Did Adam make the right choice?

[Revelations won]

[Purple Knight]

You were asked to explain why this is the agenda of said God, not simply repeat the exclamation.

If the answer is that humans can't understand it, that's a valid answer. But then it is also valid that we not trust this entity called God. A truly just and fair God would not punish us for failing to trust what does not seem right to us. And maybe that's all baked into The Plan and that's fine. He can be right and there may be some valid reason for limiting our capacity so we can't understand that he is right. But if he's just and fair he won't punish us for not understanding what he created us not to be able to understand yet.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to William in post #110]

You arent reasonable, later

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Brightfame52 in post #109]

I dont have to keep explaining to you and you not comprehending. Thats not debating, thats stupidity !

Moderator Comment

Please do not refer to another poster as stupid. Review the forum Rules on civility.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics..

[William]

You were asked to explain why this is the agenda of said God, not simply repeat the exclamation.

If the answer is that humans can't understand it, that's a valid answer.

Member Miles wrote that

people cooked up the gods. They made every one of them. Some a bit daffy, like:
The Hindu god Ganesha, who has four arms and the head of an elephant
The Greek god Aphrodite, who ran around completely naked tempting the other gods.
The Egyptian god Khepri, who has the head of a beetle
The Roman god Cupid, the god of erotic desire, love, attraction, and affection, and who sprouted wings no less
The Norse god Loki, who was the god of mayhem and mischief
The Abrahamic God Jehovah, who, while preaching love and forgiveness, was satisfied in having innocent women, children, and infants killed.

If folk didn't invent all the gods, and since YHVH is on Mile's list and that is the god-concept being discussed, in what way is YHVH not understood regarding agenda?
Obviously the Christian personality making the claim [ Brightfame ] isn't arguing that he/she doesn't understand what YHVH is requiring from humans, but how is it reasonable to expect that someone can understand the one, but not the other.
Is it because YHVH's agenda is not recorded in the testaments associate with that god-concept?

But then it is also valid that we not trust this entity called God.

Why not? If the entity has revealed the agenda, it would be a matter of examining the agenda and making the call.

How are both positions valid PK?

A truly just and fair God would not punish us for failing to trust what does not seem right to us.

Has it been established that YHVH is just and fair? The story we are presented with re Adam doesn't get into that, and the mythologies built upon the Garden Story don't align with what we know about how the "dust of the earth" brings forth biological life forms, and even what types of life forms these have been.

Is "just and fair" able to be recognized within the fabric of Earth Related goings-on?

How is the human experience able to detect what is "just and fair" coming from a state of ignorance into knowledge? What - in the known Universe can we compare life on Earth with, in order to help us know the answer, and why is the answer important?

And maybe that's all baked into The Plan and that's fine.

I find it interesting the use of culinary language re "baked into" and "cooked up"...such is the nature of Nature, although maybe once upon a time humans fed on raw meat drank blood - learning to cook things might have become an advantage.
The Garden story doesn't say what the God did with the remains of the beast of the field who's skin He used to dress the offenders in, before banishing them into the real world beyond the manicured one. Perhaps He gave them "fire" and showed them how to cook?

He can be right and there may be some valid reason for limiting our capacity so we can't understand that he is right.

It is my job to hear the reasons in order to determine their validity. If none are forth-coming because "YHVH did not say so we do not know" I then have to look at the world we now live in and see if the answer can be found in the looking.

In looking, I have determined that YHVH's main use for Human Energy et al, is to have them make things.
I then ask, what is it about a mind that wants to make things? To what purpose will the making of things achieve for said mind?

I say this, because the list Miles provided shows that - of all the Gods cooked up by Humans - YHVH appears to fit the bill better, simply because He is represented as a mind rather than as a form.
So what does this mind want to achieve re the planet and the rest of the galaxy, and why is it growing human personalities to achieve this aim?

But if he's just and fair he won't punish us for not understanding what he created us not to be able to understand yet.

That is the overall problem with the Adam story. It begins an impression which carries on throughout the mythology - Humans should just trust the process and accept they are guilty of not trusting the process and why they shouldn't have involved themselves with notions of good and evil is because this interferes with the trusting of the process.

However, we also understand that without having these ethical moralistic notions, we would never have been able to achieve tribal organization beyond basic stone tools.

If guilt was the only/best means by which the Mind of YHVH could propel the minds of humans to serve His agenda [through shaping physical materials into useful devices way beyond basic stone tools], then it would seem pertinent to understand why.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to Brightfame52 in post #109]

I dont have to keep explaining to you and you not comprehending. Thats not debating, thats stupidity !

