Philosophic Question:Solve It!

[The North Polish Union]

guess you dont

Enlighten me, then.

but 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.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

God says, don't discover good and evil (aka free will) by threatening them with death. And when they do do it, God kicks them out of Eden. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Nope. God warned them not to eat it. They still had the free will to choose to eat it, which they did.

Oh, and Eve misquoted God in Genesis 3:3 anyways. God's original law was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

There was no prohibition on touching the tree, only eating it's fruit.

[The Parkus Empire]

Enlighten me, then.

but 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.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

God says, don't discover good and evil (aka free will) by threatening them with death. And when they do do it, God kicks them out of Eden. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

The tree is called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"
No free will there.

God didn't want Adam and Eve to discover morality, not free will. The argument usually goes that they freely chose to eat the fruit.

Are we actually going by the Biblical concept here? Because if are, then God is clearly not omnibenevolent and so the problem is solved.

[Blasveck]

Enlighten me, then.

but 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.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

God says, don't discover good and evil (aka free will) by threatening them with death. And when they do do it, God kicks them out of Eden. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Nope. God warned them not to eat it. They still had the free will to choose to eat it, which they did.

Oh, and Eve misquoted God in Genesis 3:3 anyways. God's original law was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

There was no prohibition on touching the tree, only eating it's fruit.

Did Adam and Eve know the difference between Good and Evil before they ate the fruit?

[Skrewalkers]

This is a good question :

If God was completely good then he would want to stop all evil, if God was completely powerful then he could stop all evil, but evil exists....so does that mean that God is not completely good or not completely powerful, or does god not exist?

Please post your ideas about this question!

God is not constrained by the simplistic binary fallacy of primate philosophical distinctions between "good" and "evil".

Rather, God adheres to a moral system based on "Christopher Walken".

[The North Polish Union]

Nope. God warned them not to eat it. They still had the free will to choose to eat it, which they did.

Oh, and Eve misquoted God in Genesis 3:3 anyways. God's original law was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

There was no prohibition on touching the tree, only eating it's fruit.

Did Adam and Eve know the difference between Good and Evil before they ate the fruit?

I don't know, I'm not a theologian.

Does it really matter?

[Priory Academy USSR]

Enlighten me, then.

but 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.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

God says, don't discover good and evil (aka free will) by threatening them with death. And when they do do it, God kicks them out of Eden. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Nope. God warned them not to eat it. They still had the free will to choose to eat it, which they did.

Oh, and Eve misquoted God in Genesis 3:3 anyways. God's original law was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

There was no prohibition on touching the tree, only eating it's fruit.

I think knowing the difference between good and evil is a pretty integral part to free will. Nonetheless, that's simply a personal opinion and I don't expect to convince you of it.

[Tlaceceyaya]

No, the dog is not evil. But if god gave humans free will, then surely he created them. And everything else. And if dig a hole along a pathway, put spikes at the bottom and then cover it with leaves, I'm an evil son of a bitch, not the spikes.

Surely you already know where this line of questioning has to end? if god is Omnipresent then he can see the big picture and these things he's put on earth to test the faith of humans are not evil they are necessary. I'm just repeating the theological justification of Christians here it's not exactly rocket science to understand why they believe what they do.

Malaria is necessary to "test our faith?"
Why the fuck does he need to use diseases and other horrible ways of dying to test our faith? Why's he so insecure?

[Norstal]

The tree is called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"
No free will there.

God didn't want Adam and Eve to discover morality, not free will. The argument usually goes that they freely chose to eat the fruit.

Are we actually going by the Biblical concept here? Because if are, then God is clearly not omnibenevolent and so the problem is solved.

Not benevolent to our eyes. He makes up the rules of the universe. To Him, perhaps killing people is benevolent.

Which just makes it worse doesn't it.

[The North Polish Union]

Nope. God warned them not to eat it. They still had the free will to choose to eat it, which they did.

Oh, and Eve misquoted God in Genesis 3:3 anyways. God's original law was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

There was no prohibition on touching the tree, only eating it's fruit.

I think knowing the difference between good and evil is a pretty integral part to free will. Nonetheless, that's simply a personal opinion and I don't expect to convince you of it.

how exactly would it be necessary?

