ramifications of omnipotence for God

Do you ever read anything?This was answered in: Message 145 and has been pointed out to you in at least one other post. Only in your mind. You say: "perhaps God rewards honest courageous searching and reasoning".....Then you state: "In other words God rewards rationally minded individuals who place honesty and ethics before blind faith".....I don't know where you get your information but you did not find it in Gods Word.God only has one requirement for entry into heaven.Ye must be born again.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

If I read correctly, you beleive that Adam and Eve were ignorant

---

No, not "ignorant." Innocent. Adam and Eve were not stupid. They just did not know right from wrong.

quote:

---

they rebelled against God

---

No, they didn't. Rebellion, like obedience, requires knowledge of good and evil, which Adam and Eve didn't have.

quote:

---

as a result of consequences proposed by God which in turn, lead Adam and Eve into innevitable sin.

---

It was going to happen eventually. Adam and Eve were innocent.

quote:

---

What many people do not know, is that this interpretation flatly contradicts the context of the Genesis.

---

But it's an imposed context that is not present from the text. We have two beings that don't know about good and evil suddenly behaving as if they do. You can't have a discussion about things like lying and deception unless you know good and evil. How on earth could the serpent have "tricked" Eve unless Eve already had knowledge of good and evil?

quote:

---

Starting with the concept that Adam and Eve were ignorant or incapable of rational decision making

---

Stop right there. Adam and Eve were not stupid. However, "rational" decision making requires apprehension and comprehension of the relevant details. But Adam and Eve don't understand good and evil since they haven't eaten from the tree. It isn't that they're stupid. They just don't understand. Obedience and rebellion are aspects of good and evil, which Adam and Eve don't understand because they are innocent.

quote:

---

We have evidence that they had already taken in plenty of knowledge before they disobedeyed God.

---

Of course. They weren't stupid. They were innocent.

quote:

---

Eating the fruit, could have been, as simple as an act of open defiance towards God.

---

Incorrect. Defiance requires knowledge of good and evil. Since Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree, they were incapable of defiance. Oh, that doesn't mean they were obedient since obedience also requires knowledge of good and evil. It simply means that if they do or don't do what you want, it's because it seemed to be the thing to do at the time.

quote:

---

An open refusal to obey Him." Is that not what Genesis clearly says?

---

No, it doesn't. Adam and Eve haven't eaten from the tree, yet, and thus are incapable of "open refusal" of anything. Such a thing requires knowledge of good and evil and they don't have it.

quote:

---

The scriptures confirm this viewpoint in Romains saying "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." - So scriptureally, the original sin was indeed an act of disobedience.

---

I don't deny that people claim that such is the case, but the text contradicts them. Adam and Eve were incapable of disobedience for obedience requires knowledge of good and evil which they didn't have since they hadn't yet eaten from the tree.Again, what is the very first thing they panic over after eating from the tree, having their eyes opened, and becoming as god, knowing good and evil? You'd think it would be violating the only command they have ever been given, but it seems that something else is more pressing in their minds.And if it wasn't a sin for them to engage in that behaviour before, due to the fact that they were innocent, how could it be a sin for them to engage in eating from the tree since, as we have already established, they were innocent?Suppose that one of the beasts...oh, let's say the serpent...managed to take a piece of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and put it into Adam and Eve's mouths while they slept. Would that still be sin? I would say not for their innocence is protecting them.If not, why does their innocence not get to shield them simply because the middleman has been eliminated?

quote:

---

While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications.

---

That's my argument. There is much more to this story than the standard vision of it. The text clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were innocent. They were sinning up a storm before the serpent even entered the picture, and yet all was fine and dandy because they were innocent. Not stupid...innocent.Innocence is incapable of sin. Therefore, their eating of the Tree of Knowledge cannot possibly be a sin since sin requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve did not have since they hadn't eaten from the tree.

quote:

---

A footnote

---

A "footnote"? You're taking your response from something other than the text? I thought the text was clear...what do you need a "footnote" for?

quote:

---

"It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence... The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty." Yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him. God justly answered the challenge by allowing man to rule himself.