Moderator Comment

Please do not refer to another poster as stupid. Review the forum Rules on civility.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics..

Understood, but I didnt call the poster stupid, Im saying for me to keep on explaining and explaining would be stupid of me.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #114]

I find it interesting the use of culinary language re "baked into" and "cooked up"...such is the nature of Nature, although maybe once upon a time humans fed on raw meat drank blood - learning to cook things might have become an advantage.
The Garden story doesn't say what the God did with the remains of the beast of the field who's skin He used to dress the offenders in, before banishing them into the real world beyond the manicured one. Perhaps He gave them "fire" and showed them how to cook?

[William]

Q: Did Adam make the right choice in letting Eve take a bite?

What could/should he have done differently re that?

Pick up a rock and dash in the head of Serpent before it could further entice Eve?
Runaway and find God/call pout to God in a loud voice and tell Him what was happening/make Him aware of it?
Remind Eve that while she could touch the fruit and examine it, she wasn't to eat it, and that the Serpent, while a know-all, didn't know everything?
Smack the fruit out of her hand, when she went to bite it?
Let Eve do as she pleased, and wash his hands of her?

______________________

[Revelations won]

[William]

[Purple Knight]

Why not? If the entity has revealed the agenda, it would be a matter of examining the agenda and making the call.

How are both positions valid PK?

Because it hasn't entirely revealed its agenda or humans would understand everything, and they don't.

How is the human experience able to detect what is "just and fair" coming from a state of ignorance into knowledge?

I think we detect justice and fairness when we ourselves would ask to be punished if we did the thing for which punishment/pain/discomfort is being meted out. And if there is no discomfort then there is no injustice.

It is my job to hear the reasons in order to determine their validity. If none are forth-coming because "YHVH did not say so we do not know" I then have to look at the world we now live in and see if the answer can be found in the looking.

In looking, I have determined that YHVH's main use for Human Energy et al, is to have them make things.
I then ask, what is it about a mind that wants to make things? To what purpose will the making of things achieve for said mind?

I say this, because the list Miles provided shows that - of all the Gods cooked up by Humans - YHVH appears to fit the bill better, simply because He is represented as a mind rather than as a form.
So what does this mind want to achieve re the planet and the rest of the galaxy, and why is it growing human personalities to achieve this aim?

Maybe it wants to grow every personality. What I think about a lot is punishment and justice. And I think of it in terms of selfishness, in other words, myself, what I am. Since I'm a bad person and my first reaction is to blame God for making me, what if he stands before me at the end and offers to unmake me? In other words, to let me never have existed. It would be hard for me to say yes to that, despite knowing I should. So maybe he thinks to give every possible personality a chance to exist; that in a nonlinear way, that's what makes sense, and that's justice.

That is the overall problem with the Adam story. It begins an impression which carries on throughout the mythology - Humans should just trust the process and accept they are guilty of not trusting the process and why they shouldn't have involved themselves with notions of good and evil is because this interferes with the trusting of the process.

That basically boils down my problem with it. They couldn't have known, for 100% certain, that God had their best interests at heart. If the rule is, whenever someone tells you no, then trust them it's no, well then nobody can do anything, because for every action, there's someone out there who will tell you it's wrong. I understand trusting one person with a no, over one other person with a yes, in a garden where you have infinite other things to eat and do, seems like a reasonable ask, but if it is reasonable, it's also reasonable for me to ask when exactly it stops being reasonable.

Here are some examples of no from Libertarians:

1. If you work for minimum wage, you are a thief using government force to steal from your employer more than he is willing to pay, and you must quit your job because it's wrong to steal.

2. If you call the police on someone breaking an overreaching government law but not physically hurting you, you are the one hurting that person. With force. Don't do it.

3. If you are summoned to jury duty, and take advantage of the law stating your employer must pay you for that day, you may not take advantage of it - it is theft. Call off from work, lie if necessary; it's not wrong to lie but it is wrong to steal. Or just don't go to jury duty.

If I just trusted anyone with a no you may not, I would not be able to do anything, and most of it is because of freedom-loving Libertarians, the most permissive people in the world.

However, we also understand that without having these ethical moralistic notions, we would never have been able to achieve tribal organization beyond basic stone tools.

If guilt was the only/best means by which the Mind of YHVH could propel the minds of humans to serve His agenda [through shaping physical materials into useful devices way beyond basic stone tools], then it would seem pertinent to understand why.

There might be some reason we can't understand why, but if so it's not reasonable to expect us to just trust.