Surely you already know where this line of questioning has to end? if god is Omnipresent then he can see the big picture and these things he's put on earth to test the faith of humans are not evil they are necessary. I'm just repeating the theological justification of Christians here it's not exactly rocket science to understand why they believe what they do.

Malaria is necessary to "test our faith?"
Why the fuck does he need to use diseases and other horrible ways of dying to test our faith? Why's he so insecure?

No, malaria and other diseases are the consequences of humanity's fallen nature. We disobeyed God and we must therefore suffer the consequences of doing so.

[Blasveck]

Did Adam and Eve know the difference between Good and Evil before they ate the fruit?

I don't know, I'm not a theologian.

Does it really matter?

Yes it does.

It makes God the dick of all time to punish A&E for something they had no idea was wrong.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are we actually going by the Biblical concept here? Because if are, then God is clearly not omnibenevolent and so the problem is solved.

Not benevolent to our eyes. He makes up the rules of the universe. To Him, perhaps killing people is benevolent.

Which just makes it worse doesn't it.

He uses it as punishment, so obviously not.

[Skrewalkers]

To "solve" the question, I must know: "What is Good? What is Evil?"

Will the answer fit in a post? In a thread? On NSG? On the entire internet? Is a definitive answer of what is Good and what is Evil found in the entire summation of human thought to date?

No. Because Christopher Walken is getting old, and probably senile. We will never know.

Thus, the problem is like trisecting an angle with classical geometric construction. It cannot be done with the available tools.

QED.

[Divair]

This is a truly original philosophical statement.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I think knowing the difference between good and evil is a pretty integral part to free will. Nonetheless, that's simply a personal opinion and I don't expect to convince you of it.

how exactly would it be necessary?

I believe that withholding information from people that affects their views is a way to weaken free will.

For example, if the only fact I told you about WW2 (and presuming the subject is a blank slate for you) was that Soviet and American soldiers raped Axis civilians after the war was over, and asked you to choose which side was the more morally right, you'd obviously pick the Axis. Yet if you had all the facts, you'd pick the Allies. By withholding information, I've made you change your choice to my own purposes and that's what I believe God does, hence my belief of his dislike of free will.

[The North Polish Union]

I don't know, I'm not a theologian.

Does it really matter?

Yes it does.

It makes God the dick of all time to punish A&E for something they had no idea was wrong.

They knew it was wrong already because God had commanded them not to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17. It's not as if they forgot it either because Eve quotes it again (although she adds something) in Genesis 3:3 just before she eats the fruit.

So yes, apparently Adam and Eve knew (to some extent) what was right and wrong before the ate the fruit.

[Liriena]

This is a good question :

If God was completely good then he would want to stop all evil, if God was completely powerful then he could stop all evil, but evil exists....so does that mean that God is not completely good or not completely powerful, or does god not exist?

Please post your ideas about this question!

Oh, for Thor's sake!

I like disproving the existence of the Christian God as much as the next guy, but this is lousy as hell.

[Blasveck]

Yes it does.

It makes God the dick of all time to punish A&E for something they had no idea was wrong.

They knew it was wrong already because God had commanded them not to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17. It's not as if they forgot it either because Eve quotes it again (although she adds something) in Genesis 3:3 just before she eats the fruit.

So yes, apparently Adam and Eve knew (to some extent) what was right and wrong before the ate the fruit.

God can command A&E all he wants.

That doesn't change that fact that there are no scriptural indications that A&E had any knowledge beforehand that disobeying God was a bad thing.

And if A&E DID have knowledge beforehand, then the eating the fruit would be redundant, because they would already have that knowledge.

And they obviously didn't, or else they would have covered themselves up because of shame. (Genesis 3:7)

[Vulpae]

This is a good question :

If God was completely good then he would want to stop all evil, if God was completely powerful then he could stop all evil, but evil exists....so does that mean that God is not completely good or not completely powerful, or does god not exist?

Please post your ideas about this question!