---

But I thought good and bad were absolutes. If Adam and Eve became as gods, knowing good and evil, surely they would have chosen good.You don't get to have it both ways. If they were left to rule themselves and if they knew good and evil, then there is no reason for evil to exist since they would have chosen good.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

But they did have information.God said "don't eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden".Why do they have to judge whether eating was right or wrong?Why would they have to judge the consequences of the action?Why do you insist that the woman was the one that disobeyed God and brought sin into the world? God did not give the woman a command.The Bible say's: Sin entered into the world by one MAN.Not by one woman. If I remember correctly you are, or were a teacher, and you cannot see what is wrong with that statement.If there was:No Fruit of the tree of good and evil.No command not to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil.Then there would be no CHOICE to make.Therefore there would be NO freewill.There would be no sidelined or anyone else in the world as Adam and Eve would still be in the garden taking care of it. I thought you said you had not concluded that God does not exist.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to iceage:

quote:

---

I don't know where you get your information but you did not find it in Gods Word.

---

You're missing the point: You're assuming that the Bible is "god's word." It is just as possible that the Bible is there as a test to see who will blindly follow a book of the most questionable origins and who will use their gifts of intelligence, rationality, and observation, despite the presence of a cookbook to the promised land.

quote:

---

God only has one requirement for entry into heaven.

​

Ye must be born again.

---

According to one book.What if that book is wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

What sins were they comiting before the serpent entered the picture?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What if that book is right?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to sidelined:

quote:

---

quote:

---

They did not rebel, they simply had no information by which to judge the consequences of the action as being right or wrong.

---

​

But they did have information.

​

God said "don't eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden".

---

But comprehension of that requires comprehension of good and evil, which Adam and Eve didn't have because they hadn't yet eaten from the tree.Sure, you can tell them all you want not to eat from the tree, but how are they supposed to understand what "don't" means without understanding obedience which requires knowledge of good and evil?

quote:

---

Why do they have to judge whether eating was right or wrong?

---

Because that's what "sin" is: Conscious and deliberate decision to do wrong. If they were incapable of understanding what right and wrong are, due to the fact that they were innocent (not stupid), then they are incapable of sinning.Let's not forget, Adam and Eve were "sinning" up a storm long before the serpent entered the picture. The Bible directly says so. On top of that, what is the first thing Adam and Eve panic about once their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil? You'd think it would be over having eaten from the tree since it was the only command they were ever given. But somehow, something else comes to mind.So if they weren't sinning before they ate but realized that they were afterward, then how could it have been a sin to eat in the first place? Their innocence which shielded them from all the other sins they were engaging in should shield them from having eaten of the tree.It would only be a sin if they were to eat from the tree again, after having eaten from it once, become aware of good and evil, and gained the ability to comprehend what disobedience is.

quote:

---

Why would they have to judge the consequences of the action?

---

Because that's the only way sin can happen.

quote:

---

Why do you insist that the woman was the one that disobeyed God and brought sin into the world? God did not give the woman a command.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Eve was told:Genesis 3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.So yes, if there is a sin of "disobedience" (which there can't be since Eve hadn't yet eaten from the tree), then it is clear that Eve was involved. She's the one who picked it and gave some to Adam.

quote:

---

Sin entered into the world by one MAN.

​

Not by one woman.

---

Ahem. You are confusing the generic term, "man," with the specific concept of "male." The original Greek uses "anthropou," meaning "person," not "male," in this context. Greek has a similar use of terms that are neuter when used generically but masculine when used specifically as English.

quote:

---

There would be no sidelined or anyone else in the world as Adam and Eve would still be in the garden taking care of it.

---

Huh? Adam and Eve were still going to have kids. Remember, god punishes Eve by increasing the pain of childbirth, not making her give fertile in the first place.That said, why would it be a bad thing for there to be no evil in the world?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

They were sinning up a storm before the serpent even entered the picture,

---

​

What sins were they comiting before the serpent entered the picture?

