do with doing it right=
the
> > first time. Tell me, how can you make a human race in your image(your
> > image has choices) and be able to make something that is able to choose
> > right and wrong, and make them all act right fairly. For it is the
> > humans' choices to do right and wrong, not God's(if we are made in His
> > image).
>=20
> MWF
> =09To have free will, yet to never WANT to choose to do evil involves no =
logical=20
> contradiction, therefor the two are not incompatible, therefore God COULD=
HAVE MADE US=20
> WITH FREE WILL YET NEVER CHOOSING EVIL.
>=20
> =09Yet ole' omnipotent didn't.
>=20
> =09Why?
>=20
> >=20
> > > ->What He did do shows the true character of God.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Sure you want to say that?
> > >
> > >
> > > -> At the right time, He sent
> > > ->His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, so that the integrity o=
f
> > > ->God's holiness could be upheld, but the desire of God's love to be =
merciful to
> > > ->us could be met.
> > >
> > > Christ we are told IS God. Part of the Triuity. As such he is
> > > immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient.
> > >
> > > How the (Insert prodigious numbers of non-specific verbal
> > > intensifiers) can an #*omnipotent*# _%!immortal being!%_
> > >
> > > !?!?!?!?_*! >DIE< !*_!?!?!?!
> > >
> > > -> And in this one act He righted the wrong of the Fall, and
> > > ->redeemed us.
> > >
> > > How?? By what mechanism? What about a wrong deed of mine has =
any
> > > kind of ontological being such that another person can take it away f=
rom me
> > > and "right" it? How does it change me?
> > >
> >=20
>=20
> Tony:
> > God has shown His character throughout the Old Testament, it is the sam=
e
> > character in Jesus. Look at Hebrews 10(I believe) to see the correlati=
on.
>=20
> MWF
> =09So what has "character" to do with the ontological existence of "sin"?
>=20
> =09Try and ANSWER a question Tony. You're a lousy dancer.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >=20
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > I rather like that last question.
> > >
> > > To SIN is to ACT. A sin is SOMETHING YOU __!!**DO**!!__.
> > >
> > > Once it=92s done, it is =93history=94, like a fallen rock. It h=
as becomes something
> > > which
> > > has already happened.
> > >
> > > How is it =93undone=94?? How can it be =93borne=94 by any other=
? =93Taken away=94 from
> > > me?
> > >
> > > I await your devastating responses.
> > >
> >=20
> > You get what you ask for.(Matt. 7:7-8)
>=20
> MWF
> =09Well, not yet I haven't.
>=20
> =09Tony, not only have you not answered a singe question, you haven't eve=
n tried,=20
> and your dodges are pathetic.
>=20
>=20
> =09Still waiting;
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> =09Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student=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