Right here comes my 2 cents:
The big man set the world in motion penned the laws and such, the real non-natural fuckup (because you can't blame the rain for your basement flooding, you blame your shitty contractor.) Came because people can do as they will, and have free will, evil happens because people can be (not always, but can be) short sighted, closed minded, vicious, vainglorious, or just plain assholes.

Which is a better method of parenting?
1. When a child disobeys, and might get hurt, you yell at him, and smack him a good one before he hurts himself.?
2. When a child disobeys, and might get hurt, you tell him not to, and when he does it anyway bandage him and explain why he got hurt?

[Skrewalkers]

This is a truly original philosophical statement.

I'm forced to agree. We must immediately run to our automobiles, regardless of our state of dress, and in panting and pantless urgency we must point this out to theologians, philosophers, world leaders, and startled traffic wardens everywhere.

[The North Polish Union]

They knew it was wrong already because God had commanded them not to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17. It's not as if they forgot it either because Eve quotes it again (although she adds something) in Genesis 3:3 just before she eats the fruit.

So yes, apparently Adam and Eve knew (to some extent) what was right and wrong before the ate the fruit.

God can command A&E all he wants.

That doesn't change that fact that there are no scriptural indications that A&E had any knowledge beforehand that disobeying God was a bad thing.

Why do we need scriptural indications at all in this case? That's just common sense.

And if A&E DID have knowledge beforehand, then the eating the fruit would be redundant, because they would already have that knowledge.

Not necessarily. Since they were like God before they sinned (Genesis 1:27) they only needed to become capable of committing evil.

And they obviously didn't, or else they would have covered themselves up because of shame. (Genesis 3:7)

Since Adam and Eve apparently didn't wear clothes until they had sinned; that means that being naked is not, in itself, evil.

[Liriena]

Since Adam and Eve apparently didn't wear clothes until they had sinned; that means that being naked is not, in itself, evil.

Therefor...compulsory nudity is in order. Think of Jesus and the children!

[Blasveck]

God can command A&E all he wants.

That doesn't change that fact that there are no scriptural indications that A&E had any knowledge beforehand that disobeying God was a bad thing.

Why do we need scriptural indications at all in this case? That's just common sense.

And if A&E DID have knowledge beforehand, then the eating the fruit would be redundant, because they would already have that knowledge.

Not necessarily. Since they were like God before they sinned (Genesis 1:27) they only needed to become capable of committing evil.

And they obviously didn't, or else they would have covered themselves up because of shame. (Genesis 3:7)

Since Adam and Eve apparently didn't wear clothes until they had sinned; that means that being naked is not, in itself, evil.

1. It's "common sense" if you assume that original sin isn't a fucked up concept in the first place.
2. If they were "like God" then wouldn't that mean that they were already capable of committing evil? I mean, God blaming the whole of humanity for A&E's mistakes seems pretty evil to me.
3. So why the fuck did they put clothes on? "Being naked isn't sinful!" "So lets put this verse mentioning them putting clothes on for no apparent reason!"

[The North Polish Union]

Since Adam and Eve apparently didn't wear clothes until they had sinned; that means that being naked is not, in itself, evil.

Therefor...compulsory nudity is in order. Think of Jesus and the children!

No, because as sinful people, nudity often causes people to commit sins like lust and adultery.

We should try to avoid doing things that cause others to sin.

[Liriena]

Why do we need scriptural indications at all in this case? That's just common sense.

Not necessarily. Since they were like God before they sinned (Genesis 1:27) they only needed to become capable of committing evil.

Since Adam and Eve apparently didn't wear clothes until they had sinned; that means that being naked is not, in itself, evil.

1. It's "common sense" if you assume that original sin isn't a fucked up concept in the first place.
2. If they were "like God" then wouldn't that mean that they were already capable of committing evil? I mean, God blaming the whole of humanity for A&E's mistakes seems pretty evil to me.
3. So why the fuck did they put clothes on? "Being naked isn't sinful!" "So lets put this verse mentioning them putting clothes on for no apparent reason!"

Let's be honest...the Book of Genesis' moral teachings are convoluted as fuck.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is a truly original philosophical statement.

Ah, but have I got a stumper for you, even newer than Epicurus: how many angels do you suppose can fit on the head of a pin? eh? EH?