---

You mean you don't know? I told you where to find it. Have you not looked it up? I am not here to do your homework for you.Two great big hints have been given to you. Please take the time to put some effort into your own argument:Hint: What was it that Adam and Eve first panicked about after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, had their eyes opened, and became as gods, knowing good and evil. You would think that it would be over eating of the tree since that was the only command they were ever given. And yet, something else is more immediate.Hint: It is mentioned before the serpent shows up.Do your own homework.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT I have diligently read everything you have written and even visited your post 145 and reread that. You have said nothing to support your contention - that being convinced removes free-will. But you have not presented *any* evidence why God would reward blind faith! Further why would God reward blind faith that is based on the self-centered underlying intent of saving your skin. You have not been able to express why you believe the Bible is God's Word. You just keep repeating endlessly that you are a Child of the King and thus you get to go to heaven..... yippeeee! Lets test this proverb. For centuries "fear of the LORD" ruled western thought - they are called the dark ages for very good reasons.Fear of the LORD is the beginning of superstition - not knowledge or wisdom. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if that book is wrong?

---

​

What if that book is right?

---

Nice try, but no shifting of the burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, it is your burden to justify it.You are assuming that the book is right. Where does that assumption come from? What happens to your argument if your book is wrong?Since it is at least just as likely that the Bible is a test and not truth as it is that it is correct, how do you justify the Wager?Your premise is based upon the book. What if the book is wrong? What happens to your argument? Unless and until you can come up with justification for why we should trust your book, your argument is no more persuasive than all the other religions out there making the exact same claim about their books.And even then, we still have the problem that all of the books are nothing more than tests. They could be absolutely right in all ways and yet still, following the book is the pathway to hell because god wants you to figure it out on your own, not follow a book.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT you avoided the Rrhain question. "What if that book is right" is a completely unsatisfying answer. What if the Koran is right? The Book of Mormon? What if the Catholics are right that there is no salvation outside the Church?

Did you not experience "some kind of a sign?"OK, let me put it another way.You are a Christian. You profess to have been "born again" which I assume means you had some kind of experience or series of experiences which led you to believe in the God of the Bible and to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. You became convinced in some way to do this and accept this. Your experience is your own (although under examination it is probably similar to many other people, but not all). You probably also feel that God placed these experiences in your path, whether they be obstacles that you had to overcome, miracles that you witnessed or any other happening in order to convince you. Apparently, He did convince you because here you are, a "born again" Christian.Now, knowing that conversion experiences vary from person to person (with many similarities, but specifically unique) why could God not also place certain experiences specifically catered to the "skeptical" mind and to each individual "skeptic" in their paths in order to convince them? And if He could, then why wouldn't He do so?Looking back to before your conversion, you probably could not say what it would have taken for you to be convinced. Yet, you were.Similarly, I do not know what it would take to convince me. I can't even say for sure if I would be convinced if God (or someone/something claiming to be Him) appeared in front of me right now. I really, truly don't know. I bet an omniscient God does and an omnipotent God would be able to find the exact recipe for convincing me just as He apparently did for you and countless others. He's even convinced quite a few self-proclaimed "skeptics."How is your being convinced any different than what I am proposing? That's a load of crap.That's like a father saying to his son "You better have all of your chores done before sundown (knowing that they cannot all be done in the time alloted), but there is a real gold coin among many false ones (planted by my evil twin) somewhere in the yard that will relieve you of this burden. If you pick the wrong coin or do not find a coin you will be beaten" He then sits back and watches his son work tirelessly at his chores, sometimes doing them wrong, but earnestly trying to correct his mistakes. The son occasionally gets distracted by finding a gold coin, but not knowing whether it is the real one or the false one he decides to continue with his chores because he knows they need to be done. He's not sure if there even is a real coin (he's found some maps, but they all point to different parts of the yard), but he believes that if his father really wanted him to find the real coin it would be marked in a way that would indicate to him it was real and that it would present itself in the course of doing his chores. At sundown, he has not finished his chores and has not found the real coin. Instead of his father praising him for all of his hard work and recognizing the work that he has finished, he laughs and says "Sorry, but no one could finish the work I gave to you. You should have spent your time digging up the yard looking for the real coin" and beats him just to "keep his word."That doesn't sound just, merciful, loving or deserving of worship to me. I guess you didn't listen when I said I didn't want a sermon.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

quote:

---

No, not "ignorant." Innocent. Adam and Eve were not stupid. They just did not know right from wrong.

