Was God creating Satan a good idea?

@Glennn,

I wrote:

They did have that one choice which was represented by their eating the fruit, thereby rejecting God's arrangement.

Glenn wrote:

Your first statement contradicts itself, as InfraBlue correctly pointed out.
Also, your second statement contradicts your first statement. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve disobeyed the god, which means they sinned. And yet you say they possessed something that would not allow them to sin. InfraBlue was quite right to say that that does not compute.

But it does, sorry.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

But it does, sorry.

You refuse to see the contradiction within your own statements even when they are pointed out to you by two readers.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

But it does, sorry.

I really hope that's not by definition. There must be some logic behind it?

0 Replies

Thinking up god was the real creative exercise. Without that there would have been no call for a satan.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Half truths do not necessarily lead to truth.

There are no half truths there neo. The serpent made only two statements.
1. Gen3:4 Ye shall not surely die:
They did not surely die from eating the fruit. They eventually died because they were kept away from the tree of life.
2. Gen3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
which is corroborated by
Gen3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Before Adam and Eve chose to have "knowledge of good and bad" they had a conscience that would not have allowed them to sin. So theft, assault, rape, or murder were impossible.

Wishful thinking. Follow the narrative we are given.

Before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
Gen2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After eating from the tree:
Gen3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The narrative makes it abundantly clear that knowledge of good and evil right and wrong came only AFTER eating from the tree.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
"Nope, even you cannot resist the inborn urge to throw yourself into it."

Actually it was your question that I found more interesting than the original, and that was all that drew me into it. I don't find debates on the meaning of Christian Mythology very interesting, but I do find human behavior interesting.

Me too Ros, but even if it were true of you, I don't think that explains the level of stewing on the theistic question threads.

I would agree if they read like;

Jesus defeated Satan on the cross.

Amen Brother!

Praise Jesus!

But they don't. They are the most active threads on a2k with the possible exception of simple word games. And by measure of intellectual effort put into them, theist threads probably exceed anything else by orders of magnitude.

No, God will not be denied, man will stew over the question. I doubt there are any exceptions. To think otherwise is a denial of reality.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I was referring to this particular thread, but in general, I come for the entertainment and humor in the posts. As you demonstrate so well Smile

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

What was the funniest part?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The funniest part is that you interpret challenges to the idea of a god as indicating something about the existence of the god. It does not. If it did, then your continual arguments against those challenges would indicate something about your doubt about the existence of your god.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

OK, but what would you attribute this apparently irresistible urge to?

I get Ros's entertainment angle (I admit to doing the same with the truly wacko) but I'm not tempted to try 'intervention', pot stirring, or protecting innocent youth from their folly. That would be immature (and futile). The entertainment value is purely a spectator sport.

But that's not the case with these theist threads. People can't help themselves. They feel compelled to add to the stew. Maybe not all the time, but at some point they must confront the issue, even if very briefly.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There is no irresistible urge to discuss the god. What is being discussed is the nature of your belief. You are being challenged to explain your irresistible urge to love and worship an alleged god whose character is shown to be contradictory in nature. And so you attempt to characterize that challenge as indicating something about the challenger.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Keep stew'n Glennn..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

And now you are characterizing a challenge to the reasonableness of your beliefs as stewing.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

No, no. This isn't about me or my beliefs.

It's about these existential questions which man is destined to stew about.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I 'stew not' over existentialism - So typifing such 'stewing' as 'universally homogenic' is a fallacy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

This isn't about me or my beliefs.

I've already pointed out to you that you are being challenged to explain your irresistible urge to love and worship an alleged god whose character is shown to be contradictory in nature. So this is about your beliefs. And you are still attempting to characterize that challenge to your beliefs as meaning something about the question and the questioner.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
So, they had something that did not allow them to do something else, but they did that something else regardless?

This does not compute.
They did have that one choice which was represented by their eating the fruit, thereby rejecting God's arrangement.

To be clear, what was God's arrangement?

1 Reply

@mesquite,

neologist wrote:

Half truths do not necessarily lead to truth.

mesquite wrote:

There are no half truths there neo. The serpent made only two statements.
1. Gen3:4 Ye shall not surely die:
They did not surely die from eating the fruit. They eventually died because they were kept away from the tree of life.

Dead man walking, skeeter. If they had not eaten the fruit, they would still be here.

mesquite wrote:

2. Gen3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
which is corroborated by
Gen3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Was God creating Satan a good idea?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know