---

So let me get this straight, Adam and Eve knew what wrong was(stated by God). They knew of the conditions to the point where they could recite it. Yet, somehow they were unable to comprehend or resolve the implication? According to this mentality, God created impaired humans.I missed an earlier post which sheds a little more light on your skewed understanding of the scriptures.(The illustration of a child and vase). To date, this has to be the poorest of illustrations. The Garden of Eden and the description of Adam and Eve bore no comparison to a child, a vase(on a rickety pedestal) in a room. Much to the contrary, Adam and Eve were said to be beings crafted in the image of God, surrounded by an abundance of things and given great tasks to fulfill. Furthermore, when they were created and placed in the garden God looked over everything and stated "And look! it was very good".Looking back at God's creative abilities and determination to bring so much diversity and goodness to humans. The only word to describe a mindset such as the child /vase scenario is simply "absurd". Why would God or anyone for that fact, create beings and give them instructions they can't comprehend? The argument is completely benign and lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever(baseless).The remainder of your post is residual.

pbee responds to me:

quote:

---

Adam and Eve knew what wrong was(stated by God).

---

No, they didn't. They hadn't eaten from the tree. Yes, they had been told, but that doesn't mean they understood. Again, they were innocent and did not know good from evil. They hadn't eaten from the tree.

quote:

---

They knew of the conditions to the point where they could recite it. Yet, somehow they were unable to comprehend or resolve the implication? According to this mentality, God created impaired humans.

---

Yes. So? They were impaired: They didn't know good and evil, had something that would piss god off to no end placed right in front of them, and then were not monitored to make sure they wouldn't do what any sane person would know they would eventually do.

quote:

---

The Garden of Eden and the description of Adam and Eve bore no comparison to a child, a vase(on a rickety pedestal) in a room.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? OK...here goes:The Garden of Eden = The Room
Adam and Eve = The Child
The Tree of Knowledge = The Vase
God = The ParentGod tells them, "Don't touch!" But just as the child is innocent and doesn't understand what that means, Adam and Eve are innocent and don't understand what that means.All they know is that god has said, "If you eat it, you'll die." The serpent then tells them, "That's not true. Instead, you'll become as god, knowing good and evil."How are Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should believe god and not the serpent? They don't know what good and evil are since they haven't eaten from the tree. They have simply been told two conflicting statements. How on earth are they supposed to know that they should "obey" god? Obedience requires comprehension of good and evil, something they don't have since they haven't eaten from the tree.And lo and behold, it turns out the serpent was right! They don't die! They become exactly as the serpent said they would: As gods, knowing good and evil. So it would appear that god lied to Adam and Eve and then got pissed off when he got called out for his lie.

quote:

---

Furthermore, when they were created and placed in the garden God looked over everything and stated "And look! it was very good".

---

So? Just because it's good doesn't mean that Adam and Eve were as you expect them to be. God wanted them innocent. They were. Later, they lost that innocence and god got pissed.It's not the only time god makes a mistake. After the flood, god laments his error and promises to Noah that he will never, ever do such a thing again.

quote:

---

Much to the contrary, Adam and Eve were said to be beings crafted in the image of God, surrounded by an abundance of things and given great tasks to fulfill.

---

"The image of god" is not the same thing as "actual god." They were missing two crucial parts of what it would take to be an actual god: Knowledge of good and evil and eternal life. They managed to acquire the first. God then panics and kicks them out of the garden lest they acquire the second by eating from the Tree of Life.

quote:

---

Why would God or anyone for that fact, create beings and give them instructions they can't comprehend?

---

Why, indeed? That's part of the problem: If god is omnipotent, then god could have done things differently. But he didn't.What does that say about the motivations of god?We're back to the four possibilities, of which one is the point of this part of the thread:If god is able but unwilling, then god is malevolent.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

they had been told, but that doesn't mean they understood.

---

Arguing the notion that an entity such as God is somehow incapable of creating beings with the capacity to understand his own instruction is nothing short of foolish. No God(of any nature) with such capabilities would even bother to waist time creating creatures with the reasoning power of parrots and make statements such as those described in Genesis: Additionally, the added attempts to further retrofit the room/vase illustration to Adam and Eve only drives the point that Adam and Eve were in complete opposition to the said illustration. - Much to the contrary, it was written that the Garden was a vast area filled with an abundance of wonderful things(food, water, animals etc). It was also written that it bore a great variety of tree's bearing fruit and that the tree of Good and Bad was but one single tree in a vast garden. This description stands in complete contradiction to that of a room with a single item on a rickety pedestal. Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not fit the description of children and the tree to that of a fragile vase. As mentioned earlier, the tree in itself was not the danger, it was the act which placed humans in contempt to God's laws, not the tree or it's fruit.So lets reiterate... what type of God capable of creating entire universes would end up communicating laws to His own creations whom remain oblivious to His instructions? We are looking at nothing more than empty theories and beliefs none withstanding of any scriptural or logical evidence whatsoever.

quote:

---

How are Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should believe god and not the serpent? They don't know what good and evil are since they haven't eaten from the tree. They have simply been told two conflicting statements. How on earth are they supposed to know that they should "obey" god? Obedience requires comprehension of good and evil, something they don't have since they haven't eaten from the tree.

---

Who in their right mind would believe that God would disguise himself as another person only to claim that He himself(God) lied to them about sin? That aspect of this theory alone completely voids any reasoning that Eve didn't know whether Satan was God or not. We have much less obvious contradictions to such beliefs but this alone is plenty move along.Again, such attempts to create excuses for Adam and Eve's disobedience remain completely baseless. - The arrangement never required humans to experience sin in order to understand it. The arrangement was based purely on obedience. Interestingly enough, obedience remains as an understandable characteristic to most living creatures. To try and state that Adam and Eve were somehow incapable of understanding, abases them bellow the reasoning of most animals. As you said... they were not stupid! So you really need to think about that.Satan didn't lie...? Well that depends on what word games we're playing doesn't it? Satan deceived Eve into thinking that they would become powerful(like God) and that they would gain such power when they ate the fruit. While "technically" he did not lie about the knowing the difference between good and bad, Eve certainly didn't choose to betray God over the idea of added knowledge! She chose to do so on the idea that she would be as powerful as God. She chose to betray God and to believe that God lied to her and Adam. She chose to overthrow God sovereignty just as Satan had.So Eve was anything but innocent. She did not walk into a trap or give in to the urge to bite into a juicy looking fruit and so on and so forth. She deliberately chose to disobey God with the expectations of being as powerful as He was.Regardless, Adam and Eve died just as God had said and they gained absolutely nothing by their action other than imperfection and banishment. In short, Satan was full of shit.

quote:

---

it's not the only time god makes a mistake. After the flood, god laments his error and promises to Noah that he will never, ever do such a thing again.

---

At this point, where can we even draw the sympathy to say nice try? - I think it's safe to say that you are in dire need of scriptural instruction where biblical interpretations are concerned. To date, your interpretations of the scriptures are about as skewed as your interpretations of Adam and Eve's position towards God and sin.Having said this, I certainly hold no personal discrimination towards you and your views. I for one believe that you are perfectly within your own rights to believe whatever your needs require. However... I would add that in the most obvious cases, where a theory sees continuous controversy in the face of evidence, the typical route is to acknowledge the issues and reevaluate those theories. The alternative would be to take the radical path and choose to ignore all evidence and reasoning on the said matters. whatever the case, the choices are of your own God given rights to use.Personally, I believe that God created life just as it was written. A life based on freedom of choice. It was, completely unconditional and it was true to Gods word. I also believe that the brunt of the issues we face when contemplating freedom and omnipotence remains limited by our own personal capacity to reason Godly power. So it raises the question... How can imperfect humans accurately evaluate God as an all powerful entity? The short answer is... we cannot!For the most part, the implications of the term "omnipotence" are human terms with human definitions and human limitations. In the end, we can all choose to believe whatever suits our needs. However, such characteristics rarely(if ever) bring new meaning to our own pool of knowledge where God and man are